Support the Troops

[Anonymous]

In answer to Mr RRnut282, our government is not superior and never will be as long as we have this stupid electorial college system kept in place. Our system means that the large states like, California, New York, Illinois are the ones who decide who will be in the White House and that people in the likes of Wyoming, the Dakotas need not vote because their votes don't really count. It is time we elected our President by popular vote which would mean that all citizens votes matters as it should be. Do you realize that Al Gore had the majority of all votes cast in the last Presidential election. So why is 'Dubya' in the White House. If I lived in a place like North Dakota, I wouldn't bother to go out in the cold because I know my vote wouldn't matter.

[edblysard]

Hi Michael, (rrnut)

Up to a point, I agree, bullies work and survive because of the fear and apathy factor.

I myself have spent a evening in the custody of Houston's finest because I took offense to a man slapping his wife in a Lubys cafateria, in front of my wife and children and his own kids.

End result of our discussion? was his face in his plate.

Guess he didnt like wearing his dinner, or having mashed potatoes in his ears.

I felt fully justified in taking action, but there is a big difference in putting a bully in his place, and invading a country.

Because, when you put a individuel in their place, your actions affect only that person, and those directly involved.

When you invade a country, you involve the entire world, and your actions affect everyone.

And, if we use the bully critiera as justification, then most of the middle east countries better shape up, because, by our standards, they are almost all regimes of bullies, with no regard for human rights or civil liberities.

In some places, camels have more rights than their women.

We could invade almost every South American country to boot!

You know, Cuba is only 90 miles away....

And on the cultural note, some of the worlds most beautiful art and craftsmanship, along with some very holy relics, come from what is now Iraq.

They had a written language, and higher mathmatics, while most of the people in Europe were still nomadic tribes wearing untanned fur hides and speaking in grunts.

As to our form of goverment being superior, well, from our viewpoint, yes, to us it is.
To the rest of the world?

Well, if it is so superior, why hasnt every other country adopted it?

Because, whatever system they currently have in place is one they are happy with, or used to.

Most have been in place for centuries, and effecting anything as major as a complete change of a political system to another takes tremendous popular support,
or a war.

The people of the nation we currently call Iraq have lived under military and religious dictatorships since before the time Jesus and his teaching first appeared.

They are used to it, they understand how it works, their entire life, economy and culture is based upon it.

To think we can go over there, and win their hearts and minds with Cokes and McDonalds burgers, DVD players and CDs is silly.

You cant undo that many centuries of cultural and religious heritage by force.

You can, on the other hand, breed resentment and hatred, and there is plenty of that present there already.

Keep in mind we have disrupted their entire way of life, their economy is pretty much bust, and all the upperclass feel threatened, as do the lower class, because their system, the one they knew how to live in and manulipate, is gone, and in their minds, we are trying to replace it with a form of our goverment, which they dont understand.

People resist change, even when it is in their best interest.

Any real change in Iraq will have to come from the people who live there, no outside force will ever effect real change.

And even those do who feel we set them free feel some resentment towards the way we accomplished it.

Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

Dammit, like Scotty Dog said, that really did hit the nail on the head!

Onec again Ed, you deliverd nothing less then perfect, opening a whole new light on this scinerio.

[espeefoamer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Scottydog

There is nobody who disagrees that Saddam was a very bad man, but was it up to us to get rid of him? I don't think so. The Iraqis themselves should have taken care of that. Bad as he was, he was no threat to the U.S. and the loss of over 500 young Americans, and climbing, to remove him is just not worth the price.

Yes, it was up to us. Who else would have gotten rid of Saddam? If we had waited for the French and the Germans, Saddam and his sons would still be running Iraq,and the death squads would still be in force.

[Anonymous]

So what? They were no threat to us. If we are going to take on all the bullies in the world, how about Israel. They are the biggest problem to peace in the Middle East, they absolutely refuse to recognize the Palestinians right to a state of their own. With your thinking, lets invade Israel and put things to rights. Lets not forget for hundreds of years, maps showed that region as Palestine. Israel only came into being in 1948. No Sir, as long as a country is no direct threat to us, we do not have the right to invade it.

[edblysard]

Thats my whole point, espeefoamer,
It wasnt up to us, the Germans, Canadians or the Briti***o get rid of Saddam, it was up to the people of Iraq to do so.
If they had wanted our help, and asked for it through the United Nations, that would have been different.

We can not allow ourselves the luxuery of assuming the role of morality police for the entire world.
If we decide that we somehow have the right to enforce our version of morals, of right and wrong, and our version of what is and is not "legal" then we have reduced ourselves to the same level as the very dictators and evil leaders we attack.
Thats the same mind set that allowed Hitler to sway the german people into thinking their version of a new world order justified the carnage of WWII.

You remember the "police action" in Vietnam?
Didnt work out too well, did it?

And thats the delima of being the good guys.

We have the military might to create a new world order by force, if we wanted to.

But the very laws we live by, the very foundation of our country, the Constitution, forbids us from doing so.

It allows us to raise and maintain a standing military force for the DEFENSEof the United States only.
It make no provision for that force to be used to enforce our laws anywhere other than inside the United States.

Just because we have to power to do so dosnt mean we have the right to!

America is the place where others come to, not something we can export or force on the rest of the world.

We should be leaders by example.
And if we are not willing to live by, and follow our own laws, why should we expect other to respect us?
If this war is an example of the current American policy, then we are in deep trouble.

