Sorry, I should have read what you stated more clearly. The case is being made (right or wrong) is in 1441 that calls for specific compliance from Iraq including access to scientists (which if we want them to speak openly can't be done in Iraq), as well as Saddam to disclose to the UN what was done with a long list of items, and he has not done that. Agreed -- I think Saddam has clearly violated 1441. That still doesn't make the case for war, nor does it make the case for immediate war. R1441 specifically called for "serious consequences" as a result of it. It originally called for military action and couldn't get enough votes, which is a pretty clear indication that the Security Council didn't intend violating 1441 to automatically trigger military action. So we're back to the argument -- what is the national security reason that we must attack now? Why is it unacceptable to try the French/German approach of putting thousands of UN troops inside Iraq? If Bush is going to argue for war, he has to argue why the alternatives are unacceptable.
Then you must not read the board very much Geez, lighten up Francis. I've never seen someone get so worked up over one sentence. I made my post as a sarcastic response to johnheath's assertion that "only" 3,000 people showed up for the "anti-war" rally. I wasn't trying to "label" you as "pro-war." (Although if you are in favor of a war, then that does kind of place you in the "pro" category). So what label do you prefer -- "anti-Saddam"? "Pro-peace except in this instance"? "Pop goes the dictator"? Let me know so I won't offend your delicate sensibilities in the future. Try taking a few deep breaths before you attack next time.
Mrs. JB, Nice. LMAO line by line of that post. Perhaps "Anti-WMD" would work... Whoops. No, we've got plenty. How about "Pro-UN-resolutions"?... Whoops. No, the US doesn't stand behind that either, as a rule, especially where Israel is concerned. I guess it's down between your "Pro Peace Except in this Instance" and "Pro Anti-terrorist Preventative Action" (PAPA).
Jeff, given what I believe is a somewhat exaggeration of Sheila's flaws, for whatever reason, I have to wonder if you at times have a hard time finding anyone to to vote for at all. You know if we had enough Sheilas we wouldn't have this war, Bush's tax cuts for the rich, the attack on civil liberties and other policies liberals oppose. I could live with a little grandstanding, if necessary to achieve those goals.
I do, and statements like the ones you made are ridiculous. I prefer Sgt. Hulka thanks. Several others chase, john, refman and others seem to think that your statement was incorrect as well. Cute, real cute. You are really making a great case for yourself. Sure, whatever you say, those of us who aren’t marching and chaining ourselves to trees are pro-war. We are longing for it! Along with all the others of us who are simply concerned with what has been going on with regard to Iraq and the potential danger it poses to us. I am for us showing force. If that show of force does not work, I am for military action. The show of force & threat of military action is the ONLY reason Saddam allowed UN inspectors back into the country back in November. Each time military force looks more imminent, Saddam does something to diffuse the situation or buy himself more time. Military action is justified if other forms of negotiation and resolve have failed, and at this time, that is what has happened. Saddam has not complied in years, the only hope of avoiding war is the threat of action will cause him to finally fully act in accordance with all that is asked of him. If he does not, then the impending threat that he poses with the chemical and biological agents he possesses are too much of a threat to ignore. I am not some one who feels that we can even risk the chance of another act such as the one a year & a half ago to happen again before we act. This guy has lied, is lying, has the ability to kill many of the people in countries around him, and more than that would love nothing more than to be able to create mass casualties against Americans, likely would prefer it to be on our own soil. Knowing that, I look at my son each and every day and think what could happen. What it would be like if he was at school and that school was to be attacked, how I would feel? How he would have to live without a father should something happen to me at my place of business, or other place, which was struck strikes terror in my heart and my mind. I feel he is a threat, a person out there who not only is capable of ordering such an act, but also would encourage it. If he does not want to comply, and it takes our country or an alliance with of countries to overthrow or kill him or ANYONE ELSE to lower the threat of that happening. Will innocent people die? Yes. Will Americans die? Yes. A very close cousin who is a Harrier pilot in the Marine Corps who is in the region now could be a casualty. Is that a terrible thing? Yes. Do I think it’s worth it? Hell yes! …and God bless each and every life that is taken, and I will support my country and our military every step of the way. Is that pro-war? Is it.... no, I am sorry it must be "anti-Saddam" or "Pro-peace except in this instance" or "Pop goes the dictator". Your mordant comments do little more than illustrate ignorance on your part. Go march your @$$ off! Its a good thing people like you were not around in the 1940's or our native tongue would be German. I could really go off right about now, however, you being married to the moderator would likely get me banned. Hide behind your little shield, your brilliant posts and attempts at sarcasm and belittling others. But, since you wish to make your snide remarks, I guess why not close with one of my own: Seems like too much credit was given. peace love & happiness
No...what you'd have is an entire throng of Congresspeople being billigerant with airline employees...taking limo rides two blocks, and NOBODY would have ANYTHING because their income would be taken by the government and redistributed to those who "need it more." Shiela Jackson Lee is an EMBARRASSMENT, plain and simple. The fact that you are rallying around her as somebody to be emulated is disgusting.
