Anti-war Protest Draws Thousands to DC

[Terri]

By Jeff Gannon
GOPUSA News
January 20, 2003

WASHINGTON (GOPUSA News) -- On Saturday, the National Mall was filled with throngs of anti-war protestors. Unofficial estimates put the number between 100,000 and 500,000. In a replay of a smaller October 2002 event, participants endured frigid temperatures to hear two hours of speeches and songs before marching to the Navy Yard.

The event was organized by ANSWER, an acronym for "Act Now to Stop War and End Racism." With a few exceptions, speakers were mostly little-known representatives of groups supporting a socialist agenda in addition to their anti-war sentiment.

Notables who addressed the crowd included the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Representative John Conyers (D-MI). Former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney took to the stage to denounce Florida Governor Jeb Bush for acts of racism against black and Hispanic voters in the 2000 presidential election. Entertainment industry figures Tyne Daly, Patti Smith, and Jessica Lange voiced their opposition to war with Iraq in their remarks.

Full Story (http://gopusa.com/news/2003/january/0120_protest.shtml)

Ramsay Clark was also there calling for Bush to be impeached. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mr_yuk.gif

[Terri]

Here is a partial list of those who organized the demonstrations:

Socialist Party USA
Act Now To Stop War and End Racism
Move On
New Communist Party of the Netherlands
Green Party USA
The progressive Common Dreams
Free Palestine Alliance
Workers World Party
Partnership for Civil Justice
Nicaragua Network
International Action Center
Muslim Student Association of the U.S./Canada
Kensington Welfare Rights Union
Mexico Solidarity Network
Ramsey Clark - former U.S. Attorney General
American Muslims for Global Peace
Al-Awda Palestine Right of Return Coalition
International Action Center, NYC
Deputy Ambassador-at-Large, Haiti
Muslim Student Association of Richland College, Dallas, Texas
Al-Awda Palestine Right of Return Coalition
Muslims Against Racism and War
Simmons College Feminist Union
International Family & Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Left Turn
Heidelberg Forum
Retired Admiral, German Navy, Germany
AFSCME Local 1072
African Immigrant and Refugee Coalition
Dominican Workers Party, NYC
District Council 1707 AFSCME, NYC
National Lawyers Guild
Muslim Student & Faculty Association
transgender author and Co-Founder, Rainbow Flags for Mumia
UFCW Local 27, Baltimore, Maryland
Brooklyn Greens, Brooklyn, New York
Cuba Advocate Newsletter
SAFRAD Somali Association
Arab Cause Solidarity Committee, Madrid, Spain
Anti-Imperialist League, Belgium
Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, California
California Prison Focus

[lpara]

<span style='font-family:comic sans ms'>Even though I've never heard of these &quot;peoples&quot; I'm not surprised to see the words Palestine/Communist/Socialist, etc. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif *These weirdos will never get it. *It really makes you not want to watch anything again that have these &quot;actors&quot; in it. *I don't know who they are, but most likely they won't show up on FOX News or HGTV~~my two favorites.</span>

[Terri]

Tyne Daly has been one of my favorite actresses for years. No more. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

[pRIMrose]

Tyne Daley ~ http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif ~ same here. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

However, I really like the post that says, 289 million people in the US didn't protest/demostrate. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/twothumbsup.gif

[Charie]

Ditto re: Tyne Daly. I first saw her on the old &quot;Route 66&quot; tv show that starred Martin Milner (who I also like) If he ever gets out and starts spouting drivel like this bunch, I'll probably spit up.

Why don't people check out who sponsors these things? Or is it that they don't care who they're in bed with? I'm shaking my head over the whole thing. I'm sure that this was an edifying sight for our service people to see as they head out for Afghanistan.

Ipara, thanks for the &quot;peoples&quot; emphasis. You can be pretty sure that that word indicates socialism and communism. &quot;The masses&quot; is another. Time for another spit up.

[nekela]

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif I too have never heard of most of these groups , but I believe they are all alike. I can picture this : If President Bush were to back off and not go to war , eventually we would get a nuke or some other bad WMD dropped on us by Hussein or some other faction sponsored by him and then these same people would be screaming for his head for not stopping it. They all have their heads in the sand or some other dark place. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

[Captain Eagle]

These people are traitors in time of war. But who cares in this Nation of Cowards?

[Reccos]

Captain Eagle: It seems that you not only espouse rascist epithets against the people of Africa, you are also unfairly attacking those who have a different view as cowards. *The organizers may be left wing wackos but I am sure that there were many decent ordinary people who want their country to take a second look and find an alternative to war.

Maybe 289 million people ought to consider for a moment the horrors and casualties of war. *Two world wars were fought by many in allied countries so that today's young need not go to war. *

Let us not forget the horror of death and injury to the innocent citizens of Iraq - moms, dads, brothers, sisters, grandparents, cousins. * They are people too. *Or should they all go to Africa, like any other person, who is black, who disagrees with you.

You should be demoted from Captain.

[lpara]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let us not forget the horror of death and injury to the innocent citizens of Iraq - moms, dads, brothers, sisters, grandparents, cousins. * They are people too. *Or should they all go to Africa, like any other person, who is black, who disagrees with you.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

<span style='font-family:comic sans ms'><span style='color:green'>Let us also not forget that those same innocent citizens are the ones asking for help from America. *What say you to that factomundo? *</span></span>

[Reccos]

Excellent point, Ipara. *If they are asking for help, is the best response to shove a bomb down their throats?

Instead of waging war, how about doing something to end war, like in the Middle East?

Unfortunately, America is losing its moral authority in the Middle East as evidenced by Israel invoking the US view of when it is reasonable and right to attack another country.

How about a thread on the horror of what war does to innocent people? *Let's face it. *There is no such thing as a smart bomb. *There will be &quot;collateral&quot; damage if there is war. *In other words, real people like you and I will die or be maimed. *And they can't do anything about their government and they no voice.

In cities where the police face gangs who are killing each other or harming innocent citizens, the response is to bring the wrong doers to justice. *Not simply start shooting them in the street. *Now when we extrapolate this onto the world stage, there is a time and place when someone has to shoot, but much care is taken to ensure that they pick the right spots.

This war, unfortunately is personal between President Bush and Saddam Hussein. The President even calls him by his first name. What is ironic is the logic of the administration on this issue. You are either with us or against us. Unfortunately in world affairs, there are few situations that are that black and white. Great leaders know when to act and when to negotiate. Unfortunately we are not seeing great leadership now.

One final thought. Isn't this the same Clinton military that the President and Vice President campaigned against? What is so different about the military in the brief time this President has been in office? If the Clinton military were so bad, don't you think it will take more time to make it right? Hmm, makes one wonder about which position the President really has on the military.

[lpara]

<span style='font-family:comic sans ms'><span style='color:6633ff' >I can't think of one person in all the world that WANTS war, but there are times when it is the only way to help a desperate country. *Can America help it that SH surrounds his people as human shields around his weapons? *No, I think not. *I grieve at any loss of life and I also grieve for those who have no life at all living under a dictator. *How about the 1 and a half million that are already dead at the hands of Sadaam? *What makes you think that he's not killing more right now? *He has no qualms about killing his own people; and I would not put it past him to kill more and then blame it on America! I believe we do whatever we can to keep from killing innocent people ~~ unlike Sadaam.</span></span>

[Reccos]

Ipara:

How on earth is bombing the ___ out of Iraq and killing innocent people going to &quot;help a desperate country&quot;?

It only helps them if your moral position is that they are better off dead than living under that horrible regime. I am not so sure that they would choose dying if they were given a choice.

You truly have to think through what war means before you conclude that killing them is really America's way of saying we're helping you. That kind of help they might choose to not have.