Ask the young man, I belive his name is Oliver Trozk?
Ask him if he would like the US to invade Croatia, and set up a new, mini US goverment for them.
Bet he would chose to set up his own goverment, with a system his people are used to, designed around the customs of the people who live there.

Nothing, absolutly nothing, gives us the right to force our viewpoints or form of goverment upon any other people, regardless of how evil we think they are.
Nothing!

We can only defend ourselves from them, when they attack us.

Thats the very concept this country is founded on, the right to chose for yourself the form of goverment to live under.
Thats the bedrock of our way of life, that here, America, is where you come, when you want to live free.
You have to come here to get it, we dont box it up and ship it overseas.
Its not a export comodity, its not for sale, and you cant force it on anyone who dosnt want it in the first place.
By attacking, and then forcing our form of goverment on others, we become the very monsters we despise.
And our laws forbid us from doing that very thing.

And, lest we all forget, this is the only place where we can have this very discussion, on a open, public forum, with out worring about the KGB, or the morality police, religious police, or the military police force kicking in our doors sometime in the night.

Do you really want the US Armed Services being forced into the role of the morality police?
Dosnt that make us as "bad" as the other guys?
Do we want to become the "democratic dictators" of the 21st century?

We have placed ourselves in the horrid position of showing the rest of the world we intend to now lead by force, not by example.
Do what we demand, or we will take over your country.

Not a very comfortable suit to wear, that of the worlds policeman.

And I am still waiting for someone to justify our invading a country, waging war on a people, who havent attacked us.
Seriously.
Ed

[tree68]

Morality Police. Doesn't that just about completely describe the current administration?

[rrnut282]

Ed
I don't disagree with most of what you are saying. I applaud your actions at the cafeteria. By the way, did the lady thank you? (I may have given you more ammunition) Did you feel you should have consulted with the family first before you took action? Would talking it over with the guy have accomplished the right thing? I think at the time you would have answered no, and that is why you did what you did. The same general reasons apply to Iraq. Diplomatic attemps were rebuffed, negotiations were at a standstill, inspectors were deported, U.N. regulations were trampled upon. i.e. we talked until we were blue in the face. The only course left was to take action. It boils down to credibility. Unless you back up your words with action, your words become meaningless.
Does everyone agree WWII was justified? If not how many Jews, gypsies, mentally ill, and terminally ill persons have to make a one-way trip to the concentration camps before it becomes imperitive that we do something? The U.S. was not under direct attack when we went to Europe. We were only threatened and we had mutual defense pacts to honor. It was the right thing to do, to stop an evil regime.
One other thing. Maybe it was unintentioned, but in one of your last post sounded as if you were saying we attacked the Iraqi people. We didn't. We took great pains, often passing on targets, to avoid civilian casualties. How many of Saddam's Scuds or Hitler's V2s hit military targets? Very few, they indescriminatley targeted and killed civilians.
Again I want to emphasize credibility. While this is not a perfect analogy, it does help illustrate my point. Why do parents spank their children? Out of hate? Absolutley not. Out of Anger? It happens, but that is not the reason. It is to get their attention so that they will listen to what we say so that they will not hurt themselves or others next time. We (the western culture as a whole) have been roundly criticized for not having the fortitude to back up what be believe and say. That is what Osama and co. were counting upon. They wanted to attack us and wait for us to cower in a corner saying "please don't do that again." We didn't. We replied targeting only those responsible. Hopefully, Osama has his 72 virgins in paradise nagging him 24/7.

Michael

[cherokee woman]

Rrnut282, you said it all, and very well, i might add.

[edblysard]

Hi Michael,

No, she ended up going home to him.
Bad habits are hard to break, and some people seem to be born to be victims.

Maybe I didnt consult with them before taking action, but sitting there, with my wife and my daughters looking first at the couple, then at me, with that "so what are you going to do?" look in their eyes, I realized that, if I did nothing, then all that I had taught my daughters about how men should treat women, and people should treat people was wasted.

And looking at a woman with a nice rosey handpring glowing on the side of her face, with one child sitting there in tears of fear and embarassement, the other hiding under the next table, the choice was easy.

I knew I could, at the least, be arrested for assualt.

Lucky me, no one could find the guy, and his wife refused to press the issue.

But, and here is the big difference...

I, and I alone would suffer the consequences of my actions.

No one else's son or daughter would die, or be imprisioned because I smacked down a bully.

Your are correct, we shouldnt allow bullies to thrive.

And as individuals, responsible only to ourselves, we should take action when faced with them.

But as a nation, no.

And sorry if I made it seem we attacked the civilian population in Iraq.
Yes, ancillary deaths do happen, its the nature of the beast, but I doubt any American serviceman caused such death on purpose.

On the other hand, the *** and the Imperial Japanese Army were intent on conquering the world by force of might, killing civilans just meant less prisioners of war to feed later.

We should be intent on conquering the world with our economic might, not our military might.

Because, unless other people want or need what we have to offer, they will never accept it, especially if we cram it down their throats.

You can choke someone on freedom.

She did, after all, walk away from police who offered her a safe haven, and went right back to the person who slapped her.

I think I didnt make it quite as clear as I wanted to.

Yes, Saddam, needed to go, as do many, many other dictators world wide.

What I was trying to get across was, who gets to pick and choose what dictator goes, and which one stays?

If the dictator is useful to the US, he stays, if not, we invade?

