• 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 Anne FS:
    We weren't fighting either Iraq or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia on 9/11, were we? Can bin Laden hate us more than he currently does? Al Queda has already successfully executed and continues to plan, terrorist attacks. Do you think for one moment that if we didn't go into Iraq, these people would stop their plans? I don't believe that for one second.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I don't think that not going after Iraq would have reduced terrorism. You're right, the people who already hate us will continue to hate us.

    But the WAY we have gone about this seems to have spurred much more anti-American sentiment all over the world. And THAT, it seems, COULD very well increase terrorism. It's possible that we've given a whole lot of people who just mildly disliked us before the push to get off the fence and really start to hate us.

    I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't do what we think is right because it might piss other countries or people off. But we certainly could have done a better job of building a coalition and support, and acted less like a bully.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yesterday I read that France, China, Russia, and Germany are insisting that every cent of humanitarian aid being brought into Iraq be paid for NOT by the UN, but by the USA. France & Germany et al. are choosing to let the people of Iraq go hungry rather than pay one penny in aid. Now that's appalling. And they criticize us?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    We wanted this war, whether or not other countries supported us... we basically told everyone else to take a hike. Is it really that surprising that they're doing the same to us now?

    Comment


    • Plus right now we are definitely implying (e.g. leaked release that Halliburton "has the contract") that only US companies are going to get the reconstruction package and $$ - which will be funded with, in large part, Iraqi oil $ and btw, we will have a military government in place for awhile to further control the oil flow and who makes $ in post-war Iraq.

      Perhaps that also has an impact?

      Comment


      • http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101...d.html?cnn=yes

        I haven't finished reading this yet, but it looks so far like it's trying to be honest and see the point both sides have, because as I think we all know, both sides on this issue are right about a lot of things. Thought I'd pass it on.

        Comment


        • Erin, you say
          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> We wanted this war, whether or not other countries supported us... we basically told everyone else to take a hike. Is it really that surprising that they're doing the same to us now? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

          Does this mean that we should be soley responsible for the rebuilding and post war administration of Iraq? I predict that is when the goves will really come off in the Security council.
          See those flying monkeys? They work for me.

          Comment


          • &lt;&lt;we basically told everyone else to take a hike. Is it really that surprising that they're doing the same to us now?&gt;&gt;

            No, it's not surprising, but that's the thing. They, as they hate us for doing, they, too, are putting their will ahead of any other consideration. The point is these people are hungry, and France would truly rather see them starve than help to feed them because we are not doing what France wants. My point is we are being hated and criticized for the very same things they're doing. So if we're so bad and France is so good, why doesn't France want to give humanitarian help? They're not punishing us, they're punishing the starving people in Iraq.

            Comment


            • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mbp:
              Plus right now we are definitely implying (e.g. leaked release that Halliburton "has the contract") that only US companies are going to get the reconstruction package and $$
              <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

              That's not quite right, because there's a big fuss now because French companies have the contract for the cellular phone industry afterwards and a CA congressman is irate that QualComm didn't get it. Of course QualComm is in his district.

              Now, I would like to start or join a movement to insist to Bush & Cheney that Halliburton take NO PART in the rebuilding of Iraq. I think it is very important to let those two know how angry this Halliburton contract is making people who hate Bush AND people who support Bush.

              Comment


              • &lt;&lt;Does this mean that we should be soley responsible for the rebuilding and post war administration of Iraq? I predict that is when the goves will really come off in the Security council.&gt;&gt;

                France made a statement yesterday that only the UN take control afterwards but that the US have NO SAY in anything at all, or else France won't play.

                You know, who the heck funds the UN, anyway? The USA.

                BTW, did you know that besides the US, the UN is funded by Iraq's oil-for-food program? The UN gets as administrative fees 2-something % of Iraq's oil revenues. If the food-for-oil program ends after the war, and Iraq just sells its stuff, no more cash cow for the UN.

