| Author | Message | ||
     carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 59 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 68.175.14.137 |
Today the Senate voted to approve Condoleeza Rice's nomination for Secretery of State. Did they vote for a known liar? Is she a neo-con? Can we count on another costly war, this time with Iran? | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 287 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.122.31.130 |
Carlota: Of course they did -- EVERYONE is a liar, and everyone knows it. Lying doesn't matter in politics. One can be President after committing perjury. The only thing more costly than war is defeat. I would much rather spend a few billion dollars fighting somewhere else than wake up to reports of a mushroom cloud over New York City. Wouldn't you? But then, you wouldn't wake up, would you? Are you willing to risk your life on the idea that Iran is no risk, or that war is not justifiable? | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 61 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 68.175.14.137 |
Solopilot, Condoleeza Rice presented and defended and still defends information that has proven to be faulty and unsubstantiated. War, invasion and occupation are not an acceptable resolution to the problem of treaty violation. Everyone is not a liar. There are truthful politicians. If we believe that we are lead by a pack of liars then we are as bad as Iraq was and Iran is. I do not care if a politician lies about who he is sleeping with. I do, however, care very much when a politician invents information about WMDs that after an exhaustive search do not exist so that it can invade a country and depose a leader that was once supported by the U.S. government with both money and weapons and is now labeled tyranical and evil. The majority of senators on the commission that was charged with approving Condoleeza Rice's nomination to the position of Secretary of State saw gaping holes in her testimony when it came to the tough questions of the war in Iraq and the faulty information she was responsible for presenting to the American people, but they decided she was nonetheless qualified for the position. Of the 18 senators who voted 2 voted not to approve her. The other sixteen failed the American people. | ||
| skeptic2 (skeptic2) New member Username: skeptic2 Post Number: 3 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 128.222.32.10 |
If you think about it most politician are ex lawyers and every one knows lawyers are fair and tell no lies (as long a there lips dont move)  (Message edited by Skeptic2 on January 20, 2005) | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 62 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 68.175.14.137 |
It is just too easy to say that all politicians are liars (or ex-lawyers, however you want to word it). It is more realistic to say that many politicians make mistakes, some of them lie, some of them don't. Also, realistically, many people make mistakes and lie regardless of what postion they hold. The problem is when we become so apathetic as a nation that we allow someone who was caught in a lie (and continues to defend it despite all the evidence to prove it false) and admits she made a mistake and promoted false information but refuses to apologize or back down from her position to rise to the second most prominent position in the nation. That is sad. That is apathy. That is everyone collectively saying, "oh well, what can we do, they are all liars". We are no better than any Banana Republic, in fact we are much worse because at least in Banana Republics they have coups and revolutions every now and then. | ||
| geokstr (geokstr) Intermediate Member Username: geokstr Post Number: 189 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.158.185.136 |
Hi Carlota: Please try googling "Have wmd's been found". That will give you over 73,000 web pages, and you'll never believe this - many of them actually disagree with what the major media are telling us in respect to that issue. I love Google. Nice to talk to you again. | ||
| geokstr (geokstr) Intermediate Member Username: geokstr Post Number: 190 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.158.185.136 |
And one more thing; about those politicians lying. In politics they just call it "spin". If you're good at it (the successful ones always are), there are enough things that can be said about ANYTHING and enough ways to say them that you can prove or justify ANYTHING in ways that sound almost rational and reasonable (i.e., Erin Brockovich, or Gulf War syndrome, or what the definition of any given word, such as "is", is.). And you can ALWAYS find some "expert" to back up your position too. And I don't really care about who (or even what)anyone is sleeping with either. But that would be interpretting the Paula Jones (I can't help it if she's one of the "whats", ask the former president's husband what he saw in her) case a bit narrowly. In the 1990's, the hue and cry of feminism was "sexual harassment". But Bill told Ms. Jones that he knew her supervisor just before telling her to "kiss it". That's a pretty clear case of abuse of power to obtain sexual favors. Isn't that when Gloria Steinem came up with the novel theory that you're allowed one pass (if the feminists like you that is)? It was never about who (or what) anyone was sleeping with, it was about sexual harassment and lying under oath. | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 65 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 68.175.14.137 |
Hey Geokstr, Good to hear from you. Yeah, I know that almost any position can be supported with proof, if one looks in the right places. These days google suffices for the right places. Did you watch or listen to Dr. Rice's confirmation hearings? I listened to the hearing on the radio. Frankly, Geokstr, you could have done a better job answering some of the questions she was asked about the war in Iraq, WMDs etc. I am sure you already know how I feel about the war. I have never supported it. I do not suffer under the delusion, however, that Saddam Hussein did not, at one time, have WMDs. He did. Worse, he used them on the Kurdish minority in his own country. I don't think anyone in their right mind would dispute this information. What is highly disputable, and what Dr. Rice has to answer to, is whether he had them at the time we began the war. This was the reason Dr, Rice presented to both congress and the American people as a reason for going to war. Any information that is presented as evidence to go to war with another nation deserves to be scrutinized thoroughly. Now, as far as sexual harrassment....It is a very tricky issue. Of course I agree it is wrong and an abuse of power. As you said before though, both sides of any issue can always be supported by experts. Some people feel that Clinton's political enemies exploited the cases of "sexual harrassment" to their political advantage. Whatever. Even as a democrat and a Clinton supporter I was embarrassed by his actions. I was appalled by his weakness. Do I think he was a womanizer? Yep. Do I think he should have been impeached? Hell no. Dr. Rice had the biggest hand in taking our nation to war. As far as I am concerned that is a big, big deal. People die every day as a result of "clear evidence" that she presented as a reason for going to war. Now that evidence is not so clear. Now there are fewer and fewer experts willing to attest to that evidence. The war that was supposed to be neat and quick has been messy and with no easy exit. Yes, I think she should be accountable to that. I think that evidence should have to scream the truth, not mummble it. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 305 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Carlota: Bill not only lied to YOU ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman"), he committed PERJURY in a RAPE TRIAL. We're not just talking the repeated cases of sexual harrassment, we are talking about a VIOLENT CRIME against an INNOCENT WOMAN. And you don't think he should have been impeached, for a crime which 100 years ago would have seen him SHOT? If Saddam has WMDs "at one time," where did they go? You don't just pour that stuff down a drain. The US Army has spent MILLIONS on an incinerator to destroy nerve agents, and it's a slow process. It's not something which is done in secret, yet Saddam never had a facility to do this. So where did they go? WMD traces have been found in Iraq. Precursors to nukes have been found in Iraq, enough to build over 160 bombs. All of the time that Saddam had to hide the stuff means that if we DID find massive amounts of WMD it would mean that he was just plain stupid. The Al-Qaida link to Hussein has been proven true. They want to kill us, as many as they can, and have done so on several occasions. Do you REALLY think that saving American lives here isn't worth deposing a dictator there? Interestingly, the people who wanted to give him more time turn out to have been on his payroll, in the Oil-for-Food scam. The evidence WAS scrutinized thoroughly, not only by Bush but also by John Kerry and the rest of the Senate. They found it compelling. And NOBODY said that the war would be "neat and quick," least of all Bush. Go back and read the speeches. "This will not be an easy process. It will take time, and unfortunately it will cost lives. But if we do nothing, the risk is too great that even more lives will be lost . . ." The truth does scream, but you have to know where to listen. BTW, we're still waiting for our exit strategy from the Balkans . . .Clinton put us into that mess a decade ago and committed us to work for the UN until they are done there. We have NEVER gone into a war with an "exit strategy." We didn't have one in 1941, when we were attacked by Japan but FDR attacked Germany, and we didn't have one when JFK and LBJ put us into Viet Nam. For that matter, the Korean "police action" never had ended, all we got was a cease-fire to get us out of Truman's war. All of these wars were started under Democrats, not one of whom even heard the phrase "exit strategy." | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 323 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Carlota: What do you think about Byrd, the only "former" KKK member in the US Senate, trying to halt the nomination of a black woman as Secretary of State? If Byrd weren't a Democrat, the media would be all over this. | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 67 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 68.175.14.137 |
