hinds
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by hinds on May 16, 2004 14:51:28 GMT -5
"To some rape may be a fate worse than death"
I disagree.
Take away someones voice, that is far worse. You can become stronger from adversity is your life.
If you loose your right to free speech and liberty to worship and opinion as you wish - this is far worse than rape.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 16, 2004 16:01:20 GMT -5
"To some rape may be a fate worse than death" I disagree. Take away someones voice, that is far worse. You can become stronger from adversity is your life. If you loose your right to free speech and liberty to worship and opinion as you wish - this is far worse than rape. OK, That is how you feel, but many people and some whole societies have a much different view. They cannot understand your perspective any more than you can understand theirs, but it is important to not take actions based on assumptions that others will see it as we do! It is not a matter of what is right or wrong, but in what is effective and helpful. inatent
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 16, 2004 19:01:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by botany on May 16, 2004 20:55:39 GMT -5
I wonder, has war really stopped fascism, nazism, communism? andy
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 16, 2004 21:15:21 GMT -5
A little scared? Actually, I didn’t have to search far – this was what Kay himself reported, but strangely enough, it wasn’t widely broadcast in the news, was it? No – the headlines were: “NO WMD STOCKPILES!!!”. Given Saddam’s history (numerous violations of the cease-fire agreement from the first gulf war, rampant torture, rape, and death in his country perpetuated by his sons and members of his regime, paying $$ to the families of suicide terrorists in Israel, the attempt to assassinate former President Bush), and his outspoken glee about what had happened to the U.S. on 9/11, I don’t really understand how someone can not be more than a little scared. He has already met with the commission members; I know he didn’t want to testify in public, and with the circus that the 9/11 commission became after Richard Clarke’s untrustworthy testimony (various political efforts to blame Bush himself for 9/11), I can understand why he didn’t testify in public. Clinton didn’t testify in public, either, btw. He never lied about the WMDs, and he has been focusing on the liberation of the Iraqi people. All of that was connected with the war action. You mean, the same mistake numeous Democrats, the UN, and other countries made when they said that Saddam has/had WMDs? Personally, I still believe that the bulk of whatever Saddam had was moved (wouldn’t be at all hard to accomplish that, given the time he had to get rid of everything), and what Kay found indicates very clearly that Saddam was up to no good. Actually, Kay even admitted that Bush was right to go into Iraq and that the war was justified. Did you happen to read that? Of course you wouldn’t see why these cases support my point – not if you want to believe nothing other than the mantra that “Bush lied!”.
|
|
|
Post by Democrat on May 17, 2004 17:59:41 GMT -5
I am not protesting out on the streets wearing a big sign stating: "Bush Lied".. and I didn't say that in my post either. Bush clearly has been misinformed and it's my question why he does not want to speak before the commission about it, even not when it's behind closed doors. (Yes, like Clinton did -and there's nothing wrong with that-) Clarke's testimony has nothing to do with the decision of Bush to testify about WMDs, as Bush' decision not to testify was made when the commission was set up. Someone who does not want to testify about his choices before a commission he set up himself either made a big mistake or cannot justify his decisions. And that does not serve anyone's trustworthiness. You mean, the same mistake numeous Democrats, the UN, and other countries made when they said that Saddam has/had WMDs? Personally, I still believe that the bulk of whatever Saddam had was moved (wouldn’t be at all hard to accomplish that, given the time he had to get rid of everything), and what Kay found indicates very clearly that Saddam was up to no good. The UN didn't just state that Iraq had those WMDs, they sent Hans Blix and his team to Iraq to verify it whether he had those WMDs or not.. and it was Bush who didn't give them enough time to properly fulfill their job. The UN-team found some evidences of illegal weaponprograms, just like Kay did, but they simply couldn't find those weapons of mass destruction, including biological and chemical weapons. Off course, Kay will support Bush in his politics as he is asked by Bush to lead the hunt for weapons of mass destruction: biological and chemical weapons. And according to Kay war was not justified because he found evidence of a nuclear weapon program, nor did he