                Comment


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

                  Does this mean that we should be soley responsible for the rebuilding and post war administration of Iraq? I predict that is when the goves will really come off in the Security council.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                  My point was only that I can certainly see why other countries are reacting that way.

                  Anne FS, I do see your point. But this is exactly why I think it was wrong of us to forge ahead with this war without more international support... because we set the tone, and now other countries are following our lead.

                  Comment


                  • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JER:
                    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>JER...again, I've missed a few pages so if I'm missing the mark, I apologize. Are you saying that IF the unthinkable ever happened and your town was invaded, you would not want the military to protect you and your loved ones using deadly force if necessary? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                    BLily, unless the San Fernando Valley secession movement spins wildly out of control, Los Angeles is not under threat of invasion. Your scenario isn't going to happen but even in the hypothetical, I don't 'want' the use of 'deadly force'.

                    OK...question answered. I realize my question was for the most part hypothetical. Was just curious on where you stood.

                    And there's always the chance that the invading force will be a 'liberating' force and I'd be looking forward to a new LA, hopefully with good public transportation and better schools.

                    I'd be looking forward to a new LA, also

                    Re: the marketplace bombing. Does it matter whose missile it was? It's equally tragic either way. It's still civilians caught in an ugly war, and those civilians would not be dead or injured if the US hadn't invaded their country.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                    Which civilians? The ones Saddam cares about? Oh yeah, I'm sure they'd be in good shape if we'd just leave them alone.

                    "The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look at it without doing anything." Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • you will see that i didn't claim that other countries were acting from nobler motives.

                      What concerns me is that America (not necessarily Americans as individuals) likes to paint itself as occupying a higher moral plane. In my opinion, that is dangerous.

                      Comment


                      • ridin' fool wrote:
                        "Spryngtree: Darryl Worley's song makes you want to spit? That's an awful thing to say. I guess you don't know why and under which circumstances he wrote it then.
                        Keep in mind that directly after 9-11, the President promised the families who lost loved ones that he would find the evil-doers and wage a war on terror. No, Hussein is not directly involved in 9-11, but he certainly is in evoking terror!"

                        Well I agree its a crude thing to say, but awful? Not as awful as that song. I don't know why and under what personal circumstances Mr. Worely wrote that song. I would offer my condolences to him if he indeed lost someone he cared about. I don't think that justifies the words of the song or the use of a tragedy to encourage revenge. Regardless of my stance on this countries action in Iraq or Afghanistan I do not agree that appealing to base emotions is an appropriate way to gain support for such an action. I do remember that after 9/11 punishment of the "evil-doers" was promised to families that lost loved ones. Some of those families and friends were pleased to be offered some way to get back at those who caused their losses, others prayed that the tragic losses they endured would not have to be endured by other innocents in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Whatever their emotions about this, I think they belong to the people who experienced them and not to song writers who are pushing an agenda. The people I knew who are gone would have ranged all over the board in terms of how they would want their deaths remembered. I find it obscene that anyone would use these losses as an excercise in emotional manipulation.

                        PS thank you for your support Erin, I don't know if my being from NYC gives me any more knowledge of the situation than anyone else, though I'm sure it has influenced my perspective. BTW I'm a she:-)

                        Comment


                        • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by spryngtree:
                          ridin' fool wrote:
                          "Spryngtree: Darryl Worley's song makes you want to spit? That's an awful thing to say. I guess you don't know why and under which circumstances he wrote it then.
                          Keep in mind that directly after 9-11, the President promised the families who lost loved ones that he would find the evil-doers and wage a war on terror. No, Hussein is not directly involved in 9-11, but he certainly is in evoking terror!"