Hi Solopilot, I agree with geokstr on this issue that "..there are enough things that can be said about ANYTHING and enough ways to say them that you can prove or justify ANYTHING in ways that sound almost rational and reasonable.." If it is not already apparent, I am opposed to war as a resolution to conflict if it is at all avoidable. Iraq, in my opinion, was avoidable. It was not a matter of "we get them before they get us". Iraq had not threatened our safety. The terrorist organization responsible for sept. 11th has labled Saddam Hussein an infidel, I seriously doubt the link that is so talked about ever existed. More importantly, I seriously doubt that you or I will even begin to know the truth about any of this until the dust of this war is settled and this current administration is long retired. Solopilot, I have read many of your posts on other threads and I have noticed that you feel the government messed up bigtime, lied and killed innocents in Waco, Texas. I would have to ask you why you are able to believe and support the government and their agenda with this war? Not a whole lot has changed. How can you say that Waco was a tradgedy and a miscarriage of justice and this war in Iraq is just and right? I see similarities between the two. The government set their sights on what they wanted and invented ways to get it. For Waco the government said they had a cache of illegal weapons and David koresh was a pedophile. They used these "findings" to garner public support. Also, on the issue of the Balkan War and our involvement. The Balkan War now seems like a walk in the park compared to Iraq. There was no loss of American life in the Balkans and Milosivic is on trial in the Hague. We could have done much, much better in our approach to Iraq. We messed up. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 329 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Carlota: I'm more against war than you are. I've been in one. But sometimes NOT going to war is a worse idea. Iraq HAS threatened our safety. Hussein was funding suicide killers in Israel and was openly saying that the US would be next. At the same time, he had and was developing WMDs. Put those two things together, and you get a real bad day for Mother. Al-Qaeda leaders were frequently in Iraq. In one case, one top leader was in Baghdad for two months, as a guest of Hussein's security chief. You can't seriously suggest that any of these visits could take place without Hussein's endorsement . . ? I see major differences. At Waco, peaceful people were attacked. In Iraq, a dictator who had used WMDs on THOUSAND UPON THOUSANDS OF HIS OWN PEOPLE, who was supporting international terrorism, and who was gathering resources for greater atrocities was attacked. When we went into the Balkans, we had no idea what we were going to find. We were walking into the middle of a dogfight. What do you think that we should have done in Iraq? After a dozen "last chances," the time had come that we actually had to DO something. Now the children's prison is closed. The rape rooms are gone. The slavery of the population is over. The WMDs are no longer in Hussein's hands, and believed to be in Syria, who is not a friend of ours but they are at least SANE and unwilling to be the next target. How, outside of war, could you have achieved those goals? | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 70 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 68.175.14.137 |
Hello Solopilot, I do not have any recommendations for what we should have done with Iraq. As I have said a many times I, of course, do not suffer under any misconception that Saddam Hussein was a good man or a good and fair leader. Of course he was not, but, the situation in Iraq was not life threatening to American citizens. It simply was not. If we are to talk of threats then we need to talk of North Korea and suicide bombers from Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan who planned and carried out their actions in the U.S. These were real threats, we know both from intelligence and real experience. I only suggest to you that the threat of Iraq was heightened to serve the needs of the current administration. Almost every government official is willing to agree that Iraq is now the biggest breeding ground for international terrorism, this is a direct result of the war whether we want to face it or not. This is why war should be a last resort. As I said before, I do not think we will know the full truth of our government's intentions with this war until years from now. Perhaps for every truthful or valid intention there is also a hidden one. I have a very hard time supporting this war and I am not a conspiracy theorist, I simply think our reasoning was weak at the start. Keep in mind that peaceful people in Iraq are also under attack and have lost their lives. This war has been rife with "mistakes" like the bombing of a hospital and the torture of prisoners. Innocents are constantly caught in the crossfire and live in fear daily. While the Bush administration obviously likes to credit this war with deposing a tyrant and as you say "closing the rape rooms" it also has placed a ban on images from this war that run contrary to our success, like any images of the flag draped coffins of American soldiers, the orphaned and maimed children, the civilians who live without running water and electricity since the start of this war. These are also our doing. There are two sides to every story. I do not believe that this war is about "freedom". For all the good the removal of Saddam Hussein has done it has done as much bad. The country is now engulfed in a civil war that might prove more deadly than anything we could have imagined. It is not enough to tick off all the wonderful things that so-called "freedom" brings, without looking honestly at the destruction that delivered it. When we went into the Balkans we had a pretty good idea what we would find. It indeed was a dogfight, but we knew that. This war was not a hidden one and had been in the public eye for years. It had been ignored and allowed to progress. The U.S. came in and fixed other people's messes and mistakes. Who will fix the messes and mistakes we have made in Iraq? Maybe, more importantly, who will pay for them if they are not fixed? | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 334 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Carlota: You don't think Iraq was threatening to Americans. I think otherwise, based on both capabilities and on past performance. I can be wrong every day, and you will live a long, happy life. All that happens is a lot of other people can, too. You can only be wrong ONCE, and Americans will die in great, big bleeding batches. But why do you think that only AMERICAN lives count? Thousands of innocents are alive today because we finally got around to DOING something about Saddam. The same United Nations who demanded that we go into the Balkans weren't interested in Iraq because they were being PAID OFF. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 335 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Carlota wrote: "For all the good the removal of Saddam Hussein has done it has done as much bad." You really have no clue. I hope that you are able to live a long and happy life without having to face reality. However, to give you your chance, please show me ANYTHING since Saddam was deposed which compares to the systematic and institutional rape of wives, the murder of their husbands if they raise the slightest objection, the imprisonment, rape and torture of 11-year-old children as a tool to get their mothers to go along with their own rapes. Show me anything which comes CLOSE. Also, show me where we have dumped nerve gas on whole towns where political opponents live, killing whole populations to grab control. | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 71 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 68.175.14.137 |
Hey Solopilot, Do not misunderstand me. I have never white-washed the crimes of Saddam Hussein. I have said many times and I will say again that I am well aware he was a menace to his people and to his neighbors. We disagree only that he was a menace to the U.S. I do not believe he was. I also believe that starting a war with Iraq, when we were not yet finished in Afghanistan was irresponsible. All but abandoning the search for the real culprit of the attacks of 9/11 was foolish. The Iraqis currently live under foreign occupation, and sure they may live with out fear of a cruel tyrant, but they do not live in freedom and it may be a long time before they do. It does not matter what you or I think of what good we have done for the Iraaqis. What matters is how the Iraqis feel about it. From all that I have seen, read, heard they are not thrilled. They are not basking in freedom and democracy. They are living in fear and embroiled in a civil war. If you want to repeat the mantra of the Bush administration and speak of "freedom freedom freedom" without looking at the reality of what is a bloody, messy war then you can do that. I have never said that we (the U.S.) have done atrocities (like you seem to think I have). I am only suggesting that things are not so free and democratic and great and they will not be for a long time and maybe never. If the U.S. does not face this with honesty instead of covering it up with that wonderful word freedom that appeals to our patriotism, then we have learned absolutely nothing from past experiences. The removal of Saddam Hussein was extremely costly. It has cost the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis not to mention the lives of U.S. soldiers. The survivors have inherited a deadly civil war that has increased the daily death toll. U.S. soldiers were caught in the scandal of treating prisoners of war with as much care as Saddam Hussein would have (torture, sexual molestation and death). On thursday we will see the farcical elections play out, but, here in the U.S. we are all too pleased for what good we have done. It is far from over. All I am saying is that we should be very careful about patting ourselves on the back just yet. You are white-washing this situation if you only speak of the good we have done. I see the good we have done (removing Saddam) but I also see the civil war that has resulted from that, the insurgents that have risen to power with violence and terror. I do not have to search on Google to see that every few days car bombs and suicide bombers explode on street corners killing innocent Iraqis and every few days a foreigner is kidnapped, tortured and killed by the insurgents. As I write this I hear on the news that an American working for a Suadi company has been kidnapped today. If terrorists needed a cause to rally around, they have it in this war. That is the real threat. (Message edited by carlota on January 25, 2005) | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 346 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.122.31.130 |