There isnt much of a grey area here, wrong is wrong, no matter how much oil you sell to Exxon, or how much cocaine you smuggle into the US.

If you are going to redress one wrong, then you have to redress them all, equally across the board, with no exceptions.

So, if we are going to be the morality police in Iraq, freeing the oppressed, then we better get it in gear, and start removing the rest of the despots and dictators worldwide.

Are you willing to send in the Marines every time we dont like a countries politics or leaders?

To follow your anology about spanking a child, do you routinely swat you kid because he might, at a future date, do something bad?

Preemptive spanking?

Preemptive war?

Or, do you meter out punishment, based on the severity of the offense, after the child does something wrong, in the hopes that the child will remember the punishment later, when faced with the same choices or behaviour?

Whack em first has never been a very productive parenting tool, nor a productive national policy.

Didnt work for the Japanese, or the Germans, wont work for the US either.

You dont smack your kid when he walks by the cookie jar, because you dont want him stealing the cookies, or you think he might do so later, all that does is teach him dad smacks you when dad wants to, he learns no useful lesson.

But, if you told him not to take the cookies till after dinner, then find him later in the kitchen, stuffing cookies in his mouth before dinner, then you are justified in punishing him, he knew the risk, and knows the punishment is due, and he learns he should do what dad says, or get smacked.

My point is, we, as a nation, cant enforce our version of right and wrong outside of our borders, unless we enforce it everywhere, worldwide, with no exceptions.

There can be no selective enforcement, no slack given those who we feel owe us, or those we can use to our benefit, anymore than thoses we have no use for.

Its either kick all their butts, or kick none of them, until someone throws the first punch, and then we should stomp that one persons butt.

Selectively freeing oppressed people in strategic and economicaly useful countires only makes us look like the very bullies we publicly proclaim to be removing, we become just as evil and bad, just as oppresive and repressive as the dictators we topple.

We become the invading monsters, not the saviours of the world.

Who set us up as the worlds policemen, who empowered us to free the world, who handed us the sword to smite the evil?

We forged that paticular sword ourselves,and its a mighty and powerful weapon,
capable of creating peace,
but, like all swords,
more capable of creating pain.

Its a sword we should wield very, very carefully, and one we should draw only when faced with no other option.

Sorta like slapping down a bully who is terrorizing children, and just hit a woman, you better make sure you are totally justified in doing so, or be ready to pay the price and suffer the consenquences.

In this case, the price is the lives of American servicemen and women, and the consenquences are, we look more like territorital seeking bullies than the goverment we removed.

For me, the price is too high, and the consequences to much like a insult to the years my dad and my uncle spent defending this country and its ideals, for me to comfortably sit by and keep quite.

I see and understand Michael's point, and it is a very valid one.

Do you sit by and watch bad people do bad things?

No, I didnt.

But if you are going to take action, make sure that whatever action you take solves the problem, instead of adding to it.

And you better make sure the people you are saving, want to be saved in the first place.

If they dont, you have lost already, before you ever set foot in their country.

And all the deaths and sacrifices are in vain, because in the end, nothing really changes, except the name of the dictator.

I suggest we all go look in the mirror, and see how we look in the new world order policemans hat we have put on.

I got a really bad feeling we wont like the fit in a few years.

Ed

[tree68]

Ed - you're doing all right here. I'll have to add "Ed for President" to my signature, too...

It is often said that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

The comments about changing a culture that have been made so far bring to mind a culture change that began in this country over 140 years ago, and in some areas may not be complete yet - the abolition of slavery. I need not delve into details, lest I ignite a firestorm. Suffice to say that you can probably still find folks around that feel that many ethnic groups have "forgotten their place." (Bear in mind that I'm not defending them.)

If we're still dealing with a 140 year old issue, what makes us think we're going to change an entire society in the foreseeable future? As has been said already (but I'll add my 2 cents), we need to make people see that our way is a good way by showing them that our way is a good way, not by beating it into them.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It just annoys the pig and you get all dirty in the process.

[rrnut282]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68


Never try to teach a pig to sing. It just annoys the pig and you get all dirty in the process.

Ed
I think we're not that far apart. I agree the world's policeman is a job we will tire of quickly. I am just saying we should weigh each situation on its own merits and act accordingly. I happen to think this time it was right. If there is a next time, who knows? I think it helps the morale of our soldiers to know the majority of the folks back home support them and their leaders and think that their cause for going is just.

Tell you what, you build the fire, and I'll barbeque the pig and we can get back to talking about trains

Michael

[Anonymous]

Mr RRnut282, You forgot that Nazi Germany declared war on us right after Pearl Harbor and that is how we wound up fighting in Europe. When did Sadaam declare war on us? Sure he was terrible to his own people but I still say it was up to them to rectify the situation and not with the lives of Americans.

[edblysard]

Michale,
This is the delima we have found ourselves facing since the end of WWI.
When do we excersise the military might we created?

You say weigh each situtation on its own merits, and I say we should have a baseline for all, that baseline being the actual attack of the United States, or at least a formal declaration of war on us.
I have yet to see either.
Yes, I support the troops, my dad served many, many years before them.

I would bet they come home a much changed group of young men and women, if for nothing else that having been exposed to the total poverty and the horror a dictatorship creates.
I have nothing but pride in their service.
But I would bet quite a few of them still wonder why they were there, and what this really was all about.

Would like to look at this from a different tack, and would welcome someone explaining the merits of this to me, cause I still dont see the reason, other than saving a few cents at the pump.

