LL:Rubbish. There are Saddam supporters here at home and elsewhere. Those who don't believe military action is called for, or other "serious consequences", and who want to use a schedule of Saddam's choosing for his compliance, if ever, with UN resolutions, and who want the lifting of sanctions associated with the cease fire, are for all intents and purposes, enablers and supporters of Saddam.If you ask them if they support Saddam, I suppose they'd say no. But the things they do support trump that disingenuous answer.You're trying the "we support the troops but we don't support the war" approach. If folks don't support them being there, or why they are there, or what they are doing there, than in just what way do they support them? And what will be the welcome these so called "supporters" give when the troops return home to our soil? And what will be their treatment of those troops who did not serve over there but whom they encounter here and there around town?
If those of us who do not support the war with Iraq are supporters of Hussein, then all those who do not support a war against any other dictatorial regimes must be supporters of those dictators. This war is for freedom of the Iraqi people? Why didn't the U.S. enter a war against China when the people rebelled and were mowed down in Tienenemin Square? What country has a worse record on human rights issues, let alone women's issues, than China? We are attacking Iraq because Hussein may have biological weapons? China has nuclear weapons. But no one speaks of war with China. Why is that?
You pose a good question, and your assertion may be right.I choose at this point to focus on a question that has been called.....that is our current situation with Iraq. And we have directly chosen a course, calling for different social graces than those where the question has not yet reached the floor.That said, do you take issue with this assertion? If so, fine, but why not disagree while staying on point - Iraq. Your other points are fine, but they drift from the specific argument presented.[b] Those who don't believe military action is called for, or other "serious consequences", and who want to use a schedule of Saddam's choosing for his compliance, if ever, with UN resolutions, and who want the lifting of sanctions associated with the cease fire, are for all intents and purposes, enablers and supporters of Saddam. [/b]One last thing....I'm no historian, but you must admit that 12 years of failed "diplomatic effort" and a basketfull of UN resolutions being ignored is a far different run-up than China has seen.PS: I concede that there is ample room for semantic confusion in this debate, as happens often on AMG.One might say that he hates Saddam and everything he stands for, but is against the war. And thus, in that person's mind, he is not a Saddam supporter. I on the other hand, am talking in terms of the current situation, not political and philosophical generalities. If, in the debate over how to deal with Iraq, one chooses Saddam's position, I call that supporting Saddam, regardless of what you think of his policies. The latter is irrelevant to the matter at hand. If one chose the pre-war status quo....more inspections (no indication of how many), more time (no indication of how much), and overall acceptance of his non-compliance (no consequences for same), then one has sided with Saddam and told him to keep doing what he's doing and been doing. That person would be against the "or else" part of the game.[ 03-31-2003: Message edited by: Melvin Udall ][ 03-31-2003: Message edited by: Melvin Udall ]
Problem is there are those who have openly said they hope we get an ass kickin....My feeling on those folks is somebody get a rope and find a good tree.To those who really oppose war, any war, have my soul support for their Freedom of Speech. Those who are just Bush Haters,their asses still burning cause Gore is not the President,committing criminal acts under the guise of war protester,It`s time to get over it.Karen Brown,You deal with the closest threat first.That`s why Iraq and not China...but you knew that.
I thought the answer was that this war is not really about the Iraqi people, but OIL.
Nooo "No Blood for Oil" is the sign/slogan from the Bush- Hatein Bunch.....LL has the bumper sticker on his fridge....
How many times do I have to remind you people about the Sedition Act, which is now LEGALLY BINDING.
16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff. A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both
Tony O:Not as many times as you have. Now hear this: CONGRESS SUCKS!!! Now, try and get me prosecuted under the Sedition Act. After all, it's "legally binding". If you need the number for the US Marshalls, I'll get it for you.
quote:Originally posted by charlien:
[b]James,The agreement that ended the last war was between Iraq and the UN, not the US of A, therefore enforcement is the domain of the UN, not the US of A"![/b]
And exactly how many divisions are the UN putting on the ground and how many dollars are they putting up? The answer is the same in both cases..none. :D
TJC,I was responding to a post made by snowalker suggesting that since I am a "dissenter" (not demonstrator) regarding the war in Iraq, I was somehow a coward.Your reasoning which brings you to conclude I advocate only attacking those whom we think we will lose to is sophistry at it's worst, besides being ridiculous.I advocate attacking no one without far better justification than has been presented by Bush to attqack Iraq. Who is the next 'Regime' we need to change?charlie
I'd say Bush, it's coming up, be here before you know it. Unfortunately many will die in Iraq and elsewhere, before the next stupidity begins.
Have the dissenters yet posted how they would have gone about things, starting from the approval of resolution 1441? I'd love to hear their alternate solutions to the lack of Iraqui compliance and the lack of will and inability of the UN to do anything about it.
Terry:It goes to show the legitimacy of anything you have to say when you get simple things so wrong.I do not love the war but I do not oppose it.Chris.
And you can perfectly well support (read: wish them safety) the troops while having grave misgings about the war.To those that argue otherwise.. When Clinton sent our boys to Haiti - which you righters opposed with every ounce of your I Hate Clinton beings - were you all guilty of sedition, and of supporting an evil dictator?Answer me that one.chris.
[url=http://www.thememoryhole.org/unacceptable-target.htm]http://www.thememor...another link for you tough mf
Charlien:Just because you regret what you said is no reason to take it out on me. You said what you said. The "ridiculous" part comes with the fact that you did not follow the old adage "brain before mouth".