found weapons of mass destruction, it might well be justified by other reasons, but with this information the administration should be clear about its case. Democrats might well be anti-Bush, but to post bumper-stickers with a reference to communism went way too far. You should study some European political parties like Tony Blair's Labour party, if you want to see what socialism and some of the ideas behind communism mean in today's era. The involvement of the government in everyone's life / wallet goes further then any American would allow, but it will guarantee you a good and cheap educational system, cheap healthcare and a good welfaresystem. I think there are a lot of Americans who would prefer those things above spending 100s of billions on a war which is highly debated. Hopefully enough to show Bush the door in 2004!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 17, 2004 18:31:03 GMT -5
If you mean cheap as in lacking in quality, I agree. If you mean cheap as in inexpensive, then you need to check your facts and history. If you mean good as in less than great, I agree. If you mean good as in better than most, then you need to check your facts and history. Robb
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 17, 2004 18:39:07 GMT -5
I disagree. As the words of the great philosopher, Jack Nicholson: "The truth? You can't handle the truth!" Robb
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 17, 2004 22:47:31 GMT -5
Sorry – when you said you thought he should be “honest” about the WMDs, I took that to mean you thought he has been “dishonest”, which can easily be interpreted as an implication that he has lied. I’m getting confused now – I wasn’t mentioning Clarke’s testimony in conjunction with the WMDs; is there another commission you’re talking about? The 9/11 Commission is about 9/11, not about the WMDs or the Iraq war. We must be getting our wires “crossed” in discussion. Again, I think we’re misunderstanding each other. I’m talking about the 9/11 Commission – is there another one (pertaining to the Iraq war) that you are meaning that I must be blanking out on . . . . ? And did you know that Saddam was less than cooperative with the Inspectors on numerous occasions during these pseudo-Inspections . . . ? He was supposed to provide complete and immediate access to the inspectors, which he did not many times. Indications were that he was up to the same old tricks and would not cooperate fully. After 12 years, numerous resolutions, and Saddam’s continued pretenses that he would cooperate (and then wouldn’t), his time was finally up. I think not. Communism sure sounds nice, but never works well in practice and it strips people of their individuality and liberty – remember the Soviet gulags. China is in the practice of attempting to silence Christians from worshipping their Lord, among other abuses against individual freedoms -- not the least of which is the absolutely foreign concept of free speech. Nope -- Communism is right up there with the evils of tyrannical dictatorships. NO THANKS! Keep government as far out of my life/wallet as possible! The ideas of Socialism were not what made America great. Hopefully not
|
|
hinds
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by hinds on May 18, 2004 9:46:18 GMT -5
Kennedy was a Democrat. Welcome to Vietnam.
Its not always a "Party" choice to go to war.
War is not a welcome situation. Sometimes you have no option but to fight for what you believe in.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 18, 2004 10:14:51 GMT -5
Kennedy was a Democrat. Welcome to Vietnam. Yes, Kennedy was a Democrat; his political beliefs were more in line with those of a conservative, though. Funny how Kerry (and others like Ted Kennedy) have implied that Vietnam was "Nixon's War", when it was Nixon who finally ended the whole mess. I would wager that JFK would strongly disagree with some of the tripe his brother has been throwing around lately. Very true, Cindi -- WWII -- FDR (a Democrat) entered the war. Maybe the sticker should say "modern-day Democrat"; it's kinda funny how when Clinton was in office, the Democrats were very strident themselves that Saddam needed to be dealt with decisively -- because he definitely had WMDs, and was a real threat. Mind you, they were fully convinced of this before Bush came into office; when Bush said the same things, began the actions for war, and when WMD "stockpiles" weren't found (yet) -- all of a sudden, it's: "BUSH LIED!". How ironic. It's thought they may have found mustard and sarin gas though -- further tests will reveal if that's what was in those bombs they found yesterday and last week. This is too true, Cindi; unfortunately, sometimes, when one realizes they have to fight for what is right -- they are labeled as a warmonger, and their level of Christianity is questioned. Beats me, especially since the NT give clear authority to governments to bear the sword against evil.