Larrys right though, you cant teach a pig to sing, anymore that you can teach them to fly.
They make good barbeque, though...
Ed

[vsmith]

Just a quick reality check,

I ve avoided this topic like the plague because of my strong feelings about the illegality of this war. Having Saddam out of power may look good now but unless everyones been sleeping, the military is loosing control of Afganistan, Iraq is in danger of becoming an Iranian suburb, and our troops are now spread so thin that the reserves are threatening mutiny because of the hardships created by the neverending war.

We have NO exit strategy,

we are there for 5-10 years and the staggering $$ costs are going to do to America what Afganistan did to the Soviet Union.

History? whats that?. Afganistan is called "where empires come to die" for good reason.

A few things to keep in mind about all this...

last time I looked it wasnt a single Iraqi on the 4 hijacked airliners,

It wasnt an Iraqi that tried to set off a bomb in his shoes.

it wasnt an Iraqi that tried to smuggle explosives into the US to attack LA International.

It wasnt an Iraqi that set off a truckbomb in the WTC in '93.

Last time I checked the UN was already hinting prior to the war the Saddam most likely did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Last time I looked, it wasnt Saddam who was responsible for the deaths at the WTC.

SO I'll say it again to all the Hawks defending the war in Iraq...

...to all those who are Hell Bent on making the rest of us believe that Saddam was the US greatest enemy #1...

...to all the chickenhawks in our government who never had to fight for their lives in battle but are more than willing to send other peoples sons and daughters to fight for special interest groups like Haliburton...

..to those sending all our troops and resources to Iraq...

...to those telling the reservist they cant go home...

WHERE THE F#K IS OSAMA !!! .......remember him???

Support the troops, but they should be looking for someone else...

If the world is safer wothout Saddam, why are airline flights being cancelled?

[Anonymous]

Amen Mr.Smith, Amen.

May I just add, That there was a famous Museum In Iraq that held some of the worlds oldest archeolodigac Treasures, and is now either been Blown to smitherines, Or been looted due to the anarchist-like state over there. These treasures included Scripts, Original bible verse and stuff from the old "mesopotamia."

Now that's ashame,

It's been kept for thousands of years.

[Mookie]

So are we the minority on this? Why do the elections always seem to favor putting people in office who are so far off track? Or is it just this small forum that attracts like-thinking people and none of the people that put G-dubya and his ilk in office

[tree68]

It's been reported in the press that Dubya had the whole scheme in mind before his election. If the American voter (an increasingly rare breed) had known that we wouldn't be making jokes about Florida voting practices.

Remember, too, that very often people with dubious motives can couch their agenda in terms that sound "right." Just ignore the rest of the facts and go for broke. Who wants to question the deposing of a "terrible dictator? " How many times did you hear that people who opposed the action in Iraq were unpatriotic? The Dixie Chicks (or at least Natalie) expressed what is becoming a common sentiment about the president and were roundly villified.

One thing we've been discussing here is whether or not "we" were really deposing a terrible dictator, or had something else in mind. It's already been gone over pretty thoroughly, so no need to start over on that topic. [2c]

[rrnut282]

I'm not afraid to say I voted for G.W. and plan to again. He doesn't do anything based on 'hollywood popularity polls', he does what he thinks is right and the interns are a lot safer around him , too[;)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Ask the young man, I belive his name is Oliver Trozk?
Ask him if he would like the US to invade Croatia, and set up a new, mini US goverment for them.
Bet he would chose to set up his own goverment, with a system his people are used to, designed around the customs of the people who live there.

Nothing, absolutly nothing, gives us the right to force our viewpoints or form of goverment upon any other people, regardless of how evil we think they are.
Nothing!

We can only defend ourselves from them, when they attack us.

Ed, when you become President of the U.S., you are very welcome to invade Croatia! I admire your vision, your intelligence and your sense of justice. You sound perfect to me.

By the way, I admit I don't like your present President, Mr. G.W. Bush, but I don't dislike the U.S. or Americans because of him. Just the opposite!
Croatia had a president I (and many other people here) didn't like, but that was no reason to hate Croatia or Croats.
So I hope no one gets offended or upset - I have a question, I'm curious if it's really true that the Bush family is involved in the oil business? That's what I heard from some friends of mine, and also that large oil companies benefit from each war in the Middle East region, it brings them huge profits. And to some people, I'm afraid, that's a good enough reason to go to war. (This is a question, I'm not accusing or judging anybody).

I can't say how sorry I am about so many young Americans being killed in Iraq. Imagine how they must feel over there, surrounded by hostility and far away from home, and at the same time being told they won the war and brought freedom to that people... I sincerely wi***hey all come home safe, and soon.

Once again, Ed, hats off to you!

Oliver, a member of one of the oldest tribes...oops, Nations, in Europe, and in the World, and in Universe, and....

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrnut282

I'm not afraid to say I voted for G.W. and plan to again. He doesn't do anything based on 'hollywood popularity polls', he does what he thinks is right and the interns are a lot safer around him , too[;)]

But his mentality scares me - and those are personal attributes - not political. I didn't vote for Reagan, GW or Clinton either for that matter. I agree - the disgust I felt when Clinton was in office over his antics was stronger than my party affil. I would vote either Rep or Demo if I felt the man was right - but Clinton started off lying - and it was so blatant I couldn't dismiss it and GW - you could smell war and power before he was even elected. He made no secret about his wanting to play gun-slinger. I have given up on our ever getting a good president any more with our politics the way they are.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrnut282

I'm not afraid to say I voted for G.W. and plan to again. He doesn't do anything based on 'hollywood popularity polls', he does what he thinks is right and the interns are a lot safer around him , too[;)]

Exactly, and that is the problem. He does what HE thinks is right, Now unless he recievces messages from God, blowing up Iraq doesn't seem right to me, my neighbor would agree, Matter of fact about 96% of this town would agree.