[lpara]

<span style='font-family:comic sans ms'><span style='color:green'>It's awfully late here in NC and I'm sure my brain is not in gear (but then that's a rarity anyway http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ) Who says we're going to bomb Iraq to Kingdom Come? *How do you know what the military/administration has planned? *I think we will try to take out their artillery through the air, but I don't know what their plans are. *It sounds to me like a lot of ground troops are getting ready which means they are not going to bomb them to bits, but does mean we will be more susceptible to death of our troops. *I truly grieve for that and I will pray that before any of that happens Sadaam will get out of Dodge. *Now, I simply must get some http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sleeping.gif 's ! http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/thumbs-up.gif</span></span>

[angelus]

Which would you rather see:

Suddam nuking us, or us going over there and kicking his buttocks. Either one will happen, there will be no peace without an absolute military victory. Sometimes, war is necessary to bring about the change necessary for peace.

It's a heavy price, and one I personally don't think I could bear. That is why I elect others to office, and do not run myself (besides, politics as usual brings out the worst in people, and I prefer to not have that happen to me).

[lpara]

<span style='font-family:comic sans ms'><span style='color:green'>Reccos, please give me your solution and then with that solution proof through American history that it works. *Who knows, maybe you'll win me over to your side. *So far everyone of the peaceniks I've heard on the news have NO SOLUTIONS! *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/doh.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif</span></span>

[Terri]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The organizers may be left wing wackos but I am sure that there were many decent ordinary people who want their country to take a second look and find an alternative to war.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

IF there were any naive people singing Kumbaya in those crowds they were greatly outnumbered by professional protestors supporting the leftwing radical Socialist Workers of the world.

These demonstrations were not organized or populated by flower children. To claim otherwise is either incredibly naive or deliberately deceptive.

Reccos, your way has been tried for the last 12 years. Appeasement failed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe 289 million people ought to consider for a moment the horrors and casualties of war.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

They considered the sight of airplanes flying into tall buildings in NYC and Washington DC. It isn't a far leap from that to envisioning a dirty bomb going off in the same locations. They considered and decided action was better than the approach taken in the past.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This war, unfortunately is personal between President Bush and Saddam Hussein. *The President even calls him by his first name. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

And you know this how? *

Sorry Reccos. I repeat. Your leftwing, pacifist, appeasing approach was tried for 12 years. It failed and the WTC and the Pentagon is the proof of leftwing failure.

[Granite River]

Who wouldn’t love Cynthia McKinney? She is such a darling racist with very hard leaning to the left of communism.

I also like the effort to make any military action in to a racist attempt to kill off all of our black men. Even with Collin Powell, who is pro affirmative action, standing very close to President Bush these people want to inject race into everything that they can. Can there be any further doubt that Jackson, Sharpton, Conyers

Reccos, We didn’t fight WWI or WWII to stop war but to preserve freedom. The Germans had attacked free people. In this case we have been attacked by Islamic extremists. If we don’t fight back now and fight to the end we will lose our way of life and much of the freedom that our fathers fought for in WWII.

If the people of Iraq don’t want a few bombs in their back yard then they should grow a spine and remove Saddam from power. But they know that we are ready to do the job so they would rather take the chance of getting hit by our bombs rather than having their daughter raped while they are tortured to death.

It’ comforting to see people who are so concerned about the innocent people who may die if we attack and remove Saddam, but don’t seem to care that Saddam will rape and kill even more innocent people if he is left in power. Are you not at all concerned about the constant terror that the people of Iraq go to bed with ever night?

Let’s look at what is in store for Iraq after Saddam is out. Democratic government, better economy and getting back into the world community.

[Reccos]

Sorry people, but Saddam was not the guy with the planes in New York. It's the other guy, Osama, who is not in Iraq.
It is just that kind of sloppy thinking that gets you all worked up for a battle.

A better solution at this time is to continue the fight against terrorism and focus on reducing the tensions with North Korea where a huge world war has the potential to break out.

Saddam is not alone in mistreating his people. If we are to progress as a humane society the solution has to be in world forums like the UN. I know, I know. It really grates when you have to work slowly and in a forum where things don't always work smoothly or your way.

This is the wrong battle and the wrong time.

By the way, none of your logic in support of going war makes the case. On the one hand, it's lets kill them for their own good as Saddam is killing and harming his people. On the other, you are linking the terrorist acts to him and say why not take him out.

For all those naive enough to believe that there won't be civilian casualties no matter how the war is fought, give your head a shake!!! One last thing. Saddam won't be one of the casualties either. If there is one thing despots like this guy achieve in a war is their own personal safety.

Let's focus on a peaceful world where war is always an option but not a first response. A world where we accept that we, in the free nations of the world, are not the world's policeman. But where we need to act to stop atrocities, we act together through the UN.

The list is too long of places in this world where people are being harmed by their leaders and Saddam is just one of the worst of a long list of bad people.

[angelus]

True, Sadaam was not in the planes (which is one negative, at least then he'd be gone too).
Osama not in Iraq? All evidence suggests that Iraq and Osama share the same goal -- the annihilation of the Western World. If you want that to happen, the fine, be a pacifist. Me on the other hand. . . I want a true peace, which can sometimes only exist after a war.

Reccos, you're making an assumption that is very degrading to me, and probably to everyone else here too. We do not seek to kill innocent people. You are stating that that is our goal in a call to arms. Not so. Our targets are purely military in nature. Unfortunately, Iraq used civilians as shields.

I'm reminded of a certain story in the Bible, where David (I think) was charged with going in some place where that tribe had gone against the Jews (I think, help me out you Bible scholars&#33http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif and he was commanded to kill every living thing, including women and children, who were probably innocent of doing anything themselves.

Who is going to be victorious in this war (and it's going to happen, there's no way around it unless Sadamm complies for the first time in his life)? The side that backs Isreal, for it is the Holy Land.

AS far as the UN goes, it is nothing more than an anti-America slamfest most of the time. The UN is kind of with us on this, but they refuse to act, because acting takes guts, something that liberals and the liberals within the UN lack.

[AngelsRWorldChamps]

Note to Liberals and Dumb Dumbs where is this war you are protesting it does not exist yet.

[Reccos]

I suppose you are saying I am the liberal for opposing the war. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif We know who the &quot;dumb dumbs&quot; are on this site and it isn't this poster. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif By the way, aren't dumbs dumbs weapons (bullets)? *You guys for war are dangerous. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Where is the war? *Where have you got your head buried sinced your beloved Angels won the championship? * If you hadn't noticed, there is a massive military build up going on in the Middle East right now and isn't that kind of thing the forerunner to war?

It is best to do the thinking before the war.

The UN isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but who, or what country or what democratic body anywhere in the world, including the United States, is? *No system with democracy at its core works perfect. *We only know that it is better than any other system especially those run by dictators and tyrants.

Angelus: *you better get working on those biblical analogies because they aren't making your case here. *If you want to try one, how about getting one you have the capacity to grasp. *Maybe God has revealed His plan for this latest war to the little children, but on this one the Almighty has passed you by. *






http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif



http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Terri]

I realize that this is a heated issue but this is an official reminder to everyone to stick to the issues and not to personal attacks on other posters.

It's good to explore these issues with people who believe differently but if we resort to personal attacks the issues get lost. Thanks for your cooperation.


Reccos, I have a couple of questions for you. I would appreciate a straight answer and then please expound from there as much as you like.

Do you believe the US is a sovereign nation governed by it's constitution?

Do you desire a one world government and think that the US should be subject to its rulings?

[Reccos]

Terri: To answer your questions:

Yes, the United States is a sovereign nation governed by its own constitution. *That is unquestioned.