Carlota: Yes, we disagree. And, as I said, I would rather be wrong than right, but the risk is to great to take that chance. HUSSEIN HAS KILLED AMERICANS. Hussein has sponsored terrorism, both against his own subjects and against others in other countries. He was left in power in 1991 because of his agreement to abide by the first of a dozen different UN mandates, ALL of which he broke, while bribing the UN not to notice. Tell me, why would he have bought off the UN when all he had to do to have the sanctions lifted was play nicely with others and let the inspectors do their work? Hussein's removal was actually pretty cheap, as warfare goes. Gettysburg, four days of battle, resulted in over 40 times as many soldiers killed than have died in the 22 MONTHS since we left the line of departure at the beginning of the war. For that matter, during that period 57 times as many Americans have been killed on the highways and over 600 times as many have been killed by tobacco use. The odds of any particular American soldier being killed in Iraq are 178:1 against. If this is "costly," give me "costly" war every time! Please tell me how many POWs were tortured, sexually molested and murdered? "Farcical" elections? Aren't ANY elections better than NO elections? I have some neighbors who rented a van and drove 10 hours each way to REGISTER to vote in the election, and they will be doing at again at the end of the week. They don't think it's a farce. I'm not whitewashing anything. I'm pointing out that the people of Iraq are significantly better off today than they were when Saddam was in power. They are happier, safer and for the first time in decades able to act like PEOPLE rather than CATTLE. As far as the "civil war" goes, what is actually happening is that a group smaller than the KKK, which is composed of our enemies (including Al-Qaeda) are committing the 21st century equivalent of lynchings. They are attacking soft targets, because everywhere we or the Iraqi government find them, we KILL them. They have not risen to power. They haven't got the support of the populace. They are just thugs, like Al Capone and his pals (but the Chicago Mob was several times the size of the terrorist cluster in Iraq, and Capone largely had the support of the population). Should the cops have just given up? Let me point out that every terrorist engaged in Iraq is one less who can be here to kill YOU, Carlota. Would you rather that they have nothing to do with their time but plan your murder? | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 75 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 68.175.14.137 |
Hi Solopilot, Yes, we do disagree. The number of Iraqi citizens who died for "safety and freedom" is 15,475 as of today. Happier. Safer. Those are propaganda words. The terrorists you claim are no more than criminal thugs are much better organized than you seem to think and are turning the up-coming elections into a farce by intimidating people in large numbers. I am all for elections. I have voted in every election since I turned 18 and I applaud anyone who votes. I only meant that the elections in Iraq will not play out the same as elections here. Not by a long shot. The country is too unstable for elections at this point. Do I think they need and deserve fair and safe elections? Of course I do. Do I think the elections should be postponed to a later date when car bombs are not exploding on crowded street corners and terrorists aren't threatening death to citizens who vote? Yeah, I think that might help with voter participation. As for the prison abuse scandal, there were pictures of naked detainees flanked by American soldiers who were pretending to have anal sex with the detainees. Other photos show the detainees stripped naked with wires attactched to their genitals. If the detainee moved the slightest bit it tightened the wire. The prisoners were reportedly left like this for hours. Other detainees were stripped naked, bound at the hand and ankles and thrown to the dogs. There are photos of this, solopilot, I am not making it up. Their is a trial going on now for the soldiers accused of the abuses. Now, human rights reports are coming in saying that the American trained Iraqi troops are currently using the same tactics. How many detainees were abused? I guess we will have to wait and see. I do not think the prison abuse scandal at Abu Grahib was "no big deal" and I do not think that it was justifiable under any circumstances whatsoever. Maybe you did not see all the pictures because the media here had strict rules on what could be shown. When this scandal came to light I was in Spain and the news media there did not have censors imposed on it. The images were nauseating. Piles of naked detainees, bound and gagged and American soldiers making sexual gestures, laughing and guffawing on top of them. It was hard to tell from the picture whether or not some of the bodies in the pile were dead or alive. These are just the incidents that were (stupidly) photographed (for friends back home) so I could not give you a number of how many violations on how many detainees. It could be 5, it could be 50, it could be 500. The millitary is not known for it's transparency. You make the point that every terrorist engaged in killing in Iraq is one less who can be here to kill me. Sure, but that is very cold comfort. There is nothing soothing about the fact that the terrorists are too busy killing American soldiers and foreign nationals and Iraqi citizens in Iraq to be bothered with me. And they are very busy. I could counter that statement and say that Saddam Hussein was too busy torturing his own people and feeding his own delusions of grandeur to be concerned with killing me or any other American. The difference between the terrorists in Iraq and the Mob and the KKK is that terrorists operate on sheer madness and are not selective of who they kill or how and they will often kill themselves if they are able to take a few innocent people down with them. I wish the terrorists in Iraq were as containable as mob thugs or the KKK. They are not. You might want to check your facts as to how much support they do or don't have. They may not have "risen" to power, but they have grabbed it where they saw an opportunity. They manipulate the average Iraqi's dissatisfaction of living under foreign occupation (which is very prevelant). They manipulate the average Iraqi's pain at having lost a loved on or family member to this war. We foolishly supplied them with the prison abuse scandal to use as "evidence" of the "unjust" occupiers. Not to mention the lying puppet Ahmed Chalabi who was a tool of the Americans and was also caught in a huge mess (of claiming to be unattached to the U.S. when in fact he was collecting large sums of money from the U.S.). It stands to reason that a dictator can not simply be removed and the sun will come out, birds will chirp and peace will prevail upon the nation. It is not that simple. There are disparate factions now violently vying for control. There are terrorists and rebel insurgents. The bloodiest part of the war started after Saddam was captured. The point of why we started this war is highly debatable, but honestly that does not even matter. We are there. I feel we have an obligation to drop the freedom propaganda and the warm fuzzy feeling of having liberated a nation and look at this thing honestly and come up with a strategy. We cleared the way for democracy, but we also cleared the way for every terrorist with a grudge to kill innocents. I am not saying that nothing is being done about it. U.S. soldiers are fighting hard every day against the terrorist and the insurgents. As they should. We should just be very careful about patting our backs and calling this a success. It is far from over. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 350 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Carlota: If you don't take comfort from knowing that the terrs are in the Middle East and not the Bronx, then there is really nothing more that we can say to each other on this issue. Better men and women than you have died to keep the violence away from your doorstep, and you don't even appreciate what they have done. Your mindset is one that I have never been able to understand. I have long-since stopped even trying. | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 76 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 68.175.14.137 |
Solopilot, When did I ever say that I did not appreciate what has been done to prevent the danger from being on my doorstep? You seem to want to put me in the catagory of "unpatriotic, unappreciative". Why can't I question what is being done by my government in Iraq and still be patriotic. I said in my post above that I am aware that soldiers are fighting hard everyday (and dying) to beat back the insurgents. What part of that seems unappreciative. My problem is not with the courageous work of the soldiers. My problem is with the way the Bush administration is handling the war and shrouding the real issues that surround it. When I hear Bush speak of freedom a cold shiver runs down my spine. All I have to do is watch the news or read the newspaper to know that freedom has not been entirely won in Iraq. I have also acknowledged that this is not an easy road. I do not expect miracles. I simply expect honesty rather than propaganda. That's all. Because I do not agree with you on certain particulars of this war does not make me unappreciative of the sacrifices of the soldiers who are fighting it. I never, never even implied that. If you read it into my words, then that is a different story. I would have to ask you what, exactly you think my "mindset" is. All I want is less propaganda and more truth. I said that it is cold comfort that others are being killed in place of me, because it does not make me feel any better about the situation. Safer? Maybe. But, better, no. I would wish that no one was being killed at all. I live in NYC and I lived here during sept.11th. I could not work for weeks because my work place was in the debris of the WTC. For long agonizing hours I waited and wondered who of my friends, co-workers and loved ones was alive, dead or injured. I saw things I