Let's remember, A run away freight train is doing what it thinks is right too. Rolling down the tracks at high sppeds killing everyhting in its path, and who can stop it? Surely the train can't stop itself, once its rolling, it's really hard to stop.. The only way to stop this train is to Derail it this comming november.

People jsut can't do what they think is right. I can't blow up the President of Mexico's place jsut because there is terrible water down there, Nor i shouldn't be allowed to say I was liberating the Mexican people from their terrible water. But you see, I thought it was right to blow up mexico's president. So jsut because I think it is right.. thats it.. I have permission over everyone?

I'm not to sure i like that entire concept.

[edblysard]

Hi Mookie,
GW's mentality dosnt scare me anywhere near as much as that of the people he surrounded himself with.
Rumsfield would look right at home in a dove grey uniform and jackboots, and acts as if he is!

I voted for ole Geroge, because I felt this country needed a change.
Had 9/11 not happened, I really belive things would be different.
(yes, big understatment)

But, after watching the folks around the president, I am not to sure they wouldnt have invented something that would allow them to proceed on the same course.

I dont vote a party line, I tend to vote for the person I feel can best do the job.
And, if you look carefully, all throughout American history, brief as it is, when we find ourselves in situtations like this, quite often a dark horse appears, and gains popular support.

Or, the least likely people step up, and address the crisis head on.

Truman was one of those, as was Kennedy and Regan.
Carter was one too, although he hasnt received the acclaim in the press he deserves.

Oliver, I noticed you seem to not want to offend anyone?
Guess what, here, its OK to say what you want and what you mean, weather it offends someone or not.

Note Michael,(rrnut) and I seem to agree on some things, but not others?

Thats one of the greatest things about this country, that both he and I, having what each belives is a valid point of view, can, on a public forum, debate our positions and viewpoints, without fear of a goverment agency taking us away for not following the "offical" position of the goverment.

My concern is that, when faced with a stagnent economy, quite often goverments go looking for a cause to unite their people under.

Hitler did this well with the German people.

Roosevelt did it better with the American people, never in history will you ever see such a transformation in a country than the year following Pearl Habor.

America became a tremendous industrial machine, the likes of which have never been seen before, and never will bee seen again.

For America, 9/11 has become the catalyst that is now allowing certain elements in our goverment to change the basic way our goverment runs, and remove or change some of the laws and customs that allow Americans to enjoy the privacy and personal security that has been the hallmark or our Constitution.

Sorta like the Spanish Inquisition, or the Salem witch hunts.
There wasnt too many people who failed to confess in either instance.
Of course, there wasnt any witches, or heritics for that matter, but when you apply a branding iron to certain places on the human body a few times, after a while, the person will confess to what ever you want them to, if only to get you to stop.

Gene Hackman had the perfect line in the movie Crimson Tide,

" if you stick a cattle prod up their butt, you can teach a horse to deal cards"

I am not too sure that America isnt that far away from another Salem witch hunt.

Thoses currently in power strike me as people not above doing a little "prodding" or "inquiring" of their own, if for no other reason, to justify their actions.

They are quietly and carefully, in the name of national security, and under the guise of a "war on terrorism" doing away with the very laws that keep them, the goverment, out of the American citizens personal lives.

And, like with the witch hunts, quite a few of us know it is wrong, we know there are no witches, but are too afraid of losing what we have, or being accused of witchcraft ourselves, to say anything about it.

Most people are afraid of cattle prods and branding irons.

With todays technology, it isnt to hard to imagine that keeping tabs on the citizens wont become even easier or faster, but it bothers me to no end that I will, at some point, have to register for a internal passport.

One of the basic precepts of all of our laws it that you are innocent until proven guilty.

Part of that concept means the police have to gather and assemble enough evidence first, before they can charge a person with a crime.

So, if I am innocent first, what does my goverment need with my fingerprint?

I have yet to be charged with a crime, and until I am, they have no right to it.

It wont be long before a national DNA sample program shows up.

One side of that is it will allow crimes to be solved quicker, but the other side of the subject is that it allows tremendous invasion of privacy, and can lead to horrible abuse.

What if, at some point, someone in the goverment decides that people with certain genitic markers tend to produce children more prone to commiting crimes?
We have their fingerprints and DNA on file, picking them up isnt a problem, but what do we do with them?
Forbid them the right to have children?
Sterilize them?
Expell them from the New World Order?
Or will they somehow just dissapear?
Think that could never happen in America?

Guess what, it already happened.

In the 1920s through the 1950s, under the guise of a public health care program, the US Goverment Dept of Public Health not only allowed, but helped infect a black comunity in the rual south that suffered a plague of syphilis.

Part of the premise and justification was that blacks tend to suffer STDs more than other groups, and by allowing and encouraging this plague, the researchers had live human subjects to study over the course of their lifetimes.
This also allowed the researcher to study the lifestyles of the victims, in the hope that it would help to prove that blacks were imoral in their behaviour and lifestyles.