|
|
|
Post by Democrat on May 18, 2004 15:09:54 GMT -5
is there another commission you’re talking about? The 9/11 Commission is about 9/11, not about the WMDs or the Iraq war. Sorry for the misunderstanding about this commission, it is something that just became clear to me yesterdaynight. The statement I made about Bush’s position in this commission was <B>not</B> made in connection to the 9/11 commission, but I was talking about the commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United Sates regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Governor and former Virginia Senator Chuck Robb, and Judge Laurence Silberman. This WMD-commission is supposed to present the results of their enquiry not before <B>march 2005</B>, well after the coming presidential elections. The mission of this commission contains out of three parts: The first part of this commission is aimed how to improve intelligence work for the future. There’s simply no meaning to study the deficits of the past, which I think is shamefull, after all the public uproar concerning this topic in the States and all over the world. The second part instructs the commission to assess whether the <i>intelligence community</I> has the necessary wherewithal to support the government's "efforts to respond to" the "proliferation of weapons of mass destruction" in the future. And the last part is about advising the President" about "the most effective counter-proliferation capabilities" and "response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the ongoing threat of terrorist activity." They seem to have a rather interesting view on what that “intelligence community” actually means. It apparently does not contain the source of information Bush and Cheney used. Over all I see no place for criticism in this investigation on the functioning of the president himself and his administration, which is my major problem. I agree with you that communism doesn’t work in practice and I don’t plead for that either, but how can you compare democrats with communists? Okay, that was probably not the right thing to tell you, I could have expected an reply like this.. but you can wonder whether your country is so great when you consider some other data. Take the number of poor people which is actually rising.. about 30 million Americans are now considered poor by the Census Bureau.. I don’t think they will praise Bush and his tax cuts for the wealthy..
|
|
hinds
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by hinds on May 18, 2004 15:29:26 GMT -5
Americans are poor?
I know I am not poor. But then I do hold a job. I would hold down several if I needed to.
Its all in what you are willing to do. The bills must get paid and we all have to eat.
I pay my taxes. I know many who are "poor" and not working and on welfare or whatever other public assistance for whatever reason do not pay taxes. But they still buy cigarettes and beer and get free food, and have more babies....
Yes, this "America" we live in today has its share of "poor". So maybe we should tighten up the belt to force the poor who can work to get out and work.
I am not speaking of a part time situation where you are temporarily down on your luck - nor am I speaking about those who are handicapped.
Just those who I know use the "system" to the hilt, or use it while working "under the table".
I have no pity for those who do not even try to better themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 18, 2004 20:34:42 GMT -5
Cindi,
It seems like we lack perspective when we talk about the "poor" in this country. We really don't know what poor is in the US.
Real poor people struggle to have enough food to eat. Poor people in the US are often over weight.
Real poor people can not afford electricity. Poor people in the US can usually afford electricty and multiple TVs.
Real poor people earn a dollar a day (India for example) Poor people is the US earn minimum wage.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 18, 2004 23:13:04 GMT -5
Okay – I had a feeling we were having a mis-communication there . . . I guess you would see it as a problem, if your desire would be to hold President Bush accountable for so-called intelligence “failures”. When Clinton was in office, he (Clinton) and many of Bush’s current Democratic opponents (Kennedy, Kerry, etc.) had the very same arguments pertaining to Iraq. - "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
- "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
- "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
- "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
- "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
- "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
- "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
- "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
- "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
- "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
- "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
- "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
- "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
- "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force —— if necessary —— to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
- "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
- "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
- "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
- "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
ALSO: Myths About Intelligence www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/advertisers/popunders/classesusa_apr04.html
More Myths:
- Saddam Hussein never attacked us. We shouldn't have gone in and taken out his regime.
The Democrats criticized President Bush for not acting unilaterally in Afghanistan before September 11th. And the Democrats supported taking out Saddam Hussein when President Clinton was in office. But once President Bush came into the White House, the Democrats changed their tune. They want unilateral action whenever President Bush doesn't take unilateral action, but when the president does take unilateral action, that's not good either.
- We haven't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush lied!!!
During the Clinton Administration, Democrats said Saddam Hussein had such weapons . They were reading the same intelligence reports that President Bush relied upon. But that didn't stop people like Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy from accusing President Bush of lying and saying he "concocted the war in Iraq from Texas". (Kennedy, it should be noted, once said , "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.") To date, I have never gotten an answer to this question: if President Bush concocted all the "lies" about Saddams's weapons, then how did he manage to–years before he came into office--convince so many Clinton Administration officials that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?
Evan Coyne Maloney Www.brain-terminal.com
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 18, 2004 23:13:40 GMT -5
And how many media outlets have actively reported the recent findings of sarin and mustard gas?: The 155mm nerve gas shell was rigged to kill U.S. troops but it failed. U.S. Brig. General Mark Kimmitt confirmed the discovery during a news conference in Baghdad.
