• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 2/8/18)
See more
See less

President Bush Issues 48 Hr. Ultimatum....Please Pray For Our Soldiers

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nhwr:
    mbp,

    I agree there could have been a better plan about the museums (on everyone's part). The more recent press on this subject is interesting. First, it looks like thing might not be as bad as was initially thought. And secondly, I heard a report on the radio yesterday that said that the Iraqi National Museum in Baghdad believes the worst damage might have been done by an employee, in other words it may have been an inside job planned for a long time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    The other really disturbing thing is that the exact same thing could have happened to all those (hypothetical) biological and chemical weapons. Bush/Rumsfeld were convinced they were there and convinced they were "highly mobile" (b/c they were being hidden from the inspectors) so why didn't we go in with enough troops to at least attempt to really secure the area and prevent the highly mobile WMDs from being driven away and sold on the open market somewhere else?

    Comment


    • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
      Well then you have a big problem with history I think because our founding fathers determined this was a white protestant country and that's why even all our money says "IN GOD WE TRUST".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
      Snowbird, I don't think that you could possibly argue that the US is a "white protestant" country today and in fact I'm a bit disturbed taht anyone would attempt to- is that what you're doing? Or are you just pointing out what group started the whole thing? As for the founding fathers; they didn't allow women to vote either and we changed that

      Comment


      • Didn't I see somewhere that US troops found mobile weapons labs that had been buried?

        And what about the radioactive (nuclear bomb)material that came from North Korea went through Irac to be further processed and is now in a neighboring middle east country.

        Scary stuff.

        Comment


        • PlotTwist,

          The buried labs manufactured conventional weapons. This was born out by tests done by our military. The Iraqis said that the reason they were buried was to prevent looting, and considering they were looted right after the battle, it makes sense.

          As for any radioactive material, why would Iraq further process the material? NK has everything it needs to process U235 from the U238 reactor rods. You may be thinking of unrefined plutonium or uranium to be used in a "dirty" bomb (conventional explosives used to disperse radioactive dust." Dirty bombs are actually relatively easy to make and do not need refined material. They do little initial damage. As a matter of fact, being downwind from the US nuclear testing in the 50s and 60s is equivalent to a dirty bomb.

          I guess nuclear weapons or dirty bombs don't bother me that much, considering I live within 11 miles of Rocky Flats (manufactured the nuclear pits for all of our weapons until 1989). Basically, the land where I ride and board is contaminated with plutonium.

          Reed

          Comment


          • "concerned for her safety"

            Yep - that's it exactly. I am not so much saying, to stick with my teenage daughter example, that just because some things we do don't "look good" it makes us bad. But I do believe that when we have a disregard for how things look to others, it makes things less safe for everyone.

            On renegging - post-receipt of investment $ and development activities - I agree it has happened to us. That was in part my point - it has happened to us and we don't like it. We have preached against it. We have tried hard to establish systems and environments where it won't happen because of its detrimental effect on international enterprise and trade (which, given our super-economic power status benefits us proportionately more than pretty much any other country) We are even, at this very time, having discussions with Russia and China to try to help out some situations where American shareholders are going to get hurt if this happens to some US company assets.

            In the complex balancing act, we have to realize the consquences of working to circumvent the agreements. (BTW - keep in mind, a lot of the Russian investment is even older than 12 years - although I am sure that more of it was "sanction violative" than they will ever admit.) So we can say, "you did business with a bad guy, take your knocks". (But, keep in mind, that Halliburton through its subsidiaries also did business with Hussein during the sanctions period and Halliburton had to pay a 3.8 million handslap fine for doing business with Libya when the US in violation of sanctions. But, as people have noted, no one wants Halliburton to do the reconstruction work and not be paid.) But yes, we can take that position - it may have some advantages for us. If we do that, though, we need to THINK THROUGH THE CONSEQUENCES, a path we don't seem to take to heart much right now. Those consequences are much longer term than this Administrations term or terms in office.

            I do believe, on the Museum front, that we won't get accurate info from the Iraqi's in charge of that info either. Both sides are good at being selective. There will have been items sold or exchanged over the years of sanctions, some stolen by insiders even prior to the organized robbery, etc. some incorrectly accounted for, etc. But the robbery involved the very vaults that many items had been taken to for safe storage from the possible looting so there will be some significant losses. The presence of the pros who were ready to do this was well known in advance. And the library is, to me, a bigger loss even than the Museum. Those things are just burned and gone.

