I do like Campaign Hats, Mirrored RayBans, and spiffy duds, though ... they do so much to lend weight to The Scowl. I do hope The Scowl is enough ... I'd much rather not unholster The Weapon, but it is comforting to know the security strap has been unsnapped and The Hand is on The Butt of The Pistol.
timber
I hope, as do you, that The Scowl will be sufficient . . . i wish i were convinced that Bush and Company were The Good Cop--but i'm not.
"Goin' kinda fast there, boy, weren't ya? Say . . . you ain't from around here, are ya . . ."
Hello, everyone,
Back from the peace rally and I just caught a reply to my post which simply asked whether any Able2Knowers would be joining us. I gotta tell ya, even on that naughty old Abuzz, I dont' recall being labeled a supporter of Saddam's regime. I'm sorry if I am misinterpreting something here. I would go back and recheck but I haven't quite figured out how to do that with any degree of efficiency. Thanks.
Joan
These arguments aren't from George Orwell...they're straight outta Dr. Strangelove.
Let's first re-establish that from the beginning--in the days following 9/11/01, Bush, Rumsfeld, and the rest strove to rope Saddam in for purposes of taking him out. "Sweep it all up," I believe were the words. The administration's intention to tie Iraq to the terrorist attacks on this nation--despite there being no such evidence--is verified. (If you don't believe it then you haven't been paying attention. And I'm not going to do your research for you, either. Go Google on your own.)
Secondly, Saddam has no more choice in this matter than you or I do. timber, you and Lash look pretty sitting in that tree parroting the administration's selling points; "For the sake of peace, he must disarm," etc., *retch*
We've all been this down this road before: a President named Bush, Saddam, the military, the media, ALL of us. You wouldn't have had to watch anything more challenging than HBO's "Live From Baghdad" to be reminded that the scenarios, the threats, the defiance, and the (pending) end result are all repeating themselves.
Saddam is too stupid to quit, give in, roll over, abdicate, or otherwise avoid the inevitable invasion.
So let's go ahead and get it over with. Let's stop beating around the bush and bust him, for Christ's sake, before the tide of public opinion turns and all the reasons for doing it start souring. Let's stop pretending that it's not going to happen, and most especially, you should stop pretending that you don't want it to happen. This "I'm gonna give you a whippin' for your own good" didn't wash when we were all three years old, and it certainly doesn't now. You're not conning anyone but your own conscience with that anymore.
And Ms. Goth: STOP TELLING THE AMERICANS WHO DON'T WANT THIS WAR HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THAT CONCLUSION. IT'S ARROGANT PRESUMPTUOUSNESS, AT BEST.
From what I've observed it is challenge enough for you to arrive at your own, much less someone else's.
Quote:The US wants a Palestinian state.
Israel supports a Palestinian state.
Palestinians want the Jews to disappear from the face of the earth.
Lash
Those are possibly the three least thoughtful generalities packed together that I've read in a long while.
Don't let it bug ya, JoanLee. Lots of folks engage their keyboard before their brains have fully spun up.
timber
PDiddie wrote:Saddam has no more choice in this matter than you or I do.
...
PDiddie wrote:Saddam is too stupid to quit, give in, roll over, abdicate, or otherwise avoid the inevitable invasion.
Well which is it, does he have no choice or is he too stupid to choose to "quit, give in, roll over, abdicate, or otherwise avoid the inevitable invasion"?
Seems to me those are just a few of the
choices available to him.
Lash, Not all Palestinians wants the Jews to disappear - as not all Jews believe what the Zionists are doing to the Palestinians. Only people like you keep up that rhetoric - but it doesn't sell. c.i.
PDiddie, I don't know your personal background, so I make no assumption in that regard. I do however take umbrage at what you imply is my "Lust for blood". I detest war, I've seen war, I've hunkered down amid explosions, smoke, shrapnel, and flying body parts. I've tended the wounds of freinds, freinds have tended my wounds, and I've had freinds die in my arms, a look of uncomprehending shock and disbelief on their bloody faces. I have killed men and men have tried to kill me. I have some pretty rough nights once in a while ... I limp and I would set off an airport metal detector if I were stark naked. I wish that on no one, particularly the son I have, who is aboard a ship enroute to the area as I type. Please don't presume to categorize my sensibilities and sentiments to conform to your personal view. That isn't nice.
timber
timberlandko wrote:Please don't presume to categorize my sensibilities and sentiments to conform to your personal view. That isn't nice.
But it
is the most worn tool in the liberal toolbox.
trespassers will wrote:
But it is the most worn tool in the liberal toolbox.
Liberal toolbox? You wouldn't indulge in stereotyping, would you, Boss? Let us say, rather, the toolbox of the scurrilous, whose favorite forensic tactic is
ad hominem, rather than the attacking the idea . . . political bias doesn't make one more likely to post in that manner, nor less likely . . .
Question
If Tony Blair said we cannot support the US except with the explicit sanction of the UN and this was not forthcoming, would Bush really go ahead regardless, without a single ally?
No matter the domestic support, internationally it would be US v Iraq and the rest of the world. Surely that would be a disaster for the USA.
The British are in a crucial position here are they not?
edgarblythe wrote:I am sick of arguing this topic. I will state for the record that I am 100% opposed to starting a war in Iraq and let it go at that. No amount of arguing or facts will disuade those who crave a war.
And no amount of arguing or facts will dissuade you from the notion that anyone who disagrees with you "craves" a war. One might as easily write that you "crave" the arming of Iraq with WMD or that you "crave" further support and funding for terrorism by Iraq.
Of course, neither position is supported by the statements made. It seems to me that some people turn to misrepresenting the position of others when they feel impotent to refute those positions.
trespassers will wrote:It seems to me that some people turn to misrepresenting the position of others when they feel impotent to refute those positions.
People who live in glasshouses should not throw stones!
Walter Hinteler wrote:trespassers will wrote:It seems to me that some people turn to misrepresenting the position of others when they feel impotent to refute those positions.
People who live in glasshouses should not throw stones!
Walter, feel free to show me anywhere in any discussion where I have misrepresented the position of another person.
Take your time... I'll wait.
And Ms. Goth: STOP TELLING THE AMERICANS WHO DON'T WANT THIS WAR HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THAT CONCLUSION. IT'S ARROGANT PRESUMPTUOUSNESS, AT BEST.
Your swipe missed.
If you read what I said, you will note I said MANY, not all. I am aware there are also MANY dissenters, who do arrived at their opinion in the same way I do--so as a matter of their conscience, after examining the facts.
If only you and they would give dissenters of your opinions the same credit.
Why so tense at my opinions? I happily allow you to express yours without trying to censor you.
Who is trying to censor you?
blatham--
Per my three startling generalities:
The first two are a matter of public records of negotiation agreements by the US and Israel.
The Palestinian generality is my opinion based on their rejection of the US and Israel agreeing there should be a Palestinian state.
I know this subject is complex, but it is my opinion, nevertheless.
And Ms. Goth: STOP TELLING THE AMERICANS WHO DON'T WANT THIS WAR HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THAT CONCLUSION. IT'S ARROGANT PRESUMPTUOUSNESS, AT BEST.
Craven--
When someone misstates what you have said, makes an accusation out of it, and then tells you to "stop telling" what you have said, it is an attempt at censorship to me.
I've never told anyone to "stop saying" something. Nor should anyone on a discussion board, IMO.