The United States was aware of the Bin Laden threat before 9-11 and it chose to do nothing. What happened? 9-11. Bin Laden, a millionaire who lives in a cave, under his will killed thousands of Americans. Now to say the Billionaire(with a B let me reiterate, courtesty of his own people's surrering.) Saddam is not much more a threat to you and me is ridiculous. The man has always considered himself at war with America. But this is state backed terrorism. Why has there been so many defectors claim this man has weapons that would obliterate mass populations of people and claim he has terrorist camps just outside Baghdad? We already saw him poison the Kurds and try to whipe them out of his country and invade Kuwait. How is this not moral justification to go in and eliminate him and liberate the oppressed Iraqis? Is it not justified because these weren't Americans he poisoned? Is that what it will take? Hey, I'm all for peaceful dictators but the probability Saddam wants nothing but peace, love, and tranquility is slim to none. If Iraq has nothing to hide then the weapons inspectors should had been back in Iraq unconditionally not tomorrow, next week or next month right now.
Nice, dude. What do my social activities have to do with my political stance? Well then I guess I don't have moral integrity. I value my life above all else in the universe. Again, nice. So exactly what do I do on Friday nights. Binge drink? Play Tolkien board games? You people need to make up your minds. What does my personal taste in literature have to do with my political stance? Then again, I'm being personally attacked by a p*rn fiend that lives in Utah.
I don't think he meant to insult you. You just sounded drunk. I'll take liberty or death, but I'm a lefty. And I'm also patriotic. I think it's important for this country to stand for something. If that makes me a p***y, well that's awesome. What exactly is your problem with p*rn?
Sad to say, but, yeah,that would mean you have no moral integrity...One easy way to define your moral imperatives are to decide what you would die for..." I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees." is a good example..." Give me liberty or give me death." Is another..." I don't agree with what you have to say, but I would die for your right to say it." is a further example of expressed moral integrities. Nomar, you really have nothing you place above your own life?
The new image of "The American"(I presume is post-9/11.) you are referring to is the one of the patriot who loves his country unconditionally. Lets do keep in mind America isn't the only country convinced Iraq is a menace to stability in this world.
Gore makes a ridiculous claim (and it is ridiculous because the threat of nuclear bombs is worse than anything the engine could do) and all you can say is that Bush is stupid. Great argument. I was really hoping for something...I don't know...substantive.
To equate this with "give me liberty or give me death" is obscene. What liberty is it if thousands of our civillian countrymen die in an attack which we know was totally preventable. I guess it's really easy to have thousands of your neighbors die needlessly so you can have your morals.
The voice of opposition is one of the people in charge of the country for 8 years while Saddam blew off all terms of his surrender. The same guy who chaired a commission on airline safety which accomplished next to nothing and preceded the biggest airline safety failure in US history. The guy who did little to curb Al-Qaeda while they blew up embassies and the Cole. Now he pops up out of his hole to make a speech which really looks like rhetoric for his next political campaign. On the other hand we have Dubya who honestly doesn't seem to have a clue what he's doing and I'm certain he's leading us into deep ****. This is becoming a big ugly mess.
No...He asked if I was prepeared to die for my morals, whereupon I told him that if you're not prepared to die for your morals, they're not your morals...Morality is, by definition, a code of right and wrong which transcends all other priorities. Therefore it equates to Patrick Henry's statement. I don't see the problem here... P.S....As a humorous aside, in Jonathan Kattz's book, To Do Lists of the Dead, under Patrick Henry, It has " Learn to not just blurt things out loud."
I agree with you, unfortunately. Looking ahead to 2004, I do believe George W. Bush is very beatable. However, if the Dems nominate Gore, Bush will win re-election handily. The stupidest thing the Dems can do in 2004 is run Gore again.