            But still, IMO it is not a matter of saying who is to "Blane" so much, as to make sure we open our eyes to the fact that we are on a world stage, being judged. For every action. We may not value the opinions of some of those doing the judging, from the standpoint of thinking they have better or higher moral standards than us, or from the standpoint of even giving a thongwearing rat's patootie. But the safety of our military, our civilians, the stability of complex international relationships, all of those things are affected by the image we project at this time and by how we act. I think we should be working harder at looking good, and not just dismissing "untidiness".

            The drunk college boys at the party are not going to take time to find out if we are a "good girl" before they act. Depending on the image we project, they may feel pretty justified in thinking we get what we deserve "what we get" if we put forth the wrong image.

            Even worked in a thongwearing rat.

            Comment


            • For those of you running with the "Right Wing Conspiracy Ball" regarding the Bechtel contract - you should keep in mind the FACT that Bechtel has had contracts with the Iraqi government for over 30 years and built many of the infrasture that they are now going to re-build. Their contracatual relationship with Iraq was not cooked up years ago in some back room - it was free market negotiating. So put away those frantic - chicken little - they are conspiring, they are conspiring chant.

              FYI - HERE'S AN INTERESTING LITTLE PIECE ON THE GREAT HILLARY ROTTEN CLINTON.

              "Gold Star Mothers

              You really should be sitting down when you read this one.

              Gold Star Mothers is an organization made up of women whose sons were killed in military combat during service in the United States armed forces.

              Recently a delegation of New York State Gold Star Mothers made a trip to Washington, DC, to discuss various concerns with their elected representatives.

              According to published reports, there was only one
              politician who refused to meet with these ladies.

              Can you guess which politician that might be?

              Was it New York Senator Charles Schumer? Nope, he met with them.

              Try again.

              Do you know anyone serving in the Senate who has never showed anything but contempt for our military?

              Do you happen to know the name of any politician in Washington who's husband once wrote of his loathing for the military? Now you're getting warm! You got it!

              None other than the Queen herself, Hillary Rotten Clinton. She refused repeated requests to meet with the Gold Star Mothers.

              Now, please don't tell me you're surprised. This woman wants to be President of the United States --- and there is a huge percentage of Voters who are eager to help her achieve that goal.

              May you sleep in peace always...and please...hug or thank a Veteran for that privilege.

              Think about this one !!!

              Don't forget, our girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York Senator, now comes under this fancy congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan.

              It's common knowledge that, in order for her to establish NYS residency, they purchased a million+ dollar house in upscale Chappaqua, NY.
              Makes sense.

              Now, they are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.

              Here is where it becomes interesting. The mortgage payments hover at about $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residency had to be built within the acreage in order to house the Secret Service agents.

              The Clinton's now charge the Secret Service $10,000 monthly rent for the use of said Secret Service residence and that rent is just about equal to
              their mortgage payment, .......meaning that we, the tax payers, are paying the Clinton's mortgage, their transportation, their safety and security, their 12 man staff, and it's all perfectly legal.

              Sincerely, Cdr. Hamilton McWhorter USN (ret)"
              Summit Sporthorses Ltd. Inc.
              "Breeding Competition Partners & Lifelong Friends"

              Comment


              • I think MaggyMay explained most of what I meant by that post (thanks, by the way, I'm glad someone understood what I was getting at). There are three things I would like to clarify though:

                First, it was not "sour grapes" that caused me to voice concerns about America flouting world authority. Frankly, I don't think Bush's actions are anything to be jealous about. The reason I said that was because I have serious issues with a man who has voiced the opinion that he can do whatever he wants, regardless of what the rest of the world may think. Call me crazy, but I'd like to think that action in the interest of world security should be undertaken with some type of concensus- a step which Bush said he was totally willing to do without. He made it abundantly clear that he didn't think he needed anyone's permission for this, and I just can't agree with that.