wish I never saw. I lived through a fear that I would not wish on any other living person on this earth. So, no, I am not comforted by the fact that other people must suffer through that daily. No, it does not make me feel any better. Safer, yes, by default. And that IS cold comfort. Should I have sighed a happy sigh of relief that hundreds of innocents died in Madrid, but I wasn't one of them? Should I have rejoiced that a nightclub in Indonesia was targeted and not a nightclub in NYC? Is that how you are rationalizing this? I should feel so proud and relieved and happy that all the horrible killing is happening somewhere else. Maybe, because I have seen it and felt it with my own eyes I can not share your feeling of safety. I know what is is to feel unsafe. I live in a city that has been on high alert for terrorism EVERYDAY since the attacks. How is it in your city? Honestly, solopilot, their is no real safety. I just live my life as I must live it and that is all anyone can do. There is nothing I can do if terrorists decide to attack NYC again and frankly, there is not even that much government agencies can do. So safety is a pretty complex issue. I am not glad that others are dying for my safety, but I honor and appreciate their sacrifice. Yes, better men and women have died to keep the violence from my doorsptep and I have seen the carnage up close. It is ugly and I do not wish it on anyone. Tell me. What is my mindset? P.S. I sincerely hope you that you are not planning to simply dismiss me on this topic because you do not understand my "mindset". I have disagreed with you and I have misunderstood you, but I have never ended our conversations for those reasons. (Message edited by carlota on January 26, 2005) (Message edited by carlota on January 26, 2005) | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 353 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Carlota: The "real issue" is that we have enemies who hate us for our freedoms, not for our politicians. When 9/11 happened, I knew the instant the second plane hit that we were under attack. Since that time, there has been a constant push against the terrorists, proving again the adage that a good offense is the best defense. We fought them in Afghanistan because the Taliban gave them refuge. We are fighting them in Iraq because Hussein gave them refuge. They are fighting back because people like you are giving them courage by making them think that this is another situation like Viet Nam, where a divided America allowed terrorism to win. The fact of the matter is that these people are going to strike at Americans wherever they can. They are striking in Iraq because that's where we have found them and, as Duhhh-bya said, we have "brought justice to our enemies." I would rather that the terrs would give up and sit down for a root beer and some good conversation, but that is not going to happen. This is a war like WWII, in that it isn't fought in one place, against one country -- it is being fought in many places against enemies whose only commonality is the desire to see you dead. If you are weeding a garden, you don't just pull up one kind of weed and let the others alone to grow in peace, just because they aren't the same plant that stuck you. The only thing which will prevent another attack such as 9/11 is for the terrs to believe that they are against a unified target which will stop at nothing to destroy them and their cause. If the Clintons had been more interested in world affairs than in Bill's affairs, action would have been taken a decade ago and Al-Qaeda could have been put out of business before you had to watch our neighbors die. The war WILL be fought. If it is fought in the Middle East, it will be far less expensive than if it's fought here, not only in American lives but also in Arab lives. As you can see, the terrs have been forced to hide and dodge, where a couple of years ago they swaggered down the street and the honest prayed to Allah not to be noticed. Honest women especially. The environment in which the terrs were empowered has largely been removed and actual, honest freedom is coming to the Middle East as has never been seen before. THESE ARE GOOD THINGS. The total number of people who have been killed in Iraq are 1/6 of the number of people who have died on American highways since the beginning of the invasion. All that those highway deaths give us is something to read in the papers. Those deaths in Iraq have given a whole people their God-given rights. Al-Qaeda is not our only terrorist enemy, they are just the one which has attacked us more than the others. We need to pull ALL of the weeds. And this is why the Iraq war is not only justified, but necessary. Think again about WWII. We were attacked by Japan. We weren't attacked by Germany or Italy. Should we have only fought Japan, leaving the Germans to continue genocide? Didn't we do a Good Thing by working to defeat Germany, even though (at the time) we had no proof that they had WMDs or any intent to attack the United States? Using your criteria, we would have left the European War to the Europeans, only to wake up one morning to A9 rockets raining down on New York and Boston just as the A4s had pummeled the UK. No, Carlota, when someone has shown a tendency toward violence and is inciting others to kill you, there is nothing moral about sitting there and taking it. | ||
| relegzte (relegzte) New member Username: relegzte Post Number: 1 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 24.19.244.126 |
SoloPilot seems to believe Bush's mantra that the "terrorists hate Freedom". This is of course a misconception that people make about the anti American views those around the world may voice. I've traveled a fair amount in my life and without exception, those who love AND hate this country mostly feel the same way. They currently love or don't mind the citizens themselves and many of them dislike the current leadership of this country. Both groups I've noted find the life we have here to be very enviable. SoloPilot, your very aggresive ideas on striking out at countries or governments that MAY pose a future threat is a dangerous one. We all know that the bully ends up getting his in the end. Let's use our brains and try to ease up on the brawn. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 359 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Rel: Not Bush, Al-Qaeda: "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology. Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion, [which is] against the rule of God." -- Musab al-Zarqawi, head of the Al-Qaida in Iraq, appointed by Osama Bin Laden. You can see this in the way the terrs are attacking the citizens of Iraq, Spain, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and other places, all in order to deny them the freedom to make their own choices. They even attack other Muslims who aren't extreme enough for them. This isn't a war against America, it's a war against freedom, and America is just the biggest symbol of freedom. As far as striking out, when someone publicly and loudly threatens to kill you, and you find that they have bought a gun, what would YOU do about it? | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 360 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Oh, BTW, terrorism has ALWAYS been in opposition to freedom, from the Chinese Communists and Mau Maus of the 1940s through the Viet Cong and various "Red Army" groups of the 1960s, the Shining Path and Tupomaros, the NWLF, ZAPU, ZANU, NPA, Abu Sayyaf, and the list goes on and on. The one thing that they all have in common is that they want to limit the freedom of others. I missed quite a few terrorist groups, and it's possible that there were one or two who were pro-freedom, so please let me know who those might have been. | ||
| skeptic2 (skeptic2) New member Username: skeptic2 Post Number: 5 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 128.222.32.10 |
Kind of got off topic didn't we. But for arguments sake I would have to agree with solo. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was quoted as saying Democracy is the enemy of Islam. That tells a lot about the mindset. | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 77 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 69.203.6.107 |
I am careful about where I get my information and how I form my opinions. I find that a great deal of sifting through and filtering must be done with much of the info that is available to us about this war. This does not make me un-American or unpatriotic or even anti-war. The whole point of this thread was to discuss what our government is doing in our names, with our consent and where it will all lead. How can we have a fair, truthful conversation about the issues surrounding this war? Do we need to revert to Cold War style propaganda, like communists are bad, capitalists good? Where did that get us? Years of wasted energies, fear mongering and misunderstanding, not to mention a dangerous arms race. Participating in democracy goes beyond simply voting, it means staying informed about and, if need be, challenging what our elected officials do, think, believe and promote. Giving any politician your full faith and trust without asking the hard questions is dangerous to the fundamental idea of democracy. For me the hard questions of this war we are involved in have not been sufficiently answered. The first and most obvious is why we began this war in the first place. If there are holes in the reasoning and the justification for any war, then I feel that it is a problem. We are witnessing the rewriting of all the accepted, internationally agreed upon rules of warfare and to me that is a big, big deal. It deserves our full attention, not just for the effect it has right now, but for the way it will affect the future. Solopilot, The Viet Nam war was not a failure because of the divisivness of the Americans or the international community on the issue. There are many reasons why the U.S. efforts were thwarted, chief among them was that we underestimated the strength of the North Vietnamese. The North Vietnamese (and Vietnamese in general) have long had a historical reputation for their strength in warfare and battle. We also exaggerated their desire for democracy and freedom to fit our agenda for the region. I have traveled extensively throughout Viet Nam and have had the opportunity to speak with several Vietnamese on the issue. Funny you should mention WWII. One of the great things that came out of WWII was the United Nations. This was born of an international desire to prevent one