I always find people to vote for. The main difference is that I actually research each candidate rather than voting straight-party ticket. I attempt to see things from a reasonable distance with the skew of my own ideologies to give me guidance. This reminds me of this one time I was at an event for the arena campaign. It was during early vote and we had a bunch of leftover fruit and pastries from a breakfast thing at one of the polling locations. I noticed that the only group there doing any working at the polls was a group of Greens so I went over and offered them the leftover stuff which they were more than happy to take. Knowing I was with the arena campaign, one person asked how I could support it. I asked him why and he went into this long thing about how Ralph Nader says it's corporate welfare, etc. I told the guy that I voted for Nader and I was a big supporter of the Greens. In fact, I signed their petition to get their candidates on the ballot in Texas. He seemed surprised and wondered how I could support both. I said, "Well, I don't agree with Nader on EVERYTHING. Do you?" For me, that is the essence of politics. I vote for people who I believe (in no particular order): 1. Will be a good and effective leaders. This sometimes means voting for someone who isn't straight up liberal. There have been times when i considered a liberal candidate to also be a nut case. As a result, they don't fit this definition. 2. Will be focused in their efforts. This doesn't mean perfect and it doesn't mean "moral." I mean someone who will do everything within his/her power to follow their own inner guidance on issues while balancing the will of his/her constituency and not lose sight of the real world implications of his/her decisions. 3. Will support my ideology. This doesn't mean they have to support EVERYTHING, but I do have certain one's that are of great importance to me and I look at them as key issues upon which I evaluate my support. For me, voting for someone is more than just pulling the lever for a candidate who I think might support my personal viewpoint on life. It also means voting for someone who I think will make a positive difference with their leadership. If he/she is ineffective or unfocused, the job won't get done no matter how well meaning the person may be. If a candidate is completely in line with my beliefs but they simply do not have the political skills to accomplish the goals at hand, what is the point of them being in office in the first place? That doesn't mean I'll vote for someone who holds the opposite view of my ideology. My conscience wouldn't allow that. However, especially in local elections, there are often more choices than just ineffective liberal and radical conservative. So, I just line 'em up as best I can and go from there. Sheila, in my opinion, falls far short on 1 and 2. She is ineffective at best. She is often unfocused and all over the map in her approach and she alienates so many people with her manner, she is often relegated to the fringe where she can't possibly make a difference. She may support many of the ideologies I do, but that doesn't make her an effective leader, so I have a hard time supporting her as a congresswoman. This is the exact reason why I think our country is absolutely ripe for a third party. Neither of the current parties in power can possibly satisfy the genearlly left-leaning social values and generally right-leaning fiscal concerns of the American populace. Any issue poll will demonstrate that. As a result, most elections consist of either a vote for the lesser of two evils or a "hold your nose and pull the lever" vote. That sucks. Funny, I am too liberal for the damn conservatives and too conservative for the damn liberals. Go figure!
WAY TOO GOOD TO PASS UP... Upon hearing the results of the estimated 2-3,000 in attendance at a anti-war demonstration on the 15th of Feb..... Now from our on the spot reporter who also provided us with these gems now provides the answer to her own little smart @$$ questions... Thanks for answering your own question. Hey was the anti-war demonstration as seemingly nonpartisan, or was this a little more of an anti-republican, anti-current administration, anti-anything they do demonstration as well? ...or should I say, pro-democrat, "we wish Gore had won," anything they do we would do different & the world would be better, etc. Keep us informed. Thanks.
a) "smart a$$ questions"- not a personal attack, it's in response to the facetious manner in which she asked the questions b) I will call it like I see it as I do with everyone in here and many do with me. Admin's wife or not, who posts in here should be held in the same regard. If there are different sets of rules based on whom we are married to, then I don't think you or anyone else would consider that to be fair. I have posted much worse in responding to a post of yours, did you feel that took "balls"? I do not think when she posts something she looks at it as though she is on a different playing filed due to her marriage. She has shown she has the ability to stand up for herself, and I respect her for that.
Mrs. JB: <B>"Only 12 to 15 pro-war demonstrators? Hmmmm..."</B> TheHorns: Now from our on the spot reporter who also provided us with these gems now provides the answer to her own little smart @$$ questions... So you're admitting this was a pro-war demonstration?
Set down the bottle.... now tell me where in the hell you saw me state this was a "pro-war rally? Before you get off on your whole deal about "her question was how many were at the pro-war rally" crap, I addressed that in the posts after her statement. My "now from our on the spot reporter who also provided us with these gems now provides the answer to her own little smart @$$ questions..." was a response to her insinuating that there was not much of a showing from those who "support our country's stance on what action should be taken" as I stated later in the thread, and today's event seems to show that not to be the case.
Tsk, tsk. Such anger, and for what? You make me question the whole "we aren't pro-war" thing when. Anyway, why did you ask this So, Sheila Jackson Lee gets booed & Tom DeLay openly talks about supporting war and I'm supposed to believe that this "Rally for America" wasn't a Republican, support Bush no matter what, fu** the hippies, down with abortion while we're at it, Democrats suck, we are right, God is great, there is no Ala, let's nuke the whole Middle East, etc. Hey, being a total ******* is fun When you drop the whole "love or leave it," "anti-war=anti-american" attitude, I'll maybe consider taking you serious. Excuse me while I go excercise the inaliable rights Ashcroft hasn't taken away from me yet. Peace! oops, I mean, War!
this is the rant of a lunactic. God is not great, I suppose?! Not killing innocent children makes you anyting but an *******. Nuke the whole Middle East, huh? I could go on....