Two concepts that any reasonable, intelligent person knows to be false.

But, because most of the people in that comunity could not read or write, they were ignorant of what was being done to them.

Scared yet?

You should be.

Dont think it could happen again?

Just blink.

Kevin's anology to a run a way train is closer to the truth than we know
.
Once we set foot on this path, it will be very hard to change direction, so we must derail it now, while we have the chance.

By this, I dont mean vote for anyone else other than Bush, blindly changing leaders out of fear will do as much damage as doing nothing.

But we need to be very careful about what new powers we give our goverment, and what rights we give up, in the name of national security.

And, if things like what happened in that small southern town bother you as much as it bothers me, then get your butt out from in front of your computer this election, and vote.

As far out there as it sounds, you may not have too many chances left to do so again.

Ed

[Modelcar]

....And Ed, we're not even saving a few cents a gallon at the pump now. Beginning of this week we were asked to pay $1.75 or so a gallon here in Muncie.
Saddam was one of the worst rullers in the world the last decade but I come down on the side of removing him was not fully the responsibility of the United States of America....It for sure was a world problem. A real world coalition is the strength that should have banded together to remove him....not solely blood and dollars of this great country. At the same time it caused us to take our focus off the real threat to us in all the terrorism facing us.

[Mookie]

I will say Amen and finally - be quiet!

[Modelcar]

....And Jen, your 5 red stars really do look good....Congrats and watch Ed, he's not far behind.

[espeefoamer]

Mookie,I just noticed you have 5 stars![:D]Congradulations!!You must really be dedicated.[^][8D]

[Anonymous]

No Mookie, you can't be quiet. This is a president we must get rid off. It just amazes me that Mr RRnut282 would say he will also vote for 'Dubya' for a second term. This man is a liar and now he is struggling to find someone other than himself to be blamed for the deaths of some fine young Americans in Iraq. I'm tired of those who would not face the danger of combat sending others into harms way.

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

My dad was a Chief Petty Officer in the US Navy for 33 years.
He saw duty in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

One of the things he stressed to us kids was the fact that the US Armed Services report to, and are commanded by a elected civilan President.

In fact, our constitution expressly forbids active military personal from holding the office, and for good reason.

I did not find this requirement in the Constitution. I could type up and post all of Article II if you want? Maybe it’s dictated by common law somewhere, but it’s not stated anywhere in the Constitution

QUOTE:
The armed services are there to defend the population, and to follow and enforce the decisions of the civilans who lead our country.

They serve us, the John and Jane Does of America.

The framers of the constitution understood that having a serving military officer as president could lead to a military dictatorship, and they knew then, as we know now, what that can lead to.

Again, where is this in the Constitution?

QUOTE:
Remember, its a goverment "of the people, for the people, by the people"

The words of President Abraham Lincoln. Not in any official document of US law, it could possibly said that statement was Abraham Lincoln’s interpretation of the US government, an interpretation I whole heartedly agree with.

QUOTE:
The constitution is full of safeguards, the president cant declare war, he, or she, must ask congress to do so.

That said, I stated in a post quite a while back that I doubted we would find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

I don’t disagree with this, but the question is where are they? What happened to them? We had credible evidence that these weapons exist or existed, but what happened to them? Hopefully we will find them, and not the hard way. I hope we find them before they are used against.

QUOTE:
I stated that, in my opinion, the American people had been sold a false bill of goods, and we were going to war for the wrong reason.

Well then in my opinion, we were not “sold a false bill of goods.” It was a perfectly good reason to go to war. It was the truth.

QUOTE:
Iraq didnt directly attack the Unites States, and going to war with them because they might be a future threat, or migh have aided some radical group was wrong.

We need to stop these terrorists now before they strike again.

QUOTE:
I still feel that way today.

If we, as a nation, can justify waging war because of supposistions, mights and maybes, if we are willing to attack and kill because we deem them to be a future threat, because they might, later on, become a danger to us, then we, as a nation and a people, have become as base and low as those we proclaim our enemies.

I don’t see any supposition, might or maybe to it. It was certain. Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, British Intelligence proved it so.

QUOTE:
Whats the difference between the Nazi blitzkrieg in Poland, and the colalition forces deployment in Iraq?

We blitzed a country that hadent directly attacked us, and did so with tremendously superior military might, to gain control of a nation that furthers our political position in the middle east, and gives us, in essence, a "new territory" from which we can exert our influence with military threat and economic might.

OK, according to your view, Iraq is going to be the 51st state of the Union. There’s a huge difference between the Nazi blitzkrieg and the US war in Iraq. The Nazi’s attacked their neighbors to gain permanent control and domination. They wanted to wipe out “inferior races” and dominate an entire continent. These countries they took went with out a fight. Resistance had to come from civilians well after the war was underway in an underground sabotage warfare.

QUOTE:
Hitler overan Poland, to give the third riech a new territory from which to wage war on France, and the rest of Europe, and to give them a country and people to exploit and exert their military influnce from.

One of the major differences between this country and every other country on the face of the planet was, untill now, the fact that our armed services were intended to be tools of defense, to protect our nation and our allies when attacked, a wepon to be used only when all other options had been exhausted.

Our was a defensive military, designed and formed to protect us, not an offensive tool designed to expand our borders or effect political change in other countries.