nation from overtaking another. The world had seen first hand the destruction that resulted when one nation broke the unwritten rules of humanity and used violence to impose their beliefs and governance on another nation. While you might have your problems with the U.N. the institution has done much more good than harm since it's existance. The Bush administration all but laughed in the face of those rules when they waged this war with Iraq. As a result the U.S. is accountable to no nation, to no rules and no agreements in this engagement in Iraq. What is to stop England, now from saying their experts have found WMDs in Spain and invading Spain in a preemptive strike? Not much. I just use that as an example (not that I think it will happen by any means). The U.S. has changed the rules with very flimsy justification. The war in Afghanistan was about terrorism, this in itself was quite a new way to justify war, but the U.N. accepted this. The international community rallied behind the U.S. in this endeavor. The war in Iraq was supposed to be about WMDs. Because those weapons did not quite show up in a satisfying way we now say it is a war about freedom and fighting terrorists. The question is which came first, the war or the terrorists? [Something to think about: the American presence in Viet Nam created much more unity amongst the disparate Vietnamese resistance thereby strengthening the Viet Cong.] It is only fair to look at these issues and explore them. It is not enough to tow the party line of the Bush administration. Relegtze: Here here! More brains less brawn! Totally agreed. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 386 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Carlota: No, we had the NVA beaten, several times, and each time we stopped and gave them time to rebuild. After Tet, the Viet Cong ceased to exist as an effective military force. The VN war was lost HERE, with the help of people like Jane Fonda, who convinced enough people that we had lost and were dying for nothing. It was lost when Washington didn't live up to our promises, and let the world know that NVA could overrun the Republic of Viet Nam without our doing anything about it. I don't consider the United Nations a "great thing." The UN hasn't proven any ability to stop war, it is just a waste of space and billions of US tax dollars. NO nation has EVER been accountable to any other nation, except those which have been conquered. And let's not forget that Bush delayed and waited and let the UN play games before taking action. That lost time cost lives. Carlota, nothing the UN has or could do has prevented any nation from doing anything that it chose to do. Once again you prove that you haven't got the slightest idea what fuels terrorism. You also know nothing about the Viet Nam war except what you are told by others who weren't there either. There was no such thing as "disparate resistance." You were either NVA regulars (from the north) or you were VC guerillas (from the south). The NVA pushed the VC into unsurvivable battles in 1968, thus eliminating the Cong as rivals for power. The Viet Cong were descended from the Viet Minh of the late 1940s -- 14 years before JFK sent the first "advisors" to help the ARVN -- so your claim that Americans helped Ho Chi Minh "creat unity" really doesn't wash. | ||
| geokstr (geokstr) Intermediate Member Username: geokstr Post Number: 224 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.158.183.141 |
Hi Carlota: As you might have guessed, I'm with Solo on this (surprise, surprise). I spent 19 months in VietNam, and was there for the Tet Offensive. That "offensive" was the most crushing defeat inflicted on the Viet Cong in that war, but Walter Cronkite and the rest of the leftist media portrayed it as a stunning defeat for the US. That wasn't an indigenous uprising in South VietNam either, it was a war of aggression by the North to take over the South. It is estimated that several MILLION Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians were exterminated by the Marxists after our country pulled the legs out from under the South. I hope you talked to some of the surviving members of THOSE families in your extensive travels there, too. And that great American patriot John Kerry, after recommending himself in glowing terms for medals for a series of (probably) self-inflicted but crippling paper cuts, used his heroic service to get himself out of VietNam 9 months early so he could come back over here and hobnob with Tom and Hanoi Jane. They helped prolong that war by giving aid and comfort (and fabulous propaganda) to the enemy. The United Nations? Good? Puh-lease. Good for bribery and corruption? Absolutely. Even the son of that media darling, Annan, has been implicated in the siphoning off of, oh, I dunno, maybe several BILLIONS of dollars (USD) of the vaunted Oil-Supposedly-for-Food-but-not-Really program. Heck, the UN "diplomats" rang up tens of millions of dollars in unpaid parking tickets under diplomatic immunity. There's a real demonstration of the spirit of THAT principle. Until the fall of the Berlin Wall, all it did was serve as a way to frustrate the US. The Russians and Chinese, along with the French (who haven't won a war since the French Revolution; historians still debate if they even won THAT one), as permanent members of the UN Security Council, blocked nearly EVERY initative of the United States. Back then the prevailing form of government in much of the Third World was Marxism, so we had most of the entire planet against us in the UN on ideological grounds (the ones that weren't against us because of envy, that is). And when they weren't stymieing us, they were totally ineffective. Why did it take what, 375 or so toothless resolutions to get Saddam to give the UN 375 fingers? All he had to do to prevent being deposed was to cooperate with the inspectors, AS HE HAD AGREED TO DO, but chose not to. Too bad for him. They found a whole bunch of jet fighters buried under the sand in Iraq. It takes a very small place to produce chemical and biological weapons. What makes you think they didn't bury those facilities as well? As Carl Sagan used to say; "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence." (This is rhetorical only; there is lots of evidence he had wmd's.) And I must have missed something all those years we've been in the Balkans - what exactly was the threat that Slobodan Milosevic posed to citizens of this country, other than taxing the spelling capabilites of our "objective" media? Why didn't Bill have to defend that action in terms of American safety and national interest? At least Dubya hasn't sent cruise missiles into any aspirin factories every time he needed a favorable spike in the polls. | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 80 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 69.203.6.107 |
Hey Geokstr, I think it is dangerous to give any leader (democrat, republican, whathaveyou) too much power and blind faith. I question what our government does in foreign nations, that is my right. As I said before, I don't think that it is unpatriotic or anti-American to do this, I actually think it is a fundamental part of participating in democracy. As I also said before I really don't think we will know the full truth or the whole story of our involvement in Iraq until the war is over and the dust settles. My original point was about not patting ourselves on the back too heartily about all the great and wonderful things we have done for Iraq just yet. Yes freedom sounds good and it is a word that we can all rally around and cheer for, but it is just a tad to simple to use to describe exactly what has taken place in Iraq. Remember how we all cheered and felt warm and fuzzy when the statue of Saddam was pulled down by marines and Iraqis (who were also pulling down car parts and T.V.s from every bombed out store and priceless relics from museums). Well, things got significantly worse not long after that heart warming scene. What I do not like is the fear mongering and propaganda. I do not like being treated like a child, made to feel frightend by the "evil" tyrants and terrorists. That is manipulative and wrong. Saddam Hussein's threat to us was played up so much by Bush and his administration that I nearly laughed out loud when they found him cowering in a hole in the ground with a, err, little pistol. Was Saddam Hussein a threat to his people? Of course! He was a tyrant, a dictator, he used WMDs on his own people (although, he would not agree that they were his own people because they were Kurds). Was he a threat to us? Don't think so. Would he be in the future? Doubt it. I am glad, however that he has been deposed and is now facing justice. Geokstr, I respect those who serve in the military (despite what Solopilot might think). I realize that, having served in Viet Nam, you saw and understood things that I can not begin to imagine. I will not challenge your knowledge or experience. I offer you my respect. As you know, however, I am one of those annoying peaceniks. I think war should always be a last resort. I especially can not support a war of ideologies. I grew up during the Cold War and I really do not feel like aging into yet another one. Waging a war on terrorism is going to be costly, deadly and (as I see it at the moment) ineffective. As long as we fight them there will be a need for them to recruit more terrorists. Just briefly, to address some of the things in your posts. I only mentioned Milosevic because he was diposed with out a single loss of American life. No he did not directly threat Americans, but Americans were engaged in the Balkans. Saddam Hussein also did not directly threat Americans. We should be careful not to confuse Saddam with the terrorists or insurgents we are now fighting. Perhaps some evidence of WMDs has been found, but it is important to make the distinction that it was not used against any American soldier and was ineffective enough as to not be a threat. Don't forget that U.S. soldiers were using chickens to detect toxic chenical warfare they were almost certain they were going to encounter. It did not happen. Yes, evidence may have been found, does it live up to the threat we were made to believe existed is the question we have to ask ourselves. Bush has changed his tune about the scary threat of WMDs and is now talking (again) about the scary threat of terrorist (not just in Afghanistan, but now in Iraq) and speading his wonderful freedom. Be afraid people, be very afraid. Your post was the first time I ever heard that the Tet Offensive was a failure. I had always been taught and read and heard that it was the most strategic, successful (for the U.S) and crushing (for the NVA) battle of the war. Hmmm, guess I missed that Walter Cronkite thing. Another example of how the truth sticks and the propaganda fades away. I visited the site of the battle and believe me, the Vietnamese also regard it as the most bloody and terrifying battle of that war. I said I was careful about where and how I got my info. I wonder how many people know that the U.S. was dropping bombs on Iraq pretty regularly years before this most recent war. I also wonder how many people are aware that the trade embargo we had imposed on Iraq did little to effect Saddam Hussein and his cronies but regularly affected regular Iraqi citizens in need of medicine and medical supplies. I also wonder how many people know that our government supported Saddam Hussein when it suited them to do so. Along those lines I wonder how many people knew then or even know now that the U.S. government secretly bombed the hell out of Cambodia and Laos while engaged with Viet Nam. Laos and Cambodia are still clearing the shells of bombs and even some live ones. Quite a few present day deaths and maimings in both Cambodia and Laos can be blamed on live bombs or mines and children wandering into them. We can agree to disagree on the issue of the U.N. I support thier mission, no matter how outdated it may be. I have no use for propaganda like words like "evil" and "freedom". I am not a child that needs to be coaxed, coerced or lied to blatantly. Better to have the truth now than pay for the lies later. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 406 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Carlota wrote: "I think war should always be a last resort. I especially can not support a war of ideologies." Last resort before WHAT? Let me point out to you that the only reason you can publicly condemn the government today is because of a "war of ideologies" 230 years ago, another one 190 years ago, yes another one 145 years ago, and one 65 years ago. Those "wars of ideologies" are the only thing between you and slavery -- or death. You just don't get it -- Saddam was in that little hole in the ground because we ran him out of his palaces. "Your post was the first time I ever heard that the Tet Offensive was a failure." I guess that proves your level of awareness of things upon which you expound. Oh, BTW, the NVA weren't seriously involved in Tet. It was a VC show. Uh . . .you "visited the site of the battle" . . .WHICH battle, Tet was hundreds of battles across thousands of square miles. I wonder how many leftists know that Saddam Hussein was pretty regularly shooting at Allied aircraft patrolling the UN's mandated "No-Fly" zone. The trade embargo on Iraq was put in place by the UNITED NATIONS that you love so much. Of course, other countries promptly began taking bribes from Hussein to do things for him. When the UN SecGen is taking bribes and Iraqis are starving because the UN isn't doing what it was supposed to be doing, for you to blame us for the plight of the Iraqi people is really rather hypocritical. Freedom is not a propaganda word. For you to consider it such is proof that many gifts are handed to the unworthy. I really don't see much point in continuing to discuss these things with you. Friends and family of mine have died to give you the freedoms which you deride. Many of my ancestors never had these freedoms, and died trying to earn them. "Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved homes and the war's desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: "In God is our trust." And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!" It's a pity that you will never know just how good you have it. You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the butt. | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 83 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 69.203.6.107 |
Solopilot, Somehow you constantly feel the need to insult or be overly aggressive with me. Lighten up. This is just a conversation. It is beyond clear that we disagree on fundamental things but that is no reason to end the dialogue. If you do not like the conversation you can move on to another one. I personally like the conversation. At no time have I made any jab at you for what you believe think or feel, like: "you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the butt". It seems everytime you resond to one of my posts I must defend myself from your personal attacks rather than talk about the original issue. So, here we go: No, Solopilot, I do not deride the freedoms that your "friends and family died to give me." I mean, come on, my "friends and family" also died for those freedoms. In fact I am simply exercising one of those freedoms by even having this conversation (although you would much prefer me censored I have a feeling  ). Far from deriding freedom I am simply trying to decipher what agenda Bush has when he uses the word. I would like the whole world to have the freedoms I have, but I don't want to see too much blood spilled to achieve it. "It's a pity you will never know just how good you have it." Again, solopilot, this is just a jab and it is off the subject. I do know how good I have it. I really do. Complaining about the government or about a war it is clear I do not support does not make me unappreciative of what I have. It is important to mention at this point, however, that the U.S. is not the only country that has a good quality of life. For the sake of defending myself, however, I will simply say, yes I am aware of how lucky I am. Now as for the attacks that weren't personal: The embargo was through the U.N. but it was a very U.S.-centric decision and the whole world knows that. When it was convenient for the U.S. they used the U.N. to mask their moves in "international agreement". When it was not convenient, like with the war, the U.S. attacked their long-time buddy as useless. The opinion of the international community is that the U.N. has long been a loosely masked U.S. government tool. The U.S. has long wielded the most power within the U.N. The U.S. still has the safety of being able to distance themselves from the U.N. when it serves them and then going crawling back when it serves them. When I was in Viet Nam I visited a battle ground where one of the most intensive battles of the Tet offensive was fought. I can't remember the name of the town. I'd have to check in my journals from that trip. When I said that I hadn't heard about the Tet Offensive being a failure I was refering to something the Geokstr said about it being portrayed that way by Walkter Cronkite. His point was that it was not a failure. I was agreeing with him. It would be more accurate to say that I can publicly condemn the government today because more than 200 years ago some colonists publicly condemned their government. It was not a war of ideologies it was a revolution. It was a group of people deciding their government did not properly represent them anymore. The Civil war, in all fairness, was also about land, money and maintaining the unity of a young nation. Slavery was a second and much less popular issue, despite the box of political correctness we try to fit it into today. I love this country and trying to lable me as unpatriotic because of my beliefs (because they differ from yours) is exactly what makes dialogues like these so important. Maybe my love for this country is even stronger because I am aware of not just the good my government has done, but also the wrongs it has perpetrated. I do not look at my country through only the rose colored glasses of patriotism, but also from the point of view of an outsider, through a magnifying glass. And I can still say that I love it. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 407 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Carlota: No, it is not a conversation, it WAS a conversation. You have consistently proven your complete lack of qualification to discuss these matters. I have given up trying to find some common ground here upon which to build a conversation. Have a nice day. | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 85 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 69.203.6.107 |
ouch. Not very nice Solopilot. I did not realize I needed to be qualified to discuss anything here. In fact there is already very little I can discuss because I do not rely on the Bible for "facts", or quote scripture. Anyway, it would seem that an interest in politics would be common ground even though we do not agree on the specifics. But whatever. Honestly, solopilot, I never meant to make you angry. Just a debate. Thought you could take it. You have a nice day too. P.S. Does this mean I WON? | ||
| jlu (jlu) New member Username: jlu Post Number: 18 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 24.7.214.230 |
carlota You dont know what you are talking about. Especially when you talk about the Vietnam war. You show a complete lack of knowledge. Stop discussing something you know nothing about. It is an insult. Dont talk about freedom to discuss, given to you by those who defended your right to do so, unless you have the correct facts | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 88 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 69.203.6.107 |
Hi Jlu, Yes, I may have mixed up stuff about the Viet Nam war but this post was not about the Viet Nam War. It was about Condoleeza Rice's confirmation and then digressed into surrounding issues. I am sorry if my mistakes caused any problems. If everyone on these boards "stopped talking about something they know nothing about" it would get really quiet. Honestly, a mistake is a mistake, but claiming I do not have the right or the freedom to discuss these things is a bit...well..self-righteous. I've been polite. I've encouraged dialogue. I do not cut and post things or post google links, I try to speak from my heart or mind or experiences, and that is occasionally subject to mistakes. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 432 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Carlota: If you didn't know an aileron from a gas pump, should I consider you qualified to discuss experimental test flying? If you were to then make ludicrous accusations about the men and women who are directly involved in experimental aviation, should I waste my time talking about it with you? You don't know what you are talking about, you refuse to learn more, and demand that your views, based upon ignorance, be respected. Sorry, that's not a discussion, that's a lecture series, and it's all yours. If this makes you the victor, then have at it. | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 89 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 69.203.6.107 |