Yet, the discovery of nerve gas was followed by a second revelation. A second shell, equipped with mustard gas was found two weeks ago.
The mustard gas shell identified by the special WMD inspection team in Iraq appears to be one of 550 declared by Saddam to U.N. inspectors during the early 1990s. These shells disappeared later in 2002 when Hans Blix asked to see them.
The sudden discovery of nerve gas and mustard gas in Iraq can be added to two other recent events ignored by the mainstream media.
The first took place during the 9/11 hearings when former Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified that in 1998 Saddam's top nerve gas experts met with several members of al Qaeda in Baghdad. Clearly, such a meeting places the top terrorist with the leading Middle East dictator in the same basket. The dangerous combination of two madmen, mixed with weapons of mass destruction, seems to blow the "no threat here" argument out of the water.
However, that is not enough for the left.
The second event, a foiled gas attack in Jordan, piles more facts higher and deeper. The attack, led by Al Qaeda operatives, reportedly could have killed 20,000 people. The Jordanians were very clear about the foiled attack, the weapon involved was deadly gas and the terrorists, based in Iraq, entered by the Syrian border.
Jordanian diplomats have informed me that the investigation into the foiled gas attack is still under way and that at least two other members of the terrorist team are still on the run. Still, this is not enough proof for the anti-war fanatics.
It is very clear from what we have found so far that Iraq did have chemical weapons and was trying to hide its arsenal. The discrepancies between documentation, box markings and actual items found clearly show that an intentional effort was made by Iraqi troops to mislead U.N. inspection teams. In some cases false shipping documents written in English were discovered with the weapons.
The effort to find chemical or biological weapons is being hampered by the vast quantity of conventional munitions stored under dangerous conditions. The Iraqi Army was well known for storing chemical weapons with its conventional explosives.
The Iraqi program to hide its weapons programs from U.N. inspectors was no small effort. Aviation Week and Space Technology noted in an article published in September 2002 that Iraq went to great lengths to conceal its arms technology.
According to Aviation Week, the Iraqis tried to destroy a German aircraft and its crew on a U.N. mission. The Iraqis were trying to prevent documents produced by the U.N. inspectors from leaving the country.
The U.N. documents covered details found on Iraq's nuclear weapons programs and a blueprint for aggressive, military-backed, inspections to root out the underground WMD programs. The documents also contained "rough" details of Iraqi command authorities, weapons production and delivery systems.
It was that safety technique, of separating the nerve gas into two inert chemicals, and placing them in two chambers inside the shell, that foiled the terrorist attack. The "binary" chemical weapons design has a metal or plastic diaphragm designed to keep the two inert chemicals apart until the massive force or shock of firing it down a cannon bursts the wall, allowing the chemicals to mix.
We are indeed fortunate that the two weapons discovered so far were not used correctly. However, it is clear, that much like thingyroaches - when your find one it is an indication of many more. Saddam did not make just one - he made tons.
Saddam had 220 tons of nerve gas, counted previously by U.N. inspectors that he could not declare to Hans Blix. The deadly gas, and the delivery systems, vanished into the Iraqi desert and points beyond.
U.S. satellite's detected large convoys of unspecified equipment flowing over the Iraqi/Syrian border just prior to the war. The General in charge of our space assets has publicly noted the photos showing what appeared to be weaponry passed from Iraq to Syria.
We all know from the anti-war fanatics that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - the leftist media and pundits have pounded that assertion into the American TV fact file. We are told again and again that George Bush lied.
The recent discovery of nerve gas and mustard gas in Iraq is clearly proof that it was Saddam Hussein that was lying. Saddam lied about his weapons and has hidden more than one for future use.