No, I do not believe in a single world government. *
-------------

No sovereign nation which is truly a great democracy as is the U.S., can ignore the reality that we live in a world where we are interdependent on each other. *That doesn't mean dependent nor entirely independent either.

We rely on other nations for trade and support where required.

The single world government concept is not something I believe in or would advocate. *

However, I do believe that if there is one grave danger to world peace, it is the quality of institutions like the United Nations. *No country is better endowed or positioned than the United States to play a major role in improving the quality of the UN and its ability to use military power from the nations to ensure tyrants are kept in check.

Iraq is simply not a threat to the US and will never have the capacity to wage a world war like the USSR could have in its time. *It is interesting that the truth of the democratic way of life prevailed in the Cold War. *Why not give that a try.

We know that by trading with China back in the 1970s we have improved relations with them. *President Richard Nixon opened up communications with them, because they were clearly a threat (oh yes, they were also a potential market but that was secondary). *And by the way, if China ever decided to become a threat to us in the free world, we could have a problem. *I think cooler heads know this and we are building better relations through trade. *It is then hoped that this will ensure that they end their human rights abuses. *Avoiding them is no longer a serious option. *

Not so long ago, President Clinton stood side by side on a public podium in China with the head of their government and communicated directly with the Chinese people (televised) about democracy and its power to improve the lives of its citizens. *

To those of us interested in relations between nations, this was historic in that a US President stood on Chinese soil at the podium with the Chinese leader and was allowed to make these points on a broadcast seen by millions in China. *Whether it was window dressing by the Chinese or not, it does help to improve relations and generate interest on the part of citizens in those nations in our way of life.


That is why I believe we have to resolve the situation with North Korea while continuing to fight the terrorists like Osama Bin Laden.

Our efforts in the Middle East should be for peace between Israel and Palestine. *That should be a focus for the Administration. *It is not because war is imminent.

As Albert Einstein once said &quot;You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.&quot; *Our task today should be to bring peace to the world and to promote democracy.

[Terri]

Thanks, Reccos. It's helps to know a bit more of what you believe.

The UN is a joke. As long as third world nations who are really nothing more than criminals have power in the organization it will remain a joke.

We are better off going it alone than we are with the UN as presently constituted.

The idea was a good one, the implementation is unworkable.

Iraq is not a threat to the US in the traditional sense. Things have changed. They are openly involved in funding terrorism against Israel so why wouldn't you think they would do the same against us?

We know that Saddam had WMD that he has not accounted for. Why would you think he wouldn't or couldn't use them against us on our own soil?

The democratic way of life prevailed in the Cold War through strength, not weakness. Strength is what we need now, not more of the weakness we had in the last administration.

As to the Middle East, one of the greatest sources of funding for Palestinian terrorist groups will be removed with the demise of Saddam Hussein. It will also set an example for others who emulate his efforts.

The sooner he is removed, the better it will be for the Iraqi people and everyone in the area.

Peace through elimination of dictators and through strength, not weakness.

[spanky]

Reccos, perhaps I missed it, but I have yet to see you offer any viable peacfull solution to this situation.
It is a very well known fact that when the UN distributes money to Nations like Iraq it does not go to buy food, medical supplies or create social programs for the good of those people. So I would venture to say that the UN is not an option.
For a majority of his years in power Saddam has oppressed his own people, challanged internationaly recognized laws and resolutions and invaded neighboing countries. This is hardly the type of dictator our world can endure.
I do not believe that Saddam has been planning terorist attacks against America. However, his regime has and continues to fund terrorist attacks against the innocent people of Isreal, whom is one of our allies. Yet I do not see you greive for the innocent lives of the Isrealies. Perhaps only muslims can be innocent.
Furthermore, those who protested in DC, appear to have been communists, yet they are still Americans and as such have constitutionall rights.
So as a member of the military, I will proudly go and fight with my fellow brothers and sisters to protect the rights of all Americans. However, I would also like to enable those who are less fortunate than us to enjoy the very freedom so many of us assume is free.
I see no other way of acheiving this objective than war. I hope he just gives up and informs the inspectors where he has hiddes the weapons we seek. However, this seems as likely as either one of us changing the others mind.
On a side note, kinda funny how if you take the high figure for the demonstraters and compute it to the US population, .17% attended this rally, yet they get a whole lot of airtime.

[Granite River]

Reccos, The UN isn’t a democratic body just because the dictators in the General Assemble and on the Security Council get to vote the same as the world leaders who are supported by heir people do.


Yes Terri, the UN was a liberal idea that is right up there with the “Great Society”. It sound good and feel so good to think that all nations will stand together against aggression and aid those in need but the USA spoiled them all years ago.

As far as the USA winning the cold war; that remains to be seen. The UN is full of Russian and communist influences that have held power for decades and are entrenched in populations that can’t shake them.

[Reccos]

The UN is not perfect but the idea behind the body and its role in international relations must be supported. *It would do the United States well to improve its efforts at the UN as much as it would help world peace.

No democratic body anywhere in the world is perfect! None. *Not Britain, France, Germany, Canada nor the United States. *I suspect past Presidents of the Republic have cursed the US Congress on many, many occasions. That doesn't make the Senate or the House a joke, now does it?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is getting worse. *The tit-for-tat events going on there will not achieve peace, only more hatred, more injustice and more killing. Unfortunately, President Bush indicated at the start of his term, he would not have his Administration focused there as the prior President and Administration had. *And, I might add, with some success in reducing the deaths and killings on both sides. *(This ought to get some howling going big time! )

A war with Iraq based on how 'the neighbour has a gun and might use it on me' kind of analogies does nothing to stabilize the Middle East and on the merits so far, is not gaining support around the world. *Support, that is needed if the moral authority of the US is to be maintained. *Horace in 65 BC said it best: &quot;Force without wisdom falls of its own weight.&quot;

This brings to mind the famous quote from a British philosopher who said, &quot;The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.&quot;

Or the words of Robert E. Lee: It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.&quot; *Well said.

For all those clamouring to fire the weapons, you might take pause and consider how history will judge the decision to wage this war against Iraq. *

Will it be that historians will look at this war as key to ensuring a second term for President Bush? *
Will they determine that the war was determined by a desire for revenge for the horrific terrorist attacks against innocent civilians on that famous September 11th and not based on a real threat? *
Will they determine that the war was a strategy to avert attention from the valleys of an economic downturn that unfortunately coincided with the Presidency of George W. Bush? *
Will it be that historians will tell us the text book analysis of international relations provided by Professor Condeleeza Rice was untempered with sufficient diplomatic experience to be appropriate for our time? *
Will it be that there were simply too many in the Administration from a former time to understand the changes in the world and how to best deal with the modern terrorists?

Or will it be a combination of all of the above?

[mansfisgop]

I was at the rally and I agree that many of the sponsors were pretty far left....but I think it's important to note that there isn't really a country-wide anti-war group...yet. There are a lot of small organizations that are meeting in church basements and living rooms and who have no money but their own and who believe enough in being against this war effort to do something besides write emails to each other. But they are still organizing.

In addition to the leftist wackjob.orgs, there were old people with walkers, fat people who hardly looked able to walk a block let alone stand in the cold all day and then walk a couple of miles, Vietnam vets in wheel chairs, Republican families with kids. Thousands of people who took times out of their lives to spend all day on buses to get there, I saw one bus from Kansas...hardly a hotbed of liberalism.

There is no middle east country, even the ones that Iraq has attacked or threatened, that wants this war; why do some in this country think we know better than they do? A growing number of US citizens, in my opinion, are joining the rest of the world in questioning the wisdom of a an attack that could kill thousands of civilians and cause millions more to hate.