                          Well I agree its a crude thing to say, but awful? Not as awful as that song. I don't know why and under what personal circumstances Mr. Worely wrote that song. I would offer my condolences to him if he indeed lost someone he cared about. I don't think that justifies the words of the song or the use of a tragedy to encourage revenge. Regardless of my stance on this countries action in Iraq or Afghanistan I do not agree that appealing to base emotions is an appropriate way to gain support for such an action. I do remember that after 9/11 punishment of the "evil-doers" was promised to families that lost loved ones. Some of those families and friends were pleased to be offered some way to get back at those who caused their losses, others prayed that the tragic losses they endured would not have to be endured by other innocents in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Whatever their emotions about this, I think they belong to the people who experienced them and not to song writers who are pushing an agenda. The people I knew who are gone would have ranged all over the board in terms of how they would want their deaths remembered. I find it obscene that anyone would use these losses as an excercise in emotional manipulation.

                          PS thank you for your support Erin, I don't know if my being from NYC gives me any more knowledge of the situation than anyone else, though I'm sure it has influenced my perspective. BTW I'm a she:-)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          ACTUALLY.. I gave this a lot of thought as I was driving along this morning, listening to that song in my car.

                          His writing and singing that song is all a big part of his First Ammendment- Freedom of Speech, which people seem to be getting their panties all in a twist lately in light of all the protests. He has as much right to sing that song and to FEEL (which, I might add, you could more then likely find a good deal of people who feel similiarly) the things that he is singing. Just as the protester has a right to get up and protest whatever they like, Daryl Worley has a right to sing that song whenever he chooses. Just as the Dixie Chicks and MM have a right to lambast the president.
                          EVERYONE was effected by 9/11. THIS was how Daryl was effected. In his form of artistry, he has gotten it out there to the people.

                          Emotional Manipulation? No more then anything else in our world. No more then the protesters trying to get people to see their view.. no more then the pro-war protesters wanting people to see THEIR views. I understand how you personally can feel that it is emotional manipulation. I accept and respect that- it is your right. But I also feel that it is Daryl's right to write and sing what he wants, as that is HIS right. Whether you or the masses listen and agree with it.. well.. That's like finding a post on this bb that you don't like.. If you don't like it, don't listen/read/ect.

                          I just want you to know that I am not personally attacking you. I have grown up being taught to respect EVERYONE'S right to their freedoms (from those I agree with to those that I most definately don't..) and when it is brought up that One person is singled out and shouldn't be allowed that, I feel I must step in and give my opinion.

                          I'd also like to add that in the months following 9/11, anything that appealed to the base emotions was thought on as 'okay', I don't know how it's not right now. When *I* first heard that song, my first thought was, "You know.... Had we forgotten?? Had *I* forgotten??".. So for me, it didn't make me want to run gungho off into war. But it did make me think about our countrymen that we lost and to make praying for them a much more concious daily thing for me... Because we can never allow them to be forgotten, no matter what it takes to keep them remembered.

                          (Hope this came out in a slightly eloquent manner and not as rambling as I'm thinking it did!)

                          Be Blessed,

                          ________
                          Sarah

                          "Half the failures in life arise from pulling in one's horse as he is leaping."~ Julius Hare
                          ________
                          Sarah
                          formerly known as Alohamora
                          \"Half the failures in life arise from pulling in one\'s horse as he is leaping.\"~ Julius Hare

                          Comment


                          • Well said, Sarah

                            ~AJ~
                            I've been there...that's why I'm here.
                            “A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it.”
                            ? Albert Einstein

                            ~AJ~

                            Comment


                            • lilblackhorse - I said it's your GOVERNMENT-given right to dissent, not GOD-given.

                              "I can justify anything!"
                              \"Riding a horse is not a gentle hobby, to be picked up and laid down like a game of solitaire. It is a grand passion. It seizes a person whole and, once it has done so, he will have to accept that his life will be radically changed.\" -- Ralph Waldo E

                              Comment


                              • Rayers I will not back off but I bet if you asked Poland(who is over in Iraq with us)and France if they are happy that they did not all have to learn to speak German the answer would be a resounding YES THANK YOU. Colin Powell was asked while in England at a large conference if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush. He answered by saying that "Over the yrs,the US has sent many of its fine men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amt of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return" I suggest with your views that you find another place to live cause if all thought like you we would not be free to voice our opinions.
                                POG MO THON other nations may swear,but the Irish really mean it.