The fact is the left will not be satisfied with the recent discovery. How many need to be found - two - ten - a thousand? The left does not feel that any number of these dangerous weapons reaches the level of adequate proof.Actually, I don't recall that I compared democrats with communists . . . I have mentioned on another thread that nowadays it seems that liberalism (specifically that exhibited by the far left here in the U.S.) isn't that far away from Socialism and then Communism. Do you think that b/c this thread is talking about "Democrats", that I was referring to Democrats when I posted the bumper sticker signs? No -- that's not the message I was trying to portray. The bumper sticker talking about Communism was talking about just that -- Communism (no attempt to compare Democrats with Communism). Sorry if you took it that way. Must be another case of mis-communication again . . . Easy to do that on message boards. I heard once that a TRULY poor person (someone from a third world country, I think from India, perhaps) made the comment that he wanted to come to America -- where the “poor people are fat”! What is considered “poor” by the Census Bureau isn’t necessarily true poverty – my husband and I are considered in the poverty level on our tax returns – we are by no means destitute, homeless, hungry, bankrupt, etc. And the “poor” (in this country) are a constantly evolving group – most successful people were at one time considered “poor", but by hard work and determination (NOT government handouts) they made great achievements. Ah, yes – the class warfare weapon. “Tax cuts for the wealthy” is such a worn out line The tax cuts were across the board. Do you know the statistics on who actually PAYS the majority of the taxes in our country?? Only The Rich Pay TaxesTop 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes October 10, 2003 The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay: Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%) of all income. The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%) of all income. The top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%) of all income The top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all income. And yet, it's somehow wrong that those who actually pay taxes get a tax cut . . . ?? AMEN, Cindi!!! You hit the nail right on the head. A side note about minimum wage: From the CATO Institute: In reality, full-time employees make up only a small percentage of the total number of people earning the minimum wage.
Contrary to the claims of many members of Congress, government cannot create wealth by simply passing new laws. Otherwise, Congress would long ago have passed laws prohibiting poverty and establishing a minimum wage of $100, or even $1,000, an hour. In such a world, everyone could be a millionaire. But ours is a world of scarcity, and wealth is a product of the market process, not of legislative fiat.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 19, 2004 12:17:35 GMT -5
Yes, Kennedy was a Democrat; his political beliefs were more in line with those of a conservative, though. Funny how Kerry (and others like Ted Kennedy) have implied that Vietnam was "Nixon's War", when it was Nixon who finally ended the whole mess. Memories are short. The first aid was sent to Vietnam under the Eisenhower administration. Other than a limited number of advisors and the Strategic Hamlets Program there was only a slight change under Kennedy. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution and the first combat troops were sent under Johnson. The high watermark of troops in Vietnam (540,000) was also under Johnson. Nixon inherited the war and was president when it ended. It ended more because it was unwinnable than anything else. We have seen the Soviet Union suffer the same fate in the middle east. Now the US is in Afghanistan fighting the same people that we supplied weapons to to fight against the Russians. Then, of course, they were guerrilla fighters then but now they are terrorists. Talk about the miracle of transubstantiation! It is a well known fact that there were large stockpiles of both chemical and biological weapons. It is also known that some, if not most, were destroyed. When Bush said there were WMD stockpiles it was not the case. The current administration mentioned several times that they 'knew' the WMDs existed and that they 'knew'where the WMDs were. If I said I know there is a pile of gold and I know it is in your back yard I think you can safely assume I am lying. Even if there are a few shells that can be found scattered around the country, can they be called stockpiles? The US has a few scattered around as well. The Bible has a number of places that talk about war and killing. Looking at the NT what is mentioned more - killing your enemy or forgiving your enemy? Who mentioned forgivness? Who mentioned using the sword? Who do you trust - Christ of Paul?
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 19, 2004 13:10:16 GMT -5
Cindi, It seems like we lack perspective when we talk about the "poor" in this country. We really don't know what poor is in the US. Or perhaps an understanding. Overweight people may be that way because of any number of reasons. Poor diet certainly contributes to poor health as well as weight issues. People raised in poor environments are often overfed as children. Many poor people do not have personal trainers and do not have the time to schedule liposuction. I am not sure who the real poor are who do not have electricity when it is available. As to having TV's, that is not an expensive item and it offers inexpensive entertainment. Are you suggesting they sit in the dark? And if they took that minimum wage an lived in India they would be wealthy. There are people abusing the system. They are doing it here in the US and in the poorest sections of India.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 19, 2004 14:09:52 GMT -5
The Myth of Widespread American Poverty www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221.cfmThe Myth of Poverty in the U.S.www.sierratimes.com/04/01/19/raythomas.htmAll signs show that the American system provides the opportunity for unbelievable economic mobility.