[Terri]

Reccos, to say the UN is not perfect is such an understatement that it's difficult to take it seriously. We simply cannot allow the UN to influence the direction of this country if we hope to survive.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No democratic body anywhere in the world is perfect! None. *Not Britain, France, Germany, Canada nor the United States.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Of course not but which of those would you say is nearest to perfect?

The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is unlikely to be solved in our time. It ebbs and flows. To rid the Middle East of those who support Palestinian terrorism will improve the situation somewhat.

Yes, the Palestinian terrorists had their best chance to gain the upper hand under Clinton. He did his very best to give them the advantage but Arafat wasn't smart enough to take it. Too bad for Arafat. Bush is unlikely to sell Israel out as Clinton did.

Reccos, propaganda about those who love war does not impress me. It's not a valid argument and falls on deaf ears.

Historians don't impress me either. They are well known for rewriting facts and attempting to build or tear down legacies depending which side of the political fence they choose to stand on.

Results count. Bush will stand or fall on results, not speculation.

[Terri]

Welcome mansfisgop! *We're glad to hear from you.

It would be particularly interesting to hear your own reasons for attending the peace rally if you are willing to share.

I hear the argument that there are normal people mixed among the others and I'm sure that is true.

Here's something they might want to consider before they give their support to another peacemarch.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is a front group for the communist Workers World Party. The Workers World Party is, literally, a Stalinist organization. It rose out of a split within the old Socialist Workers Party over the Soviet Union's 1956 invasion of Hungary -- the breakaway Workers World Party was all for the invasion. International ANSWER today unquestioningly supports any despotic regime that lays any claim to socialism, or simply to anti-Americanism. It supported the butchers of Beijing after the slaughter of Tiananmen Square. It supports Saddam Hussein and his Baathist torture-state. It supports the last official Stalinist state, North Korea, in the mass starvation of its citizens. It supported Slobodan Milosevic after the massacre at Srebrenica. It supports the mullahs of Iran, and the narco-gangsters of Colombia and the bus-bombers of Hamas.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

This is a quote from Michael Kelly, published in the Washington Post. *Marching with Stalinists (http://www.washingtonpost.c om/wp-dyn/articles/A25043-2003Jan21.html)

Whatever yours and their reasons may be, hatred of Bush, loathing of war, fear of the future, whatever, you and they are supporting some pretty bad folks against your own government.

[Reccos]

Terri: I think you have to separate the &quot;normal&quot; people who don't want America to go to war at this time from the leftwing wackos who organize these things. If Mansfisgop attended and he/she is not some left wing wacko, why would any of us think he supports those organizations agains the government or that he dislikes (&quot;loathe&quot;) the President?

Just maybe some people who sat back and didn't attend the anti-war protests during the Viet Nam conflict, are having second thoughts this time about sitting back. I know I certainly stayed away for that same reason, although there were then Senators coming out against the war including Eugene McCarthy and later, Robert Kennedy.

A lot of very good people believed in that war until the end including one of the finest ever US Senators, Everett Dirksen (Republican) who supported the President Lyndon Johnson (Dem) in the prosecution of that war.

The average American citizen who attends these peace events and who is not acting stupidly or inciting violence, could well be regular working men and women who have a concern for the direction of their country and want to see an alternate way of handling Iraq.

Let us never let the terrorists destroy the freedom that we cherish in our western democracies, and let us never succumb to their level in our response. That is what separates the truly free people of the world from the terrorists. Our unwavering commitment to democracy, justice, equality and freedom.

Osama bin Laden, if that terrorist is still alive today, wants the US to wage war against Iraq, as it will create more hatred, distrust and future terrorists and suicide bombers. Let's not play into their hands.

Don't forget it is usually the left wing types that demonstrate, yes. But just sometimes, it is the average non lefty that attends.

[Terri]

Reccos, maybe this just seems simple to me.

It really doesn't matter what your intentions are. What you do is what matters.

All demonstrations or marches are organized by someone to further their political ambitions. If you are going to attend these functions it's your responsibility to know what the organizers stand for.

If you attend you are furthering their political aims and supporting their organization. It doesn't matter what your intentions are. It matters that you were there.

And the attendees shouldn't be surprised if they are thought of as supporting the aims of the organizers because in fact, they are.

[mansfisgop]

Terri,

Thanks for the background on ANSWER; I'll have to look into it further.

I went to the rally because of the following:
I have not seen sufficient evidence that we need to preemptively attack any country, including Iraq; potentially thousands of innocent people will die as a result of our attacks.

I have not seen sufficient evidence that ties Iraq to Al Qaeda.

I think Al Qaeda wants us to attack Iraq since it will draw people to their causes.

No one in the middle east, or anywhere else, wants us to attack Iraq, and from what I've seen most people in this country don't want us to attack Iraq without UN support.

I don't feel such an attack will make us any safer; in fact I think it will further polarize the situation and cause more people to hate us and be more likely to attack us. When I see the endless cycle of violence between Israel and the Palestinians: car bomb, then assassination, then suicide bombing, then bulldozing houses, then more bombing, then rockets, I feel that our rush to attack Iraq will cause us to fall into a similar cycle.

[Saber]

So, the solution promulgated then is to &quot;make them like us&quot;? How would you like to see that done, exactly?

I'd much prefer that they fear us. I'd like them to shake in their skeletons at the mere mention of our name. We've been molly coddling these muslim dictatorships the world over for years....we've sent them OUR money by the billions...but we haven't given them the one thing they want.....a complete conversion to islam.

Just as the people called palestinian don't want anything other than Israel GONE.....these muslims want nothing other than a complete islamic takeover.

P.S. Yes, I know that Iraq is not technically a muslim country, but their complete support of these terrorist states puts them in the same boat.

[Terri]

I do think it's important to separate the Iraqi people from the dictator in our minds. Obviously he is supported by some but many would love to see the end of him.

manfisgop, looking into their background and the background of others who hold demonstrations you want to attend is always a good idea. I would hate to think I had stood with this group against my own government and didn't even know who they were.

I realize that we have a good many young adults who don't remember the first Gulf War and who may not have informed themselves on the history of Saddam Hussein.

Perhaps this all could have been avoided by the UN and Clinton doing what they should have done for the last 12 years.

Saddam is in violation of agreements to disarm that he signed at the end of the first Gulf War. The vaunted UN has not enforced those agreements.

The much admired (by the left) Clinton pulled the inspectors out.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't feel such an attack will make us any safer; in fact I think it will further polarize the situation and cause more people to hate us and be more likely to attack us. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

What do you feel will make us safer?

Will further appeasement make them like us better?

I don't understand the left and it's desire for love from the despots of the world.

I want respect. I want them to understand that they will pay a price if they attack us.

Respect is gained by strength and not from groveling.

[Terri]

I have one question for Reccos and manfisgop. I've heard this question asked of others but I've never heard a satisfactory or serious answer from anyone.

Apparently you doubt that Saddam is willing or capable of setting off a dirty bomb or a biological attack in this country.

The question is simple. Please answer it.

What if you are wrong?

[conn.servative]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq is simply not a threat to the US and will never have the capacity to wage a world war like the USSR could have in its time.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

1) Our military intelligence tells us that Iraq is a threat. They've provided photos of rebuilt weapon sites. The UN inspectors have said the the 12,000 page alleged declaration by Iraq hasn't answered any of the questions that have been asked for the last 12 years. They've found empty chemical warheads, but Iraq has refused to show how they disposed of the chemicals. Iraq's defiance to the UN, not US mandates, but UN mandates goes on...