                                Comment


                                • Alohamora wrote:
                                  "His writing and singing that song is all a big part of his First Ammendment- Freedom of Speech, which people seem to be getting their panties all in a twist lately in light of all the protests. He has as much right to sing that song and to FEEL (which, I might add, you could more then likely find a good deal of people who feel similiarly) the things that he is singing. "

                                  Sure he has a right to, I'm not disputing that. Doesn't mean I don't find it to be a morally bankrupt thing to do, and it doesn't mean I can't hold the opinion that it is objectively wrong to do so.


                                  "EVERYONE was effected by 9/11. THIS was how Daryl was effected. In his form of artistry, he has gotten it out there to the people."

                                  Some were affected more than others. I'm not willing to be the judge of who was affected the most. However I do think that there is a way of speaking about the event as a generality...something that happened to the country, and a way of speaking about it that makes the assumption that you are actually speaking FOR the dead. I feel Worley's song crossed that line. You might disagree.


                                  "Emotional Manipulation? No more then anything else in our world. No more then the protesters trying to get people to see their view.. no more then the pro-war protesters wanting people to see THEIR views."

                                  I disagree with this. I do believe that some people from every group will attempt to use manipulative techniques to get their point across, such actions tend to be effective. I disagree that everything said is emotional manipulation on either side. Sometimes people are just stating the facts to the best of their ability or clearly and explicitly presenting an opinion.

                                  "I understand how you personally can feel that it is emotional manipulation. I accept and respect that- it is your right. But I also feel that it is Daryl's right to write and sing what he wants, as that is HIS right. Whether you or the masses listen and agree with it.. well.. Smile That's like finding a post on this bb that you don't like.. If you don't like it, don't listen/read/ect."

                                  No. I do not think I am obstructing Daryl Worely's right to sing or write or say whatever he wants to. But I don't think smiling and ignoring it is right if I think what he has said or done is reprehensible.

                                  "I just want you to know that I am not personally attacking you. I have grown up being taught to respect EVERYONE'S right to their freedoms (from those I agree with to those that I most definately don't..) and when it is brought up that One person is singled out and shouldn't be allowed that, I feel I must step in and give my opinion."

                                  I don't feel that you are personally attacking me, but thank you for saying it anyway. I am not personally attacking you either. I also respect everyone's right to his or her freedoms. I never ever said Worely shouldn't be allowed that right. Only that him excercising it made me want to expectorate. I think he was wrong. Morally wrong. I felt I needed to stand up and say that in memory of a person I know would have hated being implicitly included in that song's chorus.

                                  "I'd also like to add that in the months following 9/11, anything that appealed to the base emotions was thought on as 'okay', I don't know how it's not right now."

                                  I don't think it was ok then. It isn't any more or less ok now. I hated it from the moment it started, at about noon that day.

                                  "When *I* first heard that song, my first thought was, "You know.... Had we forgotten?? Had *I* forgotten??".. So for me, it didn't make me want to run gungho off into war. But it did make me think about our countrymen that we lost and to make praying for them a much more concious daily thing for me... Because we can never allow them to be forgotten, no matter what it takes to keep them remembered."

                                  I'm glad that it did serve that purpose for you. I still believe that its intent was to incite and inflame, but I can understand that others might hold a different position. We could argue it on literary terms but it seems sort of like a wierd place to do that and I honestly don't have much heart for it. That song makes my heart hurt along with increasing my saliva production (how's that for emotional manipulation), I think the intent of the words of the song were to use an awful event to incite others, and I disagree with the original poster that we all need to listen to it so that we can better understand why we are fighting in Iraq. That's all.