                The second issue was that of my concerns with his faith. First of all, I am a Christian, so please don't tell me I don't understand the religion or don't like it. And I really don't have a problem with Christians being president, or even presidents acting according to Christian morals. I do have a problem with Bush deciding that, based on his interpretation of the Christian faith, he is qualified to label the rest of the world as evil or good. And I also have major problems with his main reason for attacking a country being "this man is evil, plain and simple". Sorry, it isn't that simple.

                Not to mention the fact that the Pope (you know, the head religious guy ) has already said that this war is morally wrong. If Bush is going to justify this war based on his religion, (which as the leader of a secular government, I don't think he should do), then he should at least make sure his religion backs him up. I found a quote on a web comic that I think sums things up best- "Do you remember when that reporter asked Bush who his favourite political philosopher was, and he said Jesus? Do you think Jesus would have rolled over in his grave, if he hadn't risen from it?"

                As for the "threat to world security" issue- well, there is the obvious of the pre-emptive strike theory Bush is propagating, which I find to be incredibly dangerous. However, there is also the issue of destabilization in the Middle East, not to mention the fact that he's completely contravening the UN and seriously threatening the survival of that organization (which I feel has been incredibly crucial to world security).

                Special Delivery, the majority of Canadians do support Chretien. Not all, no, but the majority. Alberta seems to be the main dissenting party right now, but they haven't supported the federal government on much of anything in the past little while, so that's not a big surprise. And yes, there are Canadians in other areas (presumably including yourself) who don't like what he's done, but the polls show that most of us agree with his stance.

                Comment


                • How about one reason being that for the past 8 years our troops and expenditures were cut by more than a third of what they should?

                  How about because we joined with NATO in Bosnia and we have troops all over the place watching the foxes and trying to keep them out of the hen house?

                  Who was going to go? We have a Volunteer Army and Reserves and who wants it any other way?

                  I was trying to make two points, one we can look with negativity at anything, that our own history was very secular and there was a mixture of church and state and it really didn't hurt anything we all managed to get along and maybe it even was better because we got to know about each other.

                  And, what our founders objected to was being forced to have a particular religion or being denied the oppportunity for a different religion. The Constitution gives us the right to pursue happiness and does not guarantee we will all be happy with every opinion or decision.

                  It didn't do anyone any harm to start the day with a prayer to "whatever his name is" in your house. You can also be an extremist in the other direction, but here we are making judgements about other people and what they believe with every fiber of their being.

                  Judging from the news the Iraqi have found their voice they have already earned the first basic principle of a democracy "the street demonstration". Protest marches with banners and noise to let everyone know what they think.

                  A trip to the Middle East years ago left me astonished at the lack of caring about historical sites. They have a more earthly approach to inheritance. There was a little church in Egypt where it is said that Jesus, Mary and Joseph stayed when they left and came to Egypt. You got to look down a little staircase into a room flooded with stagnant bad smelling water. Don't eve try telling me they couldn't afford a simple water pump.

                  My point is we do not have the right to judge whether the type of organization that they want
                  has to be separate church and state as long at they have the freedom to worship as they please. Just as we always said a prayer before each session of Congress.

                  It is apparent than an employee of the Museum arranged for the heist. They had plenty of time to prepare. We care about the artifacts in an intellectual way because we are not hungry, we do not live in shacks and in fear of our lives.

                  Many of the looters went into these buildings trying to find hidden prisons where their relatives disappeared, they want to be prepared with cash and a way out because they are not as sure as we are that Saddam Hussein won't be back. Many believe he was blessed with a special stone that saved his life. They tested the stone by putting it in a chicken and the chicken was shot and didn't die and the Saddam had the stone inserted in him.

                  Never overlook the basic beliefs of any people and never assume they are wrong because it's not the same as yours. They believe in an eye for an eye in the the Middle East I asked when I was there why the tombs of the Pharohs were robbed. My Muslim friend said that's easy they threw the stuff in the nile they weren't thieves, they just wanted the Pharoh to go into the hereafter as poor as they were so he would know how it felt.





                  Battle Scarred Veteran

                  [This message was edited by Snowbird on Apr. 18, 2003 at 08:26 PM.]
                  http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                  Comment


                  • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hard to be the poster-boy for peace when one's so intent on offending any and all alike.
                    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                    Seems you and I have a similar assessment of Chretien, Daliwal et al.