And it’s still not. This is a complete falsehood on many levels. You have kind of got it backward.The military was used to gain territories across the entire continent from the Appalachian Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. But as far as expanding our boarders over seas, well we have Hawaii and Alaska. Explain to me what we’re still doing in places like Guam, the Philippines, Korea, Japan, Germany, Bosnia, if we’re not supposed to be Iraq. What about Manuel Norega? Was that so wrong the way we dealt with him? What about the British Empire and all the territories they had centuries? America, Austrailia, Canary Islands, India...

QUOTE:
From the rest of the worlds perspective, there wouldnt appear much difference between this war on terror, and the *** blitzkrieg, except for the flags flown by the winners.

Now that’s true. The rest of the world wasn’t attacked. They didn’t have airplanes flown into their buildings. Their governments censor information and create anti-American propaganda. I spent the last five years at a major university where people come here from all countries and all walks of life and many are anti-American. The largest coming from the European continent, more so than the Asian continent where the Indians and Pakistanis come from. Even the Arabs and Muslims on campus weren’t has hateful as the Europeans. Months after September 11, 2001, the anti-American jokes began to surface around campus.

But there is a HUGE difference between the war on terror and the ***. The US is not trying to conqure the world, like Hitler. The US is freeing the world and stopping terrorism. The terrorist do not have the right to bomb us, they did that September 11, and we, the US, are not going to let it happen again. We're going after terrorist and countries sponsoring terrorist because they're the enemy too.

QUOTE:
I didnt agree, and to this date, still dont agree with why we are there, but in one matter I stand proud...

The service men and women of the American Armed Services are without equal.
They did exactly what they were supposed to do.
When the order arrived, they picked up their kits, got in line, and went.
No questions asked.

They did what one would expect a professional military to do, follow orders and do you duty, and they did it in the manner we expected them to, with pride, honor and duty and sacrifice.

The men and women of the United States Armed Services deserve our respect and our gratitude for their service, even if you dont agree with why the commander in chief sent them there.

One of the other things my dad taught me was, we, the American people, have something almost no other country in the world has, the ability to completly change our goverment every four years.

That is misleading. What that statement implies is redoing the constitution and all the laws and procedures. What is really done is every 2 years all seats in the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for reelection. Every 4 years a new president. A new president in the White House doesn't competely change the government. There are 435 House seats, 100 Senate Seats, and 1 President. So the most changes that can be made in 1 year is 470 positions (all House seats, 34 Senate, 1 president.) But all available seats don't change hands each election. I don't know how many governerships are up for graps any given year, but out of 50 states I'm gonna guess it's 50% or less, seeing how our governer is elected every 4 years in between presidential elections (i.e. Presidential elections are 2000, 2004, etc, our gov seat is 2002, 2006, etc.) and some governers are elected in odd # years like 2001, 2003, etc.

QUOTE:
That power rest with us, the civilians, not with the military, and rightly so.

We, the citizens, get to decide who leads us, and if we dont like the current leaders, we can change them, without worry of military oppression or influence, because the military reports to us, the civilian citizen, through our civilian president, we dont report to them.

America posseses without doubt the finest military force in the world, because it is composed of volunteers, those few who willing give their life in defense of a concept written over 200 years ago, but which holds as true today as it did then.

The preamble to the Constitution says it all.

"We, the people of the United States of America, hold these truths to be self evident..."

We, the people...

Its your goverment, not theirs.

If you are referring to the military and it’s not THEIR government, you are wrong, it IS their government. They are citizens of the U.S. and they serve are government. They don’t take orders from the civilians. But the military has never run the US government and they never will.

QUOTE:
Its your Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, they work for, and serve you.

If all of this distrubes you as much as it has me, then excerise the one tool you, as an American citizen, have total control over, one which, so far, cant be taken away from you.

Next time, vote!

You, me, Kevin, Mookie, all of us live in a exceptionally unique country, with the mightiest military and economic forces in the world under the control of us, the citizen.

We, and we alone, can affect real change in the way our goverment acts and runs, and we should be very careful who we give what powers to, and why.

Should we be looking for payback for 9/11?
You bet.

But we should have gone after the people who did the crime, not their next door neighbors.

We did go after who did the crime. Saddam Hussein was a willing accomplice.

QUOTE: Those who served in the past had clear cut goals, to end oppression and agression, to defend those who couldnt defend themselves, to free people so they too, could make choices, even if we didnt agree with the choices they made afterwards.

Those who serve now should have the same goals, and have done their upmost in service to their country.

We should salute them, honor them, and welcome them home.

We should bury the fallen with all the honors they earned and deserve, but remind their boss they died as a result of political incompentence, not dereliction of duty or the might of a enemy.

Political incompetence? Hardly not. Bush knew what he was doing and what he did was right. Military intelligence proved it so. Saddam’s failed to comply after countless United Nations resolutions.

QUOTE:
We are at a perilous point in the history of our country, out of fear, or apathy, we are slowly handing control of it over to a select few, who dont always act in the interest of all of us, the citizens.

This country was created by rebellion, built by hard work and honest reguard for the rights of the indivdual, not the power of a king, or the power of a general.

The only reason it even exsist is because you, the American Citizen, says it does.

Its your country, its my country, my Dad spent 33 years defending the concepts it was created from, and we shouldnt sit by and let any one "party" run it for us.

Its ours, not "the goverments"

Remember,

"We, the people..."