Once again, people, we are not going to war with Iraq. Something needs to be done about Saddam. He's obviously unstable and has demonstrated his bad judgment in the past when he invaded Kuwait. Economic sanctions don't work as he simply sneaks oil out of his country and keeps his people suffering to generate sympathetic P.R. He also does not listen to diplomacy as evidence by his failure to comply with the previous U.N. sanctions. The U.N. (and other government leaders including some of our own) have demonstrated that they don't have the will or ability to enforce the sanctions or something would have been done with Iraq back in '98 when the weapons inspectors were kicked out. Once again, people simply ignored Saddam as he was "yesterdays news" so to speak. This taught Saddam that he could do what he wanted as no one really cared. So, Bush is simply doing what is necessary to remove or contain Saddam - threatening the use of force. I might point out that there has been no serious actual use of force and there haven't even been military build-ups significant enough to do anything with Iraq. Saddam has demonstrated that the only thing that will make him bend to the will of the international community is force. Bush is simply threatening to use force, as it's the only thing Saddam "gets". It's just a bluff, people. But in order for the bluff to work it has to be credible which is why he's on this "were going to go it regardless of what anyone else thinks" tear. If Bush really wanted to go into Iraq he'd build a coalition like his dad did. However, the U.N. (and the rest of the world) is so wimpy and ineffective that they think they are doing the right thing by saying "negotiate" or "diplomacy". How many times does Saddam have to fool you before you realize he's not an honorable, well-intentioned person? As a matter of fact, part of Bush's strategy even seems to be working. Saddam did say the weapons inspectors could go back in - of course, Saddam showed his true colors right away when he put conditions on the "unconditional" return of the inspectors. And Bush was right for calling it for what it was - a joke. Saudi Arabia gets it - they have said that we could use their bases for an attack. They understand that Saddam is only going to budge if he really believes his ass is on the line. There is also the benefit of simply letting Saddam know that we are keeping a close eye on him. That fact alone may prevent Saddam from doing anything stupid. Look what happened the last time we put Iraq on the back burner. As for Gore, he's simply pointed out the fact that he can't multi-task. He's basically said that he needs one thing on his plate at a time. Plus, its easy to critisize when you on the sidelines. His administration failed when it chose to do nothing in '98.
B-bob I agree. Too many lives both America and throughout the world are at stake when you're talking about the president of the ultra power. Can't afford to run someone who isn't charismatic. Still let's hope Gore inspires some of the Demos to stop demonstrating "Profiles in Cowardice".
Good point, but NO, this is not what I mean by "The American." The image you describe is the one we hold dear and the one portrayed over and over by CNN. I'm talking about an image that someone in, say, Brazil has. One where an American says: "One American life is worth millions of lives in the third world. I want to pollute and consume, and I want to bully all those other stupid, inferior nations into doing what I want. They can make my shoes if for 25 cents a day, but otherwise, screw them." I don't like Gore. Period. But one of his good points is that we had an incredible amount of international sympathy and good will after 9/11, and that with our recent unilateral rhetoric, including the statement that we will maintain military supremacy over the planet, we are pissing all that good will away, basically disrespecting the international community.
OK...if you really have such strong feelings then I guess you need to stop driving your car or riding busses (they pollute you know) and you can't buy shoes ever, ever again. Stop polluting and consuming or you really have lost your ability to support your stance.
Nomar, like most people who wear Gandalf pajamas, are big p*****s. I bet you didn't know that Gore had more of his proposed budget going to the military than Bush did. Plus, he actually went to Vietnam (wasn't a soldier, really, but still went) while your big man Bush stayed in the States. So, I guess that means that all Republicans are p*****s. Are your parents actually wasting money to send you to college?
Refman, I usually have great respect for your posts, but come on. No, that's as ridiculous as it is absolutist. I don't say "otherwise, screw them," and I don't say one American life is worth millions of lives in so-called inferior nations. Fact: we are the world's leader of polluting and consuming, by a great margin. Now, all humans pollute by virtue of having a$$holes and we all consume in that we need food. But the point is one of degree, clearly. I will not quit eating and I will not quit pooping, until I die, but I base that only on evidence to date. (And for what it's worth, I usually walk to work ) Finally, I am NOT saying that's MY image of an American! God no. I am saying I am concerned when I hear a lot of folks from other countries describing that image of an American. It makes me sad. Maybe I shouldn't care what our global neighbors think, but I do. Are we an island? Are we really intrinsically better human beings than people in other countries? Do we care about neighbors, or do we just hole up in our nation and watch TV? Okay, I give up for now. It just feels like the same old left versus right thing with none of us really listening or trying to find common ground. I am as guilty as anybody. Best wishes to you and back to basketball.
I think calling Gore Irrevelant was stupid. Although the man has no power, he's the second highest political figure in the U.S. next to Bush, and should be repsected for his opinion and input even if you want to disregard it. Failure to acknowledge another opinion is a failure in yourself. He's acting like Gore didn't even exist. And while that might be good politics, that's not good leadership.
I don't refute this because its true for some. But I myself do not buy into this because I believe there should had been some kind of action taken to avenge the mass genocide within this country on the Kurds (which something similar occurred in Turkey but we never got the support needed by these socialist run countries whom worry about their own interests such as the ones we have today) but while most people claim they are not the sterotypical ignorant American who holds American lives above all others they turn around and call this genocide irrelevant. Make no mistake there is opposition against (by some of his own people, mind you) Saddam and we the United States need to help lead this fight to prevent and thwart any more atrocities committed at this man's hand.