2) You cannot compare the threat posed by Iraq, and the Cold War. It is a new time. We are surrounded by allies &amp; oceans. No country is foolish enough to conventionally attack our country on our soil. 1 Terrorist, with one nuke, or biological weapon is more dangerous than even Russia was. Because Russia knew that if they launched a nuclear attack on us, we would respond with the same, and both countries would lose in the end.

But a terrorist, with no allegiance to a country, only to his relligion. Which tells him it's okay to intentionally attack civilians because they are heathens. Presents an entirely new threat for the US.

The reason I support this war is that Iraq supports terrorism. We know this because every time a muslim fundamentalist blows up a bus full of innocent jews, SH sends his/her family a check. While we may not know for certain that SH &amp; UBL are working together, we know he supports terrorists. Let's not forget that AQ is not the only terrorrist group.

SH has ignored the UN's demands. For the last 12 years he has laughed at the UN. Why now you ask? Because until 9/11 noone had proven that they could attack the US on it's own soil. Now that they've proven they can, you think they're going to stop whether or not we go to war with Iraq?

You're kidding yourself if you think avoiding this war will earn the US any more respect or friends in the middle east. It is far too easy for leaders to place blame on the US for the economic troubles of the region, especially when the media is state-run.

Saddam knows he can't attack the US directly. So he tells the world he's disarming, while rebuilding his arsenal. He holds an election in which people are paid or given food to vote. Would anyone dare run against SH? It would be a death wish for him &amp; his entire family. They'd be lucky to escape torture.

While Clinton improved relations with China, his N. Korea deal has done a whole lot of good. They signed the non-proliferation treaty, took the food &amp; nuclear power plants Clinton gave them. Then said thanks, and by the way, we're going to continue to build nukes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> It is interesting that the truth of the democratic way of life prevailed in the Cold War. Why not give that a try.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Russia fell because it tried too long and too hard to expand it's country. SH tried the same in Kuwait, and was turned back by a UN-sponsored/US-led coalition. If SH were able to help a terrorrist group damage this country and Britain to a point where we could no longer protect our allies in that region. He'd be in a position to once again continue his goal of supremacy. Who'd stop him then? The French?

What I don't understand is the claim by liberals that we should pursue this through the UN. The UN has shown it's incapable of dealing with SH for the last 12 years. Do we have to wait for SH and/or a terrorrist group to successfully attack this country with a chem/bio/nuc. weapon before we tell the world we're going to do it alone? I'm going to paraphrase, but during the Cuban Missile crisis, JFK himself said [QUOTE]the time when this country can sit back and ignore threats has passed. we can no longer wait to be attacked first./QUOTE]

[conn.servative]

Yet another example of why we need to stop the governments that support this perversion of the religion of Islam.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76390,00.html


Reccos-you're well spoken, and strong-willed, and I respect your right to your opinion. I wish this could be solved peacefully, but I believe it's past that point.

Someone who does not value his life, over that of a stranger can not be reasoned with. It's not logical to have no value for your life in this country, that's why we seek to help those that are suicidal through treatment. We value life. Well SH seeks to support those who are suicidal, because they have the same common goal. The destruction of this society, this democracy, this free world.

For these fundamentalist islamic terrorists, we have no right to life because most of us are not muslims. They care not that there were muslims in the WTC who lost their life. They justify their acts of violence on the premise that Islam allows for the killing of non-muslims for the sake of Islam. But what does it say about the killing of peaceful muslims? They have no leg to stand on because their goal is ultimately to overthrow democracy and free markets for dictatorships justified by the molestation of a religion. Sounds like Hitler all over again, but they want a pure religion instead of a pure race.

They will not stop until they are succesful or destroyed. They tell us that, yet you refuse to ignore them. The next step after airplanes is to sneak a WMD into this country. The terrorist groups have the means to deliver, but not to create WMD's; and they have alliances with countries such as Iraq, who have the means to create, but not the ability to deliver. Combine the two, and this country will see an even greater tragedy than 9/11.

sorry for the long posts, but i can't continue read this thread and bite my tongue any longer.

[Saber]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do we have to wait for SH and/or a terrorrist group to successfully attack this country with a chem/bio/nuc. weapon before we tell the world we're going to do it alone? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Apparently so for some number of people. I seriously wonder if even something as horrific as that would sway some of these people.

[Terri]

Well reasoned posts, Conn.

I hope everyone on either side of this issue will speak here. There is room for many voices.

One other thing, to those of you who are concerned that countries like France and Germany don't support us, have you tried to find out how their own interests will be affected by a war with Iraq?

Is it that you simply think they are more civilized than we are and therefore they don't support war?

Are you aware of the interest in Iraqi oil that the French have?

Are you aware that Schroeder has great political pressures at home?

Do you know that France has the largest Muslim population of any European country?

Is is possible that you are letting your own personal distaste for George Bush cloud your judgement?

[Charie]

Conn: *Well said! *Bravo! *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/yelclap.gif * http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/yelclap.gif * http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/fwork.gif *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/fwork.gif * * http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/yelclap.gif * http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/yelclap.gif * http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/fwork.gif *


And a hearty - * DITTO!!


P.S. *The sight of a German leader and a French leader shaking hands makes my blood run cold.

I'm old enough to remember hearing about France being ever so happy to turn over their Jews to the Nazi terror machine for whatever advantage they could get. *We usually hear about the Resistance. *They were small potatoes compared to the Vichy government.

[Der Alte]

Terri, thats a great list. In my previous life, during the Cold War, quite a few of them were on our watch list. Some were amoung the organizers at Ohio State and Kent State - of course, after they stirred things up, they would fade back into the woodwork and would never be involved in any confrontation - however, we had photos and dossiers on each. When they would show up at a college, we knew we had to prepare for another riot. I'm sure they also had my photograph.

[mansfisgop]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Terri @ Jan. 23, 2003 -- 09:54 am)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have one question for Reccos and manfisgop. I've heard this question asked of others but I've never heard a satisfactory or serious answer from anyone.

Apparently you doubt that Saddam is willing or capable of setting off a dirty bomb or a biological attack in this country.

The question is simple. Please answer it.

What if you are wrong?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Terri,

I do feel that Saddam is capable of setting off bombs in this country, dirty or otherwise. As are thousands of angry others in this world, and a few in this country as well (OK City)

But, I don't want to lower our risk by taking other people's lives. We would, in my opinion, risk a further escalation of violence by making a preemptive attack on a people who don't have any obvious ties to terrorism. Or at least far fewer ties than people we still consider out allies.

If I'm wrong and we don't take him out right away...well he might someday engineer a bombing in this country. I just think the people in Iraq and other parts of the world are gonna think WE deserve to be bombed if they look at their TVs and see their neighbors blown to bits by American bombs.

[Terri]

OK, I'm trying to see the logic here but I'm having a difficult time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just think the people in Iraq and other parts of the world are gonna think WE deserve to be bombed if they look at their TVs and see their neighbors blown to bits by American bombs.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I really, really, hate to burst your bubble but you know what. Muslims already hate us. They don't hate us because of who we are, they hate us because of who we're not. We're not Muslims, we're infidels.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But, I don't want to lower our risk by taking other people's lives.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Make no mistake, maintaining our freedom requires men and women with the strength to do what is necessary to defend freedom.

America has not survived this long because of those who drop to their knees in fear of offending a dictator.

Thank God there are still more Americans who would rather fight than grovel.

This thread is beginning to make me nauseous.

[Reccos]

I doubt that Iraq is interested in directly attacking the United States on its own soil. I doubt they have the ability and they have, to date it seems, only supported the cowards who terrorize innocent people in the Middle East. That seems to be where Iraq's focus of attention has been.