Ed

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure the domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establi***his Constitution for the United States of America”

The war on terrorism IS a defense of America and it’s ideals. The war in Iraq IS a defense. The dominos are starting to fall. Libya and Syria are surrendering their weapons and terrorists after Saddam's regime has fallen. ONLY BECAUSE SADDAM'S REGIME FELL.

Unfortuantly the "international communtiy" dosen't go along with this war because they see all Americans as bullies anyway. They despise us and resent us. Why? Is it jealousy? Is it envy? People bad mouth America all the time but they can't get enough of our products and like to live here. An example: at a baseball game there were these two Mexian or Hispanic guys sitting in the stands. Both were talking about how bad America is, what bullies they, how awful it's people. They conversed completely in Spanish. This couple in front of them, very American looking, blond haired blue eyed, heard this whole conversation. The man stood up, turned around, and told the two guys, in Spanish, that if they didn't like living here they could leave the country. The two Mexicans didn't say a word the entire rest of the baseball game.

Now, just this week, in Mexico, after the US was defeated in the soccor playoffs for the Olympics, fans in the stands started chanting "OSAMA! OSAMA!" How's that for sportsman-like conduct? How's that for international tolerace? If Mexico gets bad mouth from now on they deserved. I'm tired of being told I have to tolerate other cultures, but other cultures don't have to tolerate my American heritage.

If people have got some beef with the US your beef is with the government, not the people or her citizens or the US flag. When the US flag is burned it's not an insult to the government, it's an insult to the people. We do not pledge alliegence to the government, we pledge alliegence to the Flag, Old Glory, of the United States of America. Are natioal anthem is the about our flag, the Star Spangled banner, not our government, or president, or our Congress. Our Congress and presidents pledge their alliegence to the flag, not the government either. Foreigners burning the flag don't understand that the flag is the people, not the government. And the people are the governmet, not privileged heirs. But when Americans burn the flag that's the most dispicable act of all. If they don't want to be here they can always leave, but they don't, because life is not as compfortable anywhere else.

I, for one, do not want to wait for the next terrorist attack on our soil. I want the terrorist to be be destroyed before they can do it again. They're not limiting themselves to the US. They've attacked Turkey and the civilians of Iraq, too. Waiting for terrorist to attack us on US soil again would be like waiting for Hitler and Tojo to come to the American continent before we fire a shot.

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Ok, so remind me why we went there?

Weapons of mass destruction. He would use them, sell them, harbor terrorist.

QUOTE: Because if it wasnt to find and destroy the wepons of mass destruction, then it must have been because...?
Other than the WMDs, what did Saddam have that presented a threat to us?
Ok, I agree, that mustach was pretty ugly, but going to war over facial hair?

If we are now willing to wage war because we dont agree with a poitical system, or because some one might, at a future date, present a threat, then we might as well blow up France, Columbia, and Korea.

Yeah, I don’t agree with a political system conspiring and aiding terrorists that want to destroy us. It’s not solely about a political system. It’s dangerous and destructive to us, and it was killing the citizens of Iraq.

QUOTE:
Our military should not be a political or economic tool, it should be a defensive force, to protect us from clear and present danger, not from murky, maybe threats made by despots, or possible future threats.

Exactly right.

QUOTE:
Was Saddam a evil man, who needed to be removed?
Sure, but so are many world leaders.
Is it now Americas job to decide who is, and isnt allowed to rule other countries?

We acted like a policeman who lies to get a search warrant, then kicks in the door, knowing full well what the warrant states is false, and then beats the stuffing out of the person behind the door, because the cop dosnt like them or their views.

If we are the worlds policemen, then we just screwed the pooch real bad.

So really, if we wernt looking for WMDs, then why did we do this?

And if having weapons of mass destruction qualifies you as a target for invaision by the worlds policemen, then France, England, Germany, Korea, China, and India better watch their backs.

I agree. You got that right.

QUOTE:
We should just go ahead and nuke whats left of the Soviet Union, they have misplaced so much of this stuff they still dont know who has what.

Now that’s scary!

QUOTE:
Seriously, I am looking for the criteria that justifies being attacked by the United States of America.

Because the only real threat I ever saw from the Iraq goverment was about .03 cents at the pump.

Really? .03 cents? He wasn’t affecting oil prices, the gas station manager affects the price of gas. The Arabs slow the flow of oil and American gas station managers panic and raise prices. After the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the September 11 attacks gas stations were unnecessarily and illegally gouging prices. The truth is we have enough oil to survive without the Arabs oil.

QUOTE:
Although, war is good for the economy, it does increase the GNP, and quite a lot of companies, you know, like Colt and Winchester, along with all the companies that supply the products needed to wage war, did and still are making a nice profit from all of this.

But I am still looking for a valid reason for invading another country, a reason that dosn't include the words might, maybe or could, but does include the words, "on this date, did declare war on, and did attack the United States of America".

Justify invading another country just because we dont like their politics,,
Please?

Ed

Again, it was for weapons of mass destruction. Military intelligence confirmed this. My question is: Where did it go? It could be in the wrong hands, waiting to be used against us. On a side note, we oppressed an oppressed an tortured people, but that was not the primary objective. WWII was not fought to free the people from concentration camps. There were rumors this was going but not confirmed until the Allies got closer to Germany and Berlin when true horror was discovered. The Civil War was not to free the slaves but it turned into that with the Emapcipation Proclamation in 1863. But that war wouldn't have been fought if there was no slavery. It initially was about state's right that changed after the war got started.