Consider a study by the University of Michigan Panel Survey on Income Dynamics. It found that only 5.1 percent of all Americans with incomes in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 remained there in 1991. Nearly 95 percent were able to move up the economic ladder. Twenty-nine percent actually moved up to the top fifth in the country. www.calpatriot.org/article.php?articleID=33Re-distribution of wealth is not the answer to "poverty" -- especially in this country, where it is possible for just about anyone to succeed if they have the dedication and put forth the hard work to do so.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 19, 2004 15:01:43 GMT -5
. . . . Re-distribution of wealth is not the answer to "poverty" -- especially in this country, where it is possible for just about anyone to succeed if they have the dedication and put forth the hard work to do so. I primarily agree, but due to greed this is all changing. I'm glad you wrote "just about". My perspective changed when I was fired for repeatedly refusing to stretch the truth beyond its limits. I was optimistic about finding another job, especially since I was willing to do anything healthy and honest, and to go anywhere. I was unemployed for several months. Now I make about 10% of what I used to make - 20% after taxes. (I am happy with that, even though social security, if I were elegible, would pay 20% more.) But I know people in my age bracket who really cannot find work for long periods of time. It seems employers are silently afraid anyone over 50 is likely to become a liability. This is a reasonable assumption, I suppose. There is always a way impose discrimination and make it look like something else. But the real problem is greed. The more everyone tries to get as much as possible for themselves, the less there will be for everyone. inatent
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 19, 2004 15:12:46 GMT -5
This subject reminds me of a day I spent in Bogota a few years ago, waiting in line with a friend who was trying to get a visa to go to the United States. When we got into the long line, two hours before the Embassy opened, the sky was clear. There was a man walking up and down the line trying to sell umbrellas for $1000 pesos, but no one wanted one. Awhile later some clouds came up and people began to buy umbrellas - for $1200 pesos. The clouds got darker, the umbrellas sold faster - at $2000 pesos. When the rain began he sold the last umbrellas - I think it was $5000 pesos! That afternoon, when we exited the embassy, the rain had stopped, but there was a lot of water running down the street. We had to cross the street to get a bus, but the water was deep along the edge of the road. There was a man with just a simple board he had laid down from the sidewalk to the higher center of the road, holding out his hand for people to throw in a few coins for permission to use his board. We gladly paid! That is ingenuity in a land where there is real poverty! Most places in the United States these men might have been arrested for not having a business license. inatent
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 19, 2004 16:21:43 GMT -5
This subject reminds me of a day I spent in Bogota a few years ago, waiting in line with a friend who was trying to get a visa to go to the United States. When we got into the long line, two hours before the Embassy opened, the sky was clear. There was a man walking up and down the line trying to sell umbrellas for $1000 pesos, but no one wanted one. Awhile later some clouds came up and people began to buy umbrellas - for $1200 pesos. The clouds got darker, the umbrellas sold faster - at $2000 pesos. When the rain began he sold the last umbrellas - I think it was $5000 pesos! It seems to be just what the oil companies are doing today. I like to see such ingenuity!
|
|
|
Post by Democrat on May 19, 2004 18:02:55 GMT -5
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. If some shells with sarin is everything that’s left, I guess he did his job well.. All this uproar is about one shell containing sarin, produced almost 14 years ago. Apparently it got past it’s expirationdate, as it didn’t do any harm to people, and that while sarin can be a very dangerous and deathly gas. I know that Saddam possessed WMD’s back in the 90s, but if you can count the numbers of shells found on one hand, you have to conclude that those weapon-inspectors did a good job back in the 90s. You don’t trust the press, do you? The finding of that shell was widely published in different newspapers here in Europe, and it doesn’t seem to me that that news got covered up internationally. Maybe it was in the States.. What did Bush actually do on Iraq and terrorism in his first year of presidency, before 9/11?? It was not until 9/11 that the world woke up, including G.W. Bush, and it was just then that he started his war on terrorism and began pointing at Iraq and blaming them for connections with terrorists and the possession of WMDs. You're right, it's kind of a luxury-problem to talk about poverty. I understand your point of view on this issue, although it's something I don't agree on. It's the difference between the American Dream of having your own responsibility and the "survival of the fittest" versus a community in which the strongest care for the weaker in the society. And it feels pretty good, i must say. Healthcare and universities are among the best in the world, which results in a very healthy population and a highly educated workforce. And surprisingly, education appears to be one of the main denominators for a wealthy economy.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 19, 2004 18:26:45 GMT -5