                                  Comment


                                  • Oh, Josie, please stop using that old tirade. I participated in the 1st Gulf War working for the Air Force (if they used the weapons systems we developed, NOBODY on Earth would be alive today). It was also then I saw the inside of what our government does. While Colin Powell's statement may be wonderful a altruistic, do you REALLY think conflicts such as Viet Nam, Grenada, or Panama were really about defending American freedom?! Come on, none were a threat at any time and the only reason we invaded Panama was to get Noriega on DRUG charges!

                                    Many folks with your attitude seem to selectively forget much of American history and always seem to fall back on the "Remember WWII!" call. We did not enter WWII until attacked at Pearl Harbor, 2 YEARS after hostilities broke out in Europe.

                                    I don't care who is in power or what they are doing, our PUBLICALLY ELECTED officials MUST be held accountable for their decisions. Our government right now is very much a hypocrite. Why do we go after a government that, while it may have WMDs, it has no delivery system? In the meantime, North Korea has OVERTLY started up their nuclear program and even launched a test missile capable of reaching the US with a nuclear payload into the Sea of Japan. Why is it that our government is LIMITING the freedoms of its own populace (under the guise of the Patriot Act II) by tracking where we travel to, what we read, what we LEARN!? (It was recently announced a concern about the fact that in our engineering curriculums that we teach sufficient knowledge that allows anyone with an engineering background to bring down a building. Of course we teach that, the laws of physics don’t change if you designing an airplane, hip implant or building!) Smell the paranoia. This "America, love it or leave it" attitude is tiresome, and suggests a level of ignorance about our history and our place in the world's society. I suggest you read up on the 50’s and McCarthyism.

                                    Our government’s charge that they are protecting us from terrorism is rendered moot simply by examining Israel. Here is a country with the world’s best military and intelligence gathering, with protected borders and strident controls over their population, but still a bomb kills, almost every week, innocent civilians. It is a testament to the fact that a more hawkish (Sharon) government does NOT ensure our safety.


                                    Reed

                                    Comment


                                    • bravo Reed...and my apologies Duffy-I would run with my rights to dissent whereever they came from, and religion isn't high on my priorty list anyway....guess the same can be said for my government!

                                      Elippses Users Clique........
                                      Co-Founder Occularly Challenged Equine Support Group
                                      Ellipses users clique ...
                                      TGFPT,HYOOTGP

                                      Comment


                                      • RAyers says
                                        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Many folks with your attitude seem to selectively forget much of American history and always seem to fall back on the "Remember WWII!" call. We did not enter WWII until attacked at Pearl Harbor, 2 YEARS after hostilities broke out in Europe.

                                        <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                        True, we didn't actively enter WWII until we were attacked, but I am forced to wonder if our retisence to enter the war didn't contribute to the ability of of Hilter and the Japanese to perpetrate genocide in their respective theaters. We are comfortable with our geographic and economic buffers and independence. And this is what concerns me about Iraq.

                                        There seems to be a traditional attitude in US foreign policy to let bad guys do bad things. It seems to me like the NIMBY (not in my back yard) syndrome. As long as it isn't happening to me (or my kind) here, we should just let them work it out. This is frequently accompanied by the phrase "They don't have the same values we do" or "They don't value life like we do". They aren't white, they aren't Christians, they aren't "ready" for democracy, they aren't like us. I am not buying it. This reminds me of the attitudes on inner city gang warfare or black on black crime viewed from from the perspective of suburbia. There is absolute right and wrong in the world. To the extent that we can prevent wrong, I feel we should. Just because we haven't done so in the past or have tried and blown it, doesn't mean squat to me. We have an obligation not to look away.

                                        FWIW, I think that Ashcroft and most of the concepts of "Homeland Security" are scary. It appalls me how easily we are trading our civil liberties for the perception of safety. But that is another thread.
                                        See those flying monkeys? They work for me.

                                        Comment


                                        • Reed, you're one eleoquent SOB. In all of history IF there is a justified war it would be WWII. And because of that case we try to make every war one of Life, Liberty and the Persuit of happiness. Every army is the SS and every depot Hitler.

                                          "The fool on the hill"
                                          \"The fool on the hill\"

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X