Hi Solopilot, Remember views are different from facts. Beliefs are different from facts. I have admitted mistakes, but my beliefs about war do not change. I do not so much ask for respect for my beliefs as I simply as for the right to talk about them. Also, Solopilot, I was joking about the "I Won" part. It was an effort to lighten the mood, which, apparently failed. Carlota | ||
| jlu (jlu) New member Username: jlu Post Number: 19 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 24.7.214.230 |
...Carlota.. listen Ms. naive.....I don't mean to insult you...yeah ok,... you have the right to talk about them, thats a given. So that said, please refrain, if possible, from talking about things that had such a major impact on the world, let alone the people who FOUGHT and died there,(Vietnam) unless you have the facts. The correct facts! Thanks | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 90 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 69.203.6.107 |
Hi Jlu, Stop claiming a sort of false morality: "Ms. Naive..I don't mean to insult you". You do mean to insult me and claiming that you don't is even more insulting. For the past few days, incase you have not noticed, I have said nothing more about Viet Nam. I have also apologized. The last post I made was to Solopilot, and it was my way of offering a white flag, an olive branch. So, you seem to have a bone that you want to pick with me. This thread, as I said, was not about the Viet Nam War, but perhaps you could start one that is. Seriously, it could be very interesting. Now, however, you are simply beating a dead horse. I am curious, though, why you think I am sooooo wrong, and why I should "refrain" from talking about Viet Nam. | ||
| jlu (jlu) New member Username: jlu Post Number: 20 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 24.7.214.230 |
Carlota, ...because what you said with wrong facts and the way you seemed to make ...almost.. LIGHT of the whole thing was insulting to anyone who had ever been there, or died there. Thats why!!!!(Theres a wall with a bunch of names.) Those names are attached to alot of people who were touched by everything that happened there. Some things you could never understand. Weather or not this thread was about the Vietnam war or era,you chose to speak about it. I'm glad you apologized. I have no bone to pick with you. End of discussion. | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 93 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 69.203.6.107 |
Hello Jlu, It seems as if you have misunderstood me. I never, never made light of anything that happened during the Viet Nam War. Never. I may have mistaken facts, but I never made light of it, just as I do not make light of this war we are involved in now. Perhaps you could point out where I made "...almost...LIGHT of the whole thing". I have long been interested in the Viet Nam War. So interested that I actually visited Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos. I spent two months in Vietnam and EVERYDAY I thought about the people who died there. EVERYDAY I thought about the War. I made a mistake about the specifics of the Tet Offensive, but I think that could be forgiven. I may be "unqualified" by your opinion, but I probably have more information than most people my age and some even older. Let's get one thing very, very straight and clear. I have never once said anything even remotely offensive about the U.S. soldiers who fought in Vietnam. I have also never said anything offensive about the U.S. soldiers who are now fighting in Iraq. I never have and I never will. I have nothing but respect for the soldiers of both wars (of all wars). Part of my fascination with Vietnam, had to do with the fact that so many good men died there. So many U.S. soldiers gave their lives, or if not their time, heart and soul to that cause. Go back, read my posts. I defy you to find anything I ever wrote that would go against what I am saying now. It is possible to be against the idea of war and disagree with my government and still respect those who have to go and fight. That is what I try to do. "Some things you could never understand" I am so sick of being told I do not understand. You know, I have also been to that Wall and there are the names of my loved ones on that wall too. I know plently who have been affected by that war and that era. You do not own that, alone. It is shared. Yes, even with people like me. People who hate war. | ||
| jlu (jlu) New member Username: jlu Post Number: 21 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 24.7.214.230 |
...like I said. I have no bone to pick with you. End of discussion. | ||
| geokstr (geokstr) Intermediate Member Username: geokstr Post Number: 233 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.19.10.136 |
Hi Carlota: I still enjoy talking to you, even though we are on opposing sides of most issues. Most of my friends and bridge partners in college were commie pinkos.  I must try to impress on you one thing about the VietNam war though. The Tet Offensive was PIVOTAL to the war. While your perception is that the Tet Offensive (which I was there for) was a success for the US, that is the exact opposite of how it was portayed by all the media (there was no talk radio or Fox News back then to give an opposing side). The sense of gloom and doom that prevailed in this country after that sickening reporting was widely credited with changing the mood of the country and the Congress. The press has yet to own up to their part in the millions of deaths that occurred soon after we pulled out. Other than that, we can agree on many philosophies of life, as I told you before. It's just how you get there and how fast that causes the contention. I have my own misgivings about our adventure in Iraq. Most of them center around the religion of Islam and the fact that the people who believe in it don't really agree with "freedom". I'm pretty sure that after all these centuries, they are used to being ruled with an iron fist and to be free frightens them. I used to have a cat. He was a house cat, and whenever I would take him outside, he would crawl back and jump in my arms, even though he now had the "freedom" to run away. Without long-standing institutions of the rule of law, property rights, and some separation of church and state, I doubt their ability to keep those freedoms. And of course, something like several hundred million Islamists believe that the Jews brought down the Twin Towers and would like nothing better than to kill all the infidels. I fear that nothing will prevent an apocalyptic confrontation between Islam and the rest of the world sooner or later. Whether what we did in Iraq will make that sooner or later remains to be seen. It would almost be preferable to be sooner, before all that oil money turns to major weaponry. On the subject of Ms. Rice, she certainly has a brilliant record, with an articulate and comprehensive view of the world. She had too heard of Al Quida (sp?), despite what that moron Clarke said. It is well documented that she knew who bin Laden was as well. I would CERTAINLY rate her much more highly than the vertically-impaired, gravitationally-challenged Madeline Albright, wouldn't you? While I agree that war should be a last resort, it boils down to - who decides what "last resort" means? We elect leaders to do that for us (that's one of those other things that "freedom" means). It used to be, before the baby boomers matriculated, that when the election was over, the election was OVER, and it was time to join ranks again and work together. That unfortunately no longer happens, and those who lost the election do everything they can to subvert the administration of the winner. I think that is a tragic development for this country. We are so fractured now by so many things (some of which we've discussed together on other threads here) that I think it's only a matter of time for us as well. | ||
| carlota (carlota) Member Username: carlota Post Number: 97 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 69.203.6.107 |
Hello Geokstr, Great to hear from you again. This thread was turning into a witch hunt. I guess you can imagine who the witch was.  I was a bit confused about the Tet Offensive. I have paid dearly for that confusion. I'm sorry if it upset you. I think I understand your point that it was badly misrepresented by the press and became a turning point for public opinion. As I understand it, the Vietnam War was the first time that the news media had a front row seat to any war. Perhaps this gave the news media a slightly too inflated power. Your story about your house cat makes a great point. I agree. The issue of "freedom" is a sticky one when dealing with those who have never been free. This is why I became frustrated at the flag waving and cheering every time Bush said the word. It does not do the Iraqi people justice. The situation is much more complex. I said before that true freedom spreads itself. In other words, it must be the will of the people. Freedom can't be imposed. Many U.S. soldiers and many Iraqis have fought hard for that freedom, but ultimately it will be in the hands of the Iraqi people. For the brave fighting and for the diposal of Saddam we can pat our selves on the back, but for freedom...we will have to wait and see what the will of the Iraqi people is. The election was heartwarming even for me. The fact that it even happened was a statement in itself. Does it mean that Iraq is now free and democratic? Well, no. Not quite. The election, while inspiring did not go off without a least a few hitches, and that was expected. Several boxes of ballots went "missing" and for all the images of elderly ladies walking miles and standing in line to vote, there were also unseen images of people being harrased and prevented from voting. At any rate this election was only to decide an interim government and it was a valuable, if difficult step. I have also traveled through Muslim countries. The experiences I had were incredibly mixed. I did not enjoy having to cover myself head to toe (in temperatures up to 100 degrees), nor did I enjoy being fondled on public buses (taxi, please). I was much more appreciative of freedoms I had formerly taken for granted in the western world. That said, I think it is important to make the distinction between Muslims and Fundamentalist or Militant Muslims. The movement of militant