                    Comment


                    • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the majority of Canadians do support Chretien <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                      well yes and no. His approval rating is greater than 50%, largely on the basis of having no opposition (and promising not to run for office ever again).

                      On the more specific question of supporting the coalition, a slim majority are in favour of support. These numbers were collected while the 'quagmire' theories were in abundance, so its likely the support numbers are a little higher now - victory has 1000 fathers.

                      For English Canada only, the clear majority back the coalition on any question.

                      heres a link:

                      http://www.angusreid.com/media/dsp_d...d_to_view=1784

                      Comment


                      • I was referring to back when Chretien first announced his stance- I've no doubt that support for the coalition has soared now that it seems they've got a stronghold over there.

                        Comment


                        • well, the poll was most certainly after Chretien announced his decision, but the 'stronghold' was far from obvious at the time.

                          I dont know if there were any polls that actually captured public opinion at the time the decision was announced. It takes a while to articulate the questions, conduct the polling etc - the only way you could really poll at the exact time the decision was announced would be if you knew the decision a day or so in advance.

                          uh oh - i think this is turning into a poling thread. my bad.

                          Comment


                          • News from Canada

                            It was announced early this morning that Canada is now prepared to help
                            the United States in its war against terrorism.

                            They have promised to commit 2 of their largest battleships, 6,000 armed
                            troops and 60 fighter jets...
                            However, after the exchange rate, that comes down to a Canoe, 2 Mounties
                            and a Flying Squirrel, named Rocky



                            Hope none of our Canadian friends here are insulted. I just thought it was funny.

                            Comment


                            • actually thats not true. i have good information that the flying squirrel is already deployed in Las Vegas.

                              Comment


                              • Talloaks, thanks for the speech. However, I'm always surprised when people (try to) pin the downsizing of the military and the closing of bases on Clinton. And frankly, to my mind, doing so undermines the whole premise of the argument.

                                From the Navy's own Web site on the subject:
                                The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Program consists of four rounds of base closures and realignment. The first was authorized by P.L. 100-526, the "Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988." The next three rounds were authorized by P.L. 101-510, as amended. This legislation is known as the "Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990." Bases that were closed or realigned in fiscal year 1991, fiscal year 1993, and fiscal year 1995 respectively are also identified by the corresponding numeric BRAC round. The table below shows the total number of U.S. Navy activities affected by the BRAC legislation.

                                Clinton was not elected until 1992. The closures and downsizings were ordered under his predecessor, George I, and actually had their roots in Reagan's era because of the end of the Cold War.

                                However else the person who wrote that speech and others on this board may feel about Clinton and the things he did, he is NOT ... absolutely NOT ... to "blame" for the military downsizing. In the venacular of the day, he was just "following orders."

                                ***Dear Easter Bunny: All I really want in my goody basket is FLYING LEAD CHANGES!!***
                                Congratulate me! My CANTER cutie is an honor student at Goofball University!

                                Comment


                                • mbp,

                                  I don't think I made my point very well. I guess what I mean is I don't see the point in trying to live one's life according to the opinions of others. It is a losing proposition. In the end, things are frequently black and white. And I think they were here. There were conditions under which the '91 war was ended. Saddam never took these conditions seriously. He actually never even signed the treaty documents. The UN, as a collective body, imposed the conditions and terms to which Iraq had to comply. You can say these were a compromise. I say most agreements are. In the end, "It takes more than good intentions - it takes thinking about what you do and the consequences - thinking it through and then ponying up and taking responsibility" (on that, we can agree) but I would add, even if it is unpopular.
                                  See those flying monkeys? They work for me.

                                  Comment


                                  • Palisades, I appreciate the thoroughness and tone of your post. Well done.

                                    With that said, I'd like to disagree on a few points. The US in not going at this alone. News reports indicate that approximately 40 (plus or minus)other countries have/are supporting us directly or indirectly. Not my opinion, fact reported by the media.

                                    Second, any dictator (or anyone for that matter) who treats the citizens of his own country in the manner he did is evil. To kill another in the ways that have been described, again by the media, can not be described as anything less than evil. Example: slowly lowering live people in acid baths and watching what happens. I think we're all qualified to decide he's evil here.

                                    I would really like to see the president's quote were he states because of his religion, this war is justified. I was not aware he said anything like that.