As I have read the various posts on this thread, it has become evident to me that the critical difference between those who support this war (roughly 80% of the population), and those who don't, is whether this is a defensive response to the attacks on 9/11. The majority of Americans have determined that our future security depends on our ability to preemptively eliminate potential threats. They see Iraq as a potential threat. They are unwilling to wait for the next 9/11. There is a new era of warfare. The old rules do not apply. The idea that we need to be attacked before we respond does not apply at this time.I am with the majority of Americans. I believe that we will never be secure unless we not only eliminate the terrorists, but also the nations that support them. I frankly don't care what the rest of the world thinks about us. We will have plenty of time to kiss and make up later. It is the security of this country that concerns me. More later. Got to go to work. Al
Charlien, Your "simple-minded" caricature has generated some very interesting discussions! :)
Karen, do you read Doonesbury? My brother sent me the following, check it out![img]http://www.brutal-truth.com/comic[/img]charlie
Charlien, I generally don't care for Doonesbury and I don't like this one. It is a nationally syndicated cartoon meant to make our men and women serving in Iraq look stupid. While, I am not convinced we should be there, I am convinced we should not be making fun of those serving.
Gawd Almighty the skins of Americans become thinner and thinner..Are you serious Karen? Are you really serious that light humor is not allowed??? I remember being in the military and everyone would read, in reader's digest, the american miliary humor section... we loved it...Heck, Dr. Seuss was the key cartoonist in the world wars..But no, in this day of insanley obsessive Political Correctness (read: anything that could ever be interpreted as non supportive of Bush or war) even humor is disallowed.Chris.
I agree with wingman here, Karen. I did my time in the military and the political discussions were not always supportive of the leadership.I'll say too, I have great respect for those serving today as I did for those returning from Viet Nam 30 years ago. As professionals they know their job is, to paraphrase the poem Gunga Din, "not to reason why, but to do or die."charlie
Wingman, your take on the cartoon probably is more perceptive than mine.
LL-Yes, I am serious. I do not care for Doonesbury and I particularly don't care for this one. Guess we all have our own take on what constitutes "light humor". I have been called many things, but politically correct has never been one of them. I have also enjoyed the military humor section of the Reader's Digest through the years.
Charlien, being a woman I was never called to serve in the military. I am sure those who have served have a different perspective and probably a much more valid one. It is probably a good thing I was never in the military because I would have a real problem with being asked to do or die without ever questioning why.
With all that said, I still don't care for the cartoon!
Karen: I agree with you...I don't much care for Doonesbury either. The last thing I think of when I see it is "humor." Especially of the Humor in Uniform type referred to earlier.It is instead a snotty ultra-liberal commmentary in cartoon form. Any element of humor that sneaks in is serendipitous. Have at it, but don't call it "comics." There's a reason most editorial cartoons end up on editorial pages, and that's where Doonesbury belongs.I don't imagine Daschleberry would be picked up by many newspapers, or I'd consider creating it. Or Socialism, the comic strip.
LL ...you are getting hysterical again,You made me go back and read all this BS so I could figure out what you were talking about.I reread my post...(You should to.) Let me quote you in your conversation to Ms.Brown,"Gwad Almighty the skins of Americans are getting thinner and thinner.." You really gotta twist stuff just to throw a jab at me don`t cha?...
"disallowed?" Where did you get that, LL (must be for loose lips)."disliked" maybe. What happened to free speech?
Still waiting for those alternative strategies to our current course, which even get the advantage of hindsight to make them look better.Perhaps we should set a deadline by which you would comply with this request. I'll see if I can get the AMG frivolity council to reach unanimous agreement on a date. If they don't, maybe I'll just set one myself.
Al, How many nations can be eliminated as potential threats to the U.S. before the U.S. is seen as a potential threat that needs to be eliminated? Cairo is already saying the Arab nations should band together if the U.S. continues to threaten Syria. Is the potential there for the whole Middle East to erupt if the U.S. invades any country other than Iraq?
Karen,I guess you missed it. There is a religion called Islam. The central core is "Death to Infidels". It is the foundation of their faith. Maybe you have seen that quote somewhere. You seem concerned that the US could be seen as a threat. We have been a threat to them since before our war against the Tripoli pirates. They have been chanting "Death to America" for about 200 years now. If you find that hard to believe, try to remember back to September 11, 2001. That was their second attempt to topple the WTC.The Middle East erupted 700 years ago and invaded Europe. Price Lazar of Serbia and 70,000 Christian knights met the Muslim hoardes on the Plain of Kosovo. They saved Europe with their lives. Their graves are on Acampo Santo or the Holy Field of Kosovo. The Muslim hoardes could not take it in 1370, but Clinton took it and gave it to today's Muslim hoardes, the Albanian drug runners.
quote:Originally posted by Lewiston Liberal:
To those that argue otherwise.. When Clinton sent our boys to Haiti - which you righters opposed with every ounce of your I Hate Clinton beings - were you all guilty of sedition, and of supporting an evil dictator?Answer me that one.chris.[/b]
The difference LL was in what we were trying to do, remove one murderous dictator and replace him with another murderous dictator. I will admit ot success. ;)
No, I haven't missed the point that Islam hates the Christians and the U.S. or the WTC was the second attempt. I also didn't miss a report on the CBS Evening News in which Bin Laden declared a jihad on the U.S. about 6 months before 9/11. But if you answered my question to Al, I did miss that point. My question is, if the U.S. invades other nations because they are perceived to be potential threats, will other countries eventually find us a threat and band together to counter that threat? Could we potentially be fighting the entire Middle East in the future instead of one small country? I was specifically thinking of Middle Eastern countries when I originally asked the question, but might not European and Asian nations begin to wonder if they could be the next perceived potential threat and wonder if a pre-emptive strike should be taken against the U.S.?