I very much doubt that Iraq has the technological capacity to develop the kind of nuclear threat that North Korea is capable of developing.

Iraq is the classic case of a country that couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery. That is why their troops last time threw down their weapons, or were bulldozed, at the mere sight of American tanks and troops.

The kind of hatred being exhibited in the United States toward Iraq's dictator is reminiscent of the kind of hatred that the Irish Protestants and Catholics have held for as long as people can remember or the hatred between Palestinians and citizens of Israel. The hatred continues long after the average hater recalls what caused the hatred in the first place.

What people do know in those examples, in the Middle East, is that if you venture onto the streets or into a store in parts of Israel, you are risking some deranged naive hater blowing you and others up in a suicide bomb. I always find it interesting that the bomber is then found to come from a nice family, blah, blah, blah... Ask yourselves, what kind of hatred could lead someone to the conclusion that their only recourse is to kill innocent people. That somehow, more killing is going to change things rather than breed more killing and retaliation from the other side.

The point of this example is to raise the question: Is this level of hatred towards Iraq founded in reality or what is it? We hardly talk about Iraq. It is the evil Saddam Hussein. What about some of the other evil leaders in the world who are butchering and starving their people. We seem quite capable of ignoring them and their atrocities.

Let us never forget that a war this time with Iraq cannot be won in the desert. It will have to extend to the towns and cities and it will be fought with a lot of bombs dropping on those cities with a lot of innocent civilians being killled. Innocent citizens who are guilty only of living in Iraq and who, for the most part, have no place to go.

[Drewman626]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I do feel that Saddam is capable of setting off bombs in this country, dirty or otherwise. As are thousands of angry others in this world, and a few in this country as well (OK City) [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

And that fact alone should tell you something. *It's nice to want to answer the question &quot;Why?&quot;, but asking &quot;Why&quot; is like asking why people rob banks. *Maybe if we give bank robbers money, they'll stop robbing banks. *People need to be accountable for their actions. *Trying to get people to be nice to each other is more often than not futile. *

There two things a person needs in order to be a threat to you. *They need the DESIRE to hurt you. *And they need the MEANS to hurt you. *You can't control the Desire. *There will ALWAYS be people that want to hurt you. *

&quot;If you fear making anyone mad, then you ultimately probe for the lowest common denominator of human achievement.&quot; -- Jimmy Carter

(the only smart thing the man ever said.)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> But, I don't want to lower our risk by taking other people's lives. We would, in my opinion, risk a further escalation of violence by making a preemptive attack on a people who don't have any obvious ties to terrorism. Or at least far fewer ties than people we still consider out allies. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

We're going to be attacked again. *There is no doubt about it. *No matter what precautions we have, no matter if there are soliders on the boarders or not, we're going to be attacked again. *We live in an open society with 9000 miles of boarder. Do the math. If we act now, we might only have to put up with a car bomb or two, a few airplanes shot down and maybe another anthrax scare. *If we wait for Iraq to develope nukes, then we have to worry about MILLIONS of Americans being killed in thirty seconds. *It's the lesser of two evils, dude. *I would NOT want to be President right now.

God Bless George W. Bush. *He's in a tough, tough spot right now.

[Terri]

Reccos, please check your pms for friendly request for information. *

Good post, Drewman! You would think that people would see North Korea as a lesson of what happens when you appease a dictator.

We are dealing with the actuality of nuclear weapons there. It is so obvious that it is more desirable to PREVENT a dictator from acquiring such weapons rather than be blackmailed by the threat of the weapons he already has.

Instead of seeing that there are those who think we should be nice. Good Lord! Maybe someone should invite him to tea. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/doh.gif

[Floridaguy]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is unlikely to be solved in our time. It ebbs and flows.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> Correct, Terri, and the larger picture is that Arab/Jewish conflicts (not just Palestinian/Israeli) have gone on for thousands of years, and it is a thorn to every militant Arab nation in the ME that an &quot;Israel&quot; exists at all. The Palestinians are just one little fish in a sea of Arab and Muslim sharks in that part of the world. How anyone can claim that Klinton helped reduce the deaths, when there is proof positive that he and Hillary are great friends with the Arafat family, and have done little to help Israel compared with any prior president, even Carter, is beyond me.

Regarding the Iraqi thing, I will give manfisgop one nod; yes, there are many Muslim and terrorist oriented leaders in the world, some publicized, some not, and surely many we don't even know have WMDs yet, but do. We did NOT attack Iraq first in the war on terrorism, we focused on Afghanistan (with mixed success). Neither will Iraq be the last nation by a long shot that the world war on terrorism focuses on. And if we have lost allies in the war on terrorism in Europe or other questionable places, does that mean we should not go it alone? I want us to. I think we have one of the only presidents in a long time who is willing to fight the long fight to destroy as much terrorism in the world as possible. I sincerely hope GW will soon focus on known longstanding terrorist groups in addition to Al Qaeda, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc., etc. Sad to say, there are plenty to choose from, and none should be left to &quot;wait&quot; until they attack us again (whether here or our interests abroad). Now is the time to rid the world of as much of this pestilence as possible, and I don't give a hoot what our allies think, and least of all the UN. I don't consider myself a warmonger or a pacifist, but I do think it is intolerable to allow a constant rising state of conflict worldwide to continue unchallenged or ignored. Lastly, the main thing the Iraq issue boils down to, is where DID their known chemical, biological and other weapons disappear to that they were known and admitted to having after the Gulf War? They have not sufficiently explained that, and it cannot be ignored. The disappearance of so many previously declared weapons with no explanation is the primary cause for concern by our president. And I fully agree with him.

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif

[Saber]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">America has not survived this long because of those who drop to their knees in fear of offending a dictator.

Thank God there are still more Americans who would rather fight than grovel.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

BINGO! http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/fire.gif

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This thread is beginning to make me nauseous.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Double Dittos.

[Granite River]

Sorry

[Granite River]

&quot;This thread is beginning to make me nauseous.&quot;

Terri, you remind me of Rush L. when you so eloquently express views so close to my own. Your posts same me a lot of time and frustration to answer some of our more confused or foolish friends.

Drew isn’t bad either.

Reccos gives Saddam a pass because; “I doubt that - I doubt they - it seems - That seems to be - I very much doubt “

Because Reccos “doubts” that Saddam can eventually get a nuclear bomb and deliver it to this country he is willing to risk millions of American lives and leave the Iraqi people in the iron grip of the most tyrannical dictator in modern history.

Reccos would risk you and me to keep from risking the lives of Iraqis close to Saddam. I feel sorry for the Iraqi people and regret that some of them will die as we expunge the planet of the scourge of Saddam and his inner circle. But I would kill them all to protect this country and the future of freedom.
[QUOTE]

[conn.servative]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The kind of hatred being exhibited in the United States toward Iraq's dictator is reminiscent of the kind of hatred that the Irish Protestants and Catholics have held for as long as people can remember or the hatred between Palestinians and citizens of Israel. The hatred continues long after the average hater recalls what caused the hatred in the first place.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That's a terrible analogy. If I'm correct the Iraq/US feud doesn't go back more than 20-30 years. The Protestant/Catholic feud dates back hundreds of years, and the Palestineians/Isreal feud dates back thousands of years.

50 years ago we hated the &quot;Japs&quot; (sorry if I offend anyone, trying to make a point). They fought on the side of Hitler, and dragged this country into WWII. They are now an ally of ours.

You're being awfully presumptious to assume that the Iraq/US feud will last hundreds even thousands of years. Our issue is not with the Iraqi people, or Muslims, it's with SH &amp; his regime, our distate for Iraq will end with the rule of Saddam. The dispute between Protestants/Catholics &amp; Muslims/Jews cannot be compared. It's apples and oranges.