Islam in basically "converting" nations with force and coercion, as is seen in Africa, is very wrong. I have seen villages in Egypt that were formerly tribal, nomadic religions that have been "converted" into Muslim villages where only Arabic may be spoken. They lose their heritage and their language in one fell swoop. Unfortunately this practice has little to do with God or religion and has more to do with political control and military power. In the same token I have met and spoken with Muslims who are not extremist or fundamnetalist or militant in any way. They are peaceful and spiritual and simply trying to live their lives and not interested in converting anyone. I agree there is a bit of a "freedom" problem in general with certain aspects of Islam, but what concerns me much more is when it becomes fundamentalist or militant. As for Condy, I agree she is brilliant and certainly qualified. She is also better looking than Madaleine Albright. When I started this thread I had just listened to her whole confirmation hearing on the radio and I had it sort of pressing in my mind. Her responses to some very direct questions about Iraq and the intelligence that led up to the war were pretty lame. She is a very smart lady, and she stumbled, stuttered and simply could not answer some questions asked by our Senators (both rep. and dem.). Having had some time to see her in action (a whirlwind tour of Europe and a visit with the Palestinian P.M.) I see that she may have the ability to bring back some diplomacy that was a little lacking with Powell. We'll see. I am not a fan, but, there she is. Ultimately you are right about the losing side attempting to subvert the power of the winning side. I suppose it has always worked that way, for better or for worse. As someone whose inclinations tend toward the left I do not see a whole lot of unity amongst democrats. I think they are very broken, floundering and weaker than they have been in a while. I did not feel very represented by Kerry, nor did I by Dean and certainly not by Bush. I did not like Bush when he "became" the president five years ago and I haven't changed my mind. I don't consider the things I say or think to be part of anyone's agenda but my own. Never liked the guy. I accept that he is there, this time fair and square, but yeah, I have a hard time joining the ranks. It's sad that the country is fractured and divided but I think that the politicians have a hand in making it so. I think it will get better. We'll see. Thanks for bring some much needed reason back to this discussion. Good talking with you. Carlota | ||
| geokstr (geokstr) Intermediate Member Username: geokstr Post Number: 242 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.19.10.136 |
Carlota: How come you and I agree so much when we are on opposite sides of the spectrum? Is it possible that if you go far enough in either direction you end up coming full circle? Maybe you and I should start our own party, say, the Commie Pinko Fascist Capitalist-Roader Party? We could borrow Dave Barry's campaign slogan when he ran for President in 2000, something to the effect of: "This great country deserves a strong leader, a person of integrity, honesty and vision, who will guide us in a way we can all be proud of. And until one of those comes along - there's always US". (apologies to Dave)  He also has a novel and I believe workable idea for solving the Middle East Crisis. I think we should give it a try IMMEDIATELY: Barry also touched on his proposal from 1997 to use the "ultimate weapon" in the Middle East. Instead of dropping bombs, Barry said he "would have dropped lawyers. If that didn’t work, I would have dropped more. And, if that didn’t work, I would have given them parachutes." He also ran in 2004. Here's his campaign kickoff speech, which you may find enlightening (maybe not): http://www.iht.com/articles/129558.html | ||
| carlota (carlota) Intermediate Member Username: carlota Post Number: 101 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 69.203.6.107 |
Hey Geokstr, I think we do tend to come full circle. I have disagreed with you and I have agreed with you, but above all I have enjoyed your style of communicating. I like it that you do not post scriptures and if you cut and paste something you let us know what it is and where it is from. Your arguments are reasonable, whether I agree or disagree. I have felt a little alienated here, at times, because I don't have an agenda....I just enjoy talking about issues that can be controversial. I have noticed that many posts here are intended to prove "the absolute rightness of a fact, idea, belief" rather than simply breaking it apart and exploring it. I enjoy your posts, because you come closest to doing that. Hey, I would be up for a new political party or three, especially one that was lead by a humorist. We could use some fresh ideas that don't kick the same dead horses. I have voted third party before. I was raised by a Republican (staunch!) Dad and an Independent (Republican leaning) Mom. We always talked (yelled, fought, debated) politics at home, but my parents simply encouraged me and my sisters to be political and know what is going on, no matter how we voted. Ooops, they created little commie pinkos. Dave Barry is a riot. That article was great. A little humor never hurts any cause. | ||
| geokstr (geokstr) Intermediate Member Username: geokstr Post Number: 250 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.211.59.131 |
Hi Carlota: One thing that is surely and sorely missing here is anything remotely resembling humor. You may have remembered the time I used the word "breast" in a little joke and the venom came gushing out of the walls and yea, I sayeth, forsooth, poured downeth from thine heavens upon mineth head as the righteous wrath of the Lord - or somethingeth. (Geez, did everybody in biblical times like, have a listhp, or what?) When ALL your beliefs are ossified and calcified and petrified by the bible, they can only be justified and fortified and sanctified by scripture (take that, Jesse) since nearly all the evidence in the real world contradicts it's "scientific" Truths. I am normally the calmest and most patient person I know, but it is difficult not to get frustrated here. You might as well be talking to a bowl of steamed broccoli, for all the comprehension and critical thinking you find on this board. (No, I wasn't talking about you, Solo, nor Yaakov.) I didn't think I had an agenda either when I came here, but I have found one - keeping young-earth creationism out of public schools. And to think I, as a non-believer, used to be sympathetic to faith-based initiatives and prayer in the schools. No more. I shudder to think what this country would be like if fundamentalist Christians ever got any power in it. The Taliban would look like second-rate pikers. Dave Barry is hilarious, isn't he? Here's his official website: http://www.davebarry.com/ Bookmark it and go read a few articles and/or columns he's written whenever you need a smile on your face. I think I've read almost all his books now. If you like rock 'n roll, get his "Dave Barry's Book of Bad Songs". It's only like $4 now and you won't stop laughing until long after you're done with it. Thank you for the compliments; they are most welcome, and most credible when they come from the enemy too. Obviously I enjoy your style (and class) as well. Too bad you're already spoken for. Haven't got a twin sister that's available, do you?  | ||
| geokstr (geokstr) Intermediate Member Username: geokstr Post Number: 251 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.211.59.131 |
And one more thing - I believe I was misquoted when I said "...there are enough things that can be said about ANYTHING and enough ways to say them that you can prove or justify ANYTHING in ways that sound almost rational and reasonable.." I should obviously have qualified that statement with EXCEPT YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM Then I would have accurately quoted myself. (Note the absence of a smiley, to indicate that I am NOT joking.) | ||
| carlota (carlota) Intermediate Member Username: carlota Post Number: 107 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 69.203.6.107 |
Hey Geokstr, Hahaha.... Yeah, I have seen your posts on the young-earth creationists threads. I was glad to see you putting your two cents in on that one. I am staying away, because on that subject I am sure I would get in over my head. Of course I do not want to see creationism taught in public schools (we have enough problems there), but I will leave the arguments up to you. Have fun. Well, I have three sisters, no twin, but all of them are pretty much commie, pinko, hippie, environmentalist, with (imagine that) morals and....spoken for. Oh well. Hang in there. | ||
| inkorrekt (inkorrekt) Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 51 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 130.253.32.157 |
CARLOTA WRITES: Can we count on another costly war, this time with Iran? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why not? This mad man (Iranian President) wants to exterminate Isreal. He also wants Isreal to be moved to Europe. Iran ought to be our next target. If we do not take on Iran, Iran will take us. Remember, They have nuclear weapon | ||
| inkorrekt (inkorrekt) Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 57 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 198.243.2.253 |
geokstr (geokstr): Says, all politicians lie. Yes, you are absolutely right on. We have too many politicians. However, there are few STATESMAN who do not lie. Perfect example is Sen. Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller. About Dr. Rice: What is she supposed to do? She can only rely on the information given to her. If this information is faulty, then who is to be blamced? Did you know that Col.Schafer (Military Intelligence) warned Jamie Geralo (former Deputy Attorney General. She suppressed this information. No one knows what had happened. This was not even presented to the 911 commission. Jamie set herself up as a Commission member when she should have been puit on the witness stand like Saddam and prosecuted. SHE IS A FOX GUARDING THE CHICKEN HOUSE. Another bomb shell: What did Sandy "Burglar" (the former National Security Advisor) steal from the Anational Archives? Is it possible that he STOLE this information so that Bill Clinton and Jamie Geralo were Covered? Why no one is prosecuting Wilson for lying? Yes, we are accusing the wrong people and we are also punishing the wrong people. The real LIARS get away with anything. |