                                    The middle east has for centuries, (I learned this in history), not been a stable area of the world to begin with. And while I hope it doesn't degrade further, I question how much worse that area could get. Anyone wanna take a stab at that idea?

                                    And finally, I simply disagree with the importance you place on the UN.

                                    I hope that I have clearly and concisely said my peace. There are no hidden meanings here, merely rebuttel. My flame suit can't handle much more....

                                    Comment


                                    • I didn't say that the U.S. was going this alone, I'm aware of how many countries are currently members of the coalition. What I said was that Bush made it clear that he was willing to go it alone, indicating that he placed very little importance on the opinion of the rest of the world. Sure, it's always nice to have allies to help out, but in the absence of any support at all, Bush said that he would proceed.

                                      Maybe it's just my belief system, but I don't believe in labelling people as evil. That aside, I especially don't believe in the leader of one country labelling the leaders of others (more than just Iraq here, Bush pretty much said he was going to hunt down anyone he thought was evil) as such. There are a lot of countries with some pretty grotesque human rights violations on both sides of this issue- yes, including the coalition side. He isn't applying the same standard to everyone, he's choosing which leaders he would rather not have around and then justifying that decision with a label.

                                      The president never said "I'm Christian, so it's okay". What he has said over and over is that God is on his side, that America has a mission to find the evildoers and God will help America to punish them, etc, etc. To me, that says "God wants me to do this, so it's okay". Or even "I believe I have the knowledge to decide who God thinks is evil, and who He thinks is good". Sorry, I don't buy that.

                                      I believe there is potential for the Middle East to get much worse. But I don't think the way to make it better is to, say, ignore your promises to broker peace between Israel and Palestine while invading a country that will cause a massive Muslim backlash. To me, peaceful negotiations, however long they might take, would certainly cause less volatility in that area than military action- especially military action undertaken by the U.S. without UN backing. It's no secret that that area of the world isn't exactly happy with your country, and whatever the reaosn for that (and I do tend to agree that it's in large part due to Israel), things will not be made better by what is perceived as a U.S. invasion.

                                      I can't understand why some people think that the UN is simply disposable, or only important for some things but not for peace. To me, that organization is the only way in which international military actions should be undertaken, and the only place in which punishment should be handed out (ie. The International Criminal Court). Then again, maybe that's just because I think unilateral action is inherently flawed. I don't want to see one country imposing its morals on the rest of the world. I want to see all the nations of the world reaching a common goal of peace and stability. I'm well aware that that's probably just a pipe dream on my part, but I think it's what we should be striving for.

                                      Comment


                                      • Pallisades;

                                        you say<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Maybe it's just my belief system, but I don't believe in labelling people as evil.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                        I know this will sound patronizing, but I don't mean it to be. I used to think that too. Then my children asked me why someone would fly planes into the World Trade Center and try to kill tens of thousands of people. As adults, we come up with many complex rationalizations; politics, religion, economics etc. But there is no other way to describe this mentality. There is pure chaos, pure hate and pure madness in the world. It is evil. I am a little ashamed that that I didn't understand this until it touch me on a somewhat personal level. But never the less it is the truth.

                                        There is balance in the world. As surely as there is good, there is evil.
                                        See those flying monkeys? They work for me.

                                        Comment


                                        • Palisades, so far you've only spoken about George Bush. Tony Blair has gone to great lengths to rally the British behind him. He seems to share Bush's opinion on this subject, yet you seem to target Bush. Any reason?

                                          You didn't need to go further after you said
                                          "Maybe it's just my belief system, but I don't believe in labelling people as evil."

                                          He has said that anyone/all who commits an act of terrorism or any/all country(ies) which knowlingly harbors those who commit terrorism will be brought to justice. I think that's the closest to direct quote I can get. I don't think he's picking and choosing on this one.
                                          I disagree with you on that one.

                                          "To me, that says "God wants me to do this, so it's okay". Or even "I believe I have the knowledge to decide who God thinks is evil, and who He thinks is good".

                                          You're making him sound really physcho .....is that what you intend? I don't think sane person would think that. But I may be wrong.

                                          Until the politics of the UN dissolve away, I believe the UN has rendered itself impotent. We didn't do it this time. IMO.

                                          World peace would be nice though, wouldn't it!

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X