</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I very much doubt that Iraq has the technological capacity to develop the kind of nuclear threat that North Korea is capable of developing.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Why the doubt? He used chemical weapons on the Kurds. We know he had over 10,000 gallons of Anthrax which he claims to have disposed of, but won't show us where or how. They've found chemical warheads that he &quot;forgot&quot; about. Open your eyes to the threat. In the past if our military leadership held any doubts about the enemy, or underestimated the enemy, we would lose the battle. Now if they doubt and underestimate the capability, the determination, it will lead to the loss of civilian lives, not the loss of a battle. France gave Iraq 2 nuclear reactors, you really think he's that far off? It's that doubt, that false sense of security that allowed 18 people to take out over 3,000 in one day. N. Korea is years away from developing those nuclear weapons, we know Iraq has been smuggling in enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. You're worried about N. Korea? We have 37,000 troops stationed in S. Korea, we can be across the DMZ and into the North in hours.

You keep your doubt, I'll keep watch.

[AngelsRWorldChamps]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You keep your doubt, I'll keep watch.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Could not have said it better

[Captain Eagle]

He has the weapons. He will use them against us. He doesn't need to develop anything as he can buy it from Russia with our tax money that we give him. He is a crazy dictator that should have been elminated a long time ago but we need the oil for your SUV's and My Huge Fleetwood Sedan d'Elegance! So, just like it and lump it until the bombs start killing millions of you. Maybe then you can make the extraction and get your head out of that dark smelly place that you keep it.

[mansfisgop]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Terri @ Jan. 23, 2003 -- 09:36 am)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do think it's important to separate the Iraqi people from the dictator in our minds. Obviously he is supported by some but many would love to see the end of him.

manfisgop, looking into their background and the background of others who hold demonstrations you want to attend is always a good idea. I would hate to think I had stood with this group against my own government and didn't even know who they were.

I realize that we have a good many young adults who don't remember the first Gulf War and who may not have informed themselves on the history of Saddam Hussein.

Perhaps this all could have been avoided by the UN and Clinton doing what they should have done for the last 12 years.

Saddam is in violation of agreements to disarm that he signed at the end of the first Gulf War. The vaunted UN has not enforced those agreements.

The much admired (by the left) Clinton pulled the inspectors out.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't feel such an attack will make us any safer; in fact I think it will further polarize the situation and cause more people to hate us and be more likely to attack us. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

What do you feel will make us safer?

Will further appeasement make them like us better?

I don't understand the left and it's desire for love from the despots of the world.

I want respect. I want them to understand that they will pay a price if they attack us.

Respect is gained by strength and not from groveling.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Teri,

(Got an involved board here, eh?)

You asked: What do you feel will make us safer? Will further appeasement make them like us better?

I think working towards social justice will make us, and the rest of the world safer. When countries see us coddling dictators, as we have a history of doing, then taking them (and a few thousand of their countrymen) out when they no longer serve our purposes, they assume that we put our own self-interests far ahead of everyone elses interest. When they see us playing with their lives like pawns, they will blame us for all of their failures.

As to your second question: I don't think we should focus directly on making people &quot;like&quot; us, or fear us for that matter. Opinions are a byproduct of what people experience. I want respect for our real power which is our freedom and economic opportunity.

I don't think that threats and war designed to generate fear and respect are going to serve us well, even in the short run. But that's just me.

[Floridaguy]

Kumbaya.... http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[pRIMrose]

Even Winston Churchill knew you could only appease alligators for so long. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif

[conn.servative]

manfisgop-
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think working towards social justice will make us, and the rest of the world safer[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Please explain what you mean by social justice and how it will make the world safer.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">they assume that we put our own self-interests far ahead of everyone elses interest. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Of course we do. You don't put your own self-interest first and foremost? France is putting their interest first and foremost because they stand to lose billions of IOU's if Saddam is taken out of power. Does that make either of us wrong or right? No. We have to do what we have to do, and they have to do what they have to do. The only people who should not put their own self-interest first are married couples and parents. We're married to Britain in this thing, and they've been there for us for better or for worse. They are willing to stand by our side and fight.

The last time I checked the US was not the parent of another country, and therefore not required to put their interest before our own. Too many countries expect us to intervene when it's in their best interest, and care not what is our own best interest. They have no right to make decisions for our government, because they &quot;need us&quot;. Read Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand will teach you a great deal about objectivism.

It is not the place of the &quot;needy&quot; to make demands upon the providers. You must earn or trade for that which you request. You cannot demand &quot;it&quot;. You have no right to &quot;it&quot; just because you need &quot;it&quot;. You cannot place a lien on that which you have no right to.

Countries are responsible for their own success or failure. Just like I am responsible for my own success or failure. Those who place blame, are making excuses. The US has every right to pick and choose who and when we help because we need to do what's in our best interest. Just like the individual investor decides where to place his money, the US decides where to place it's assistance. And it is not up to the rest of the world to judge us. Those who seek to judge us, are looking for reasons to blame us for their failures. They should concentrate on their own success, rather than make excuses as to why we succeed while they fail.

This country is not in the business of oppression, it does pick and choose who we assist, but we do not hold any other countries back.

If we decide that a country has a regime that we cannot in good faith trade with, then we will not trade with them. If they go so far as to receive UN sanctions, then we honor and enforce those sanctions. But those sanctions were agreed upon by the UN. they were not an arbitrary decision by our administration. We practice and promote a free market, which does not allow everyone to succeed, but it affords everyone the same opportunity at success.

[pRIMrose]

Well said conn. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/twothumbsup.gif

[Terri]

Here's an article that should be of interest to anyone posting in this thread.

Who Pays for these Demonstrations? (http://www.frontpagemag.com /Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5 734)

[pRIMrose]

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/fire.gif I'll bet we wouldn't have any difficulty recognizing some of the names who are contributing to the WWP ~ probably the same ones who contribute their largesse to NIMN. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/teeth2.gif

It's astonishing that a former attorney general of the United States would be an active participant in this treason.

Unbelievable! http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sarcasm.gif

[Charie]

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/twothumbsup.gif *Good article, Terri. *I printed it out to further confound the opposition *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif

You've got to be a little suspicious of groups that tout a cause. *Go on the internet and type their name in and see what you find. *I wouldn't protest with the WWP if they were protesting the murdering of the elderly, because I know that underneath, their reason would be because they want to be the only ones murdering the elderly.

Just be wary of peace demonstrations because they've always been favorite targets of the Communists and left-wingers of all kinds, because after all, who could be against peace. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ne_nau.gif

[mansfisgop]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (conn.servative @ Jan. 24, 2003 -- 2:20 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">manfisgop-
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think working towards social justice will make us, and the rest of the world safer[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Please explain what you mean by social justice and how it will make the world safer. *


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">they assume that we put our own self-interests far ahead of everyone elses interest. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Of course we do. *You don't put your own self-interest first and foremost? *France is putting their interest first and foremost because they stand to lose billions of IOU's if Saddam is taken out of power. *Does that make either of us wrong or right? *No. *We have to do what we have to do, and they have to do what they have to do. *The only people who should not put their own self-interest first are married couples and parents. *We're married to Britain in this thing, and they've been there for us for better or for worse. *They are willing to stand by our side and fight. *

The last time I checked the US was not the parent of another country, and therefore not required to put their interest before our own. *Too many countries expect us to intervene when it's in their best interest, and care not what is our own best interest. *They have no right to make decisions for our government, because they &quot;need us&quot;. *Read Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand will teach you a great deal about objectivism. *

It is not the place of the &quot;needy&quot; to make demands upon the providers. *You must earn or trade for that which you request. *You cannot demand &quot;it&quot;. You have no right to &quot;it&quot; just because you need &quot;it&quot;. *You cannot place a lien on that which you have no right to. *

Countries are responsible for their own success or failure. *Just like I am responsible for my own success or failure. *Those who place blame, are making excuses. *The US has every right to pick and choose who and when we help because we need to do what's in our best interest. *Just like the individual investor decides where to place his money, the US decides where to place it's assistance. *And it is not up to the rest of the world to judge us. *Those who seek to judge us, are looking for reasons to blame us for their failures. *They should concentrate on their own success, rather than make excuses as to why we succeed while they fail.