You make the false assumtion that it is an either-or proposition. The American Dream as I view it includes the stronger caring for the weaker. It is just that the funtion of help and welfare would be performed by churches and families, not forced upon us by government.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 19, 2004 20:00:01 GMT -5
All this uproar is about one shell containing sarin, produced almost 14 years ago. Apparently it got past it’s expirationdate, as it didn’t do any harm to people, and that while sarin can be a very dangerous and deathly gas. The reason that it did not kill more was that it was, as pointed out in another post, a shell that prevented the components from mixing until the shell was in flight. By not mixing the components the shelf life of the product is extended far beyond the nominal 3 month shelf life for the mixed chemical.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 19, 2004 20:59:34 GMT -5
The US sent military advisers to Vietnam (between 1955 and 1961) to help oversee the development of the South Vietnamese army but in 1961 they numbered less than 1000. By 1963, however, President Kennedy had tripled the aid being sent to Vietnam and increased the number of military advisors to over 15,000. Quite a bit more than just a “slight” change. Sorry if you don’t see the pretty clear difference between guerilla fighters who keep their fight contained to opposing military/government forces, and terrorists who have an express mandate to intentionally take their battle to innocent civilians. Big difference. Reiteration of numerous quotes from Bush opponents during the Clinton administration that made the same claims as the Bush administration. The goal to have Saddam removed from power was officially declared during Clinton’s term in office. It is evidence that banned materials and weapons were there, when Saddam said they were not. I know the left is trying to downplay the importance of this, but it is important nonetheless; in addition to other discoveries made and referenced in Kay’s full report. Well, since Christ never eliminated government’s role in keeping law and order and protecting it’s citizens from evil, I would say I trust both. Terrorism, Justice, and Loving Our Enemieswww.desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2001/091201.htmlIs it wrong to go to war?www.desiringgod.org/library/theological_qa/sept11/war.html
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 19, 2004 21:00:05 GMT -5
Not often – you’d have to know some of their history here; it’s widely suspected (and even admitted to by some reporters) that the mainstream media has a definite (liberal) bias and that it often shows up in the form of editorial comments made (or pertinent facts omitted) disguised as reporting. The info I’ve read is that it was two separate shells in two separate locations and that there was a separate discovery of mustard gas about a week and a half to two weeks ago. Let me give you an example of how this was handled by the mainstream press the day the story broke: ALL of the three major news networks in the States (ABC, NBC, CBS) had as their headline story (their leading story, mind you!!) the issue of gay marriage in Massachussetts!! One of the networks never mentioned it in their headline comments (I think it was NBC). Another network (ABC) mentioned lastly in it’s headlining of stories that there was a “surprising” find in Iraq. CBS actually mentioned in it’s headlining of reports that sarin had been discovered in Iraq; I think it was mentioned last as well. Many newspapers buried the story in the back pages of their main section. I’ve no doubt that the “media” doesn’t really want to advertise many good things that are going on in Iraq; nor do they loudly talk about the things we’ve found there that actually do justify our being there. When David Kay made one of his reports in January, detailing many things that proved Saddam was up to no good (even though no “stockpiles” had been found), the media headlines were “NO WMDs!!”. There was brief mention of the mass graves that they’ve found in Iraq (now 400,000+ bodies and counting); Nick Berg’s beheading was main headline news for about 1 day, I think, but the media immediately continued to pounce on the despicable actions of a handful of our military men and women who abused/humiliated Iraqi detainees/prisoners. I'll give another example. Dan Rather (notorious liberal "reporter" for CBS) did a bit of editorializing one night on the evening news. This was when he reported on the 4 civilians that were killed, burned, and dismembered in Fallugia (sp?). He made the comment that with our "economy" in the shape it's in, this might have been the "only job" the civilians could find!! I about threw up. First of all, our economy has been recovering for the past year or so. Secondly -- it was such an outrageous and transparent attempt to falsely influence the opinion of the public. The below political cartoon speaks for itself. May 11, 2004 The Good, The Bad, The MediaArticle at: www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000336.html
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 19, 2004 21:07:28 GMT -5
My perspective changed when I was fired for repeatedly refusing to stretch the truth beyond its limits. Inatent -- is there no way you can legally pursue recompense from the company for their actions?
|
|