This country is not in the business of oppression, it does pick and choose who we assist, but we do not hold any other countries back. *

If we decide that a country has a regime that we cannot in good faith trade with, then we will not trade with them. *If they go so far as to receive UN sanctions, then we honor and enforce those sanctions. *But those sanctions were agreed upon by the UN. *they were not an arbitrary decision by our administration. *We practice and promote a free market, which does not allow everyone to succeed, but it affords everyone the same opportunity at success.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Please explain what you mean by social justice and how it will make the world safer.

By social justice I mean treating other people as equals under the law and taking care not to violate their rights just because we have enough power to.

If we seek to control other people's lives, by, for example, supporting the Shah of Iran, Hussein, Suharto...(any other recent muslim dictators?) and park our troops in their countries...well it's not hard to figure why we are targets of their hate.

One more note of clarification, I didn't mean to imply that we should put others interests ahead of our own....I said FAR ahead...to the point that we hold them back by, for example, using tax dollars to subsidize our inneficient domestic industries, subvert their elections, support dictators, and so on.

People everywhere, and especially in the middle east have themselves to blame for most of their problems...but I think we need to acknowledge that we have sometimes supported our own interests at the cost of peoples much weaker than ourselves. And eventually, they figure that out and blame us for everything. And their own corrupt government encourage this displacement of blame to keep themselves in power.

[Terri]

This is an excellent reprisal of Iraq's history with UN resolutions for anyone who would like to see events in chronological order.

The Smell of &quot;Proof&quot; is in the Air by Bobby Eberle (http://gopusa.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.pl?act=ST; f=1;t=908)

[LOCUTUS]

The warmongers in this group should look up the word &quot;myopia&quot; in the dictionary.

I know many of you may be used to listening to whoever is the head GOP man of the day - and sheepishly agreeing to anything he says, but you really have to try to think for yourself.

Why is Bush urgently pushing for war with Iraq now?

The US and other Western governments turned a blind eye to Amnesty International reports of widespread human rights violations in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and ignored Amnesty International's campaign on behalf of the thousands of unarmed Kurdish civilians killed in the 1988 attacks on Halabja. *But now you are using the attacks to justify America's attack?!

What about the issue of weapons of mass destruction? *

Lots of governments around the world have WMDs. *Pakistan, for instance, has quite a progressive nuclear program. *They also have extensive ties to the Taliban and most of the Muslims in Pakistan support Osam Bin Laden - to this day! *

Actually, a great many nation have weapons of mass destruction - should we attempt to take them one by one?

What about the blowback?

The things we do today will have consequences in the future. *I know you might not like to think about esoteric concepts like &quot;the future&quot;, but there will be blowback. *

If we attack Iraq, the Muslims of the middle east will think that we are attacking them for their oil. *No matter how much propaganda we throw at them, they are still going to think we attacked Iraq for the basest of reasons. *Do you really think that the people living in Iraq and in the middle east will forget the humanitarian crisis that will ensue? *Don't you understand that the people that flew their planes into the WTC were motivated by America's disregard for the lives of their fellow Muslims?

I know you will write me off as another &quot;bleeding heart liberal&quot;. *But I really think you need to put the gung ho attitude on hold for a moment. *There is more to this issue than Bush&amp;Co want you to know. *

Go to this site - this is why Bush wants war with Iraq. *It has nothing to do with humanitarian relief or terrorism or WMDs. *
http://www.newamericancentu ry.org/RebuildingAmericasDe fenses.pdf

But I guess I will have about as much impact on you all as Satanist at a Pentecostal Revival.

[Charie]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't you understand that the people who flew their planes into the WTC were motivated by America's disregard for the lives of their fellow Muslims?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

There must be some logic in this statement, but I can't find it. Those who flew planes into the WTC not only disregarded the lives of their fellow Muslims who were in those buildings and died in flaming agony, but disregarded their own.

The only thing they're motivated by is an unrelenting hate for our culture and because we are, for the most part, not Muslim. If we won't become Muslim, they want us dead. It's really quite simple, rhetoric notwithstanding.

[lpara]

<span style='font-family:comic sans ms'><span style='color:black'>Exactly right, Charie. *I find it quite hilarious that &quot;You all&quot; can't think for yourselves! *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif *Sounds like very coherent, individual thoughts have been expressed in each of the &quot;you all&quot; threads above http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrinangelA.gif *(I say &quot;you all&quot; since I haven't posted lately~~ I've been busy singing Kumbaya~~NOT! )</span></span></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lots of governments around the world have WMDs. *Pakistan, for instance, has quite a progressive nuclear program. *They also have extensive ties to the Taliban and most of the Muslims in Pakistan support Osam Bin Laden - to this day! *

Actually, a great many nation have weapons of mass destruction - should we attempt to take them one by one?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
<span style='font-family:comic sans ms'><span style='color:black'>http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/doh.gif If they are a threat to us like IRAQ~~YES!! YES!! http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif</span></span>

[Terri]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What about the issue of weapons of mass destruction? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

What about it? They are there. IF you would read the UN resolutions you would see that it is incumbent on Iraq to produce them or produce proof of their destruction. They have failed to comply. They leave us no choice.

Yes, it may be necessary to disarm Pakistan at some point.

It may come to disarming nations one by one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If we attack Iraq, the Muslims of the middle east will think that we are attacking them for their oil.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

This will have to be show and tell. When we don't take their oil, but instead help them to set up their own government that will be self evident.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you really think that the people living in Iraq and in the middle east will forget the humanitarian crisis that will ensue?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The question might better be will they forget the tolerance of the world for the dictator who was allowed to remain in power for so long because the world didn't have the guts to do anything about him.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The things we do today will have consequences in the future. *I know you might not like to think about esoteric concepts like &quot;the future&quot;, but there will be blowback[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Don't worry about blowback. They hate you and all of us as much as they possibly can already. They will not care that you argued on the side of terrorists. They will see you as an American and hate you just the same.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't you understand that the people that flew their planes into the WTC were motivated by America's disregard for the lives of their fellow Muslims?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No, and if you believe that you are quite naive. They were motivated by hatred taught to them from the cradle by the religion of peace.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know you will write me off as another &quot;bleeding heart liberal&quot;. *[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No, I am beginning to believe that you would like to see our system of government replaced by something quite sinister.

The idea that Bush or America wants to conquer the world is laughable. Read some history on your own, not the leftwing pap that was fed to you by your professors.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But I guess I will have about as much impact on you all as Satanist at a Pentecostal Revival.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Right! *But it is a pretty cool analogy! *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin5.gif

[texas-princess]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (lpara @ Jan. 19, 2003 -- 11:23 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span style='font-family:comic sans ms'>Even though I've never heard of these &quot;peoples&quot; I'm not surprised to see the words Palestine/Communist/Socialist, etc. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif *These weirdos will never get it. *It really makes you not want to watch anything again that have these &quot;actors&quot; in it. *I don't know who they are, but most likely they won't show up on FOX News or HGTV~~my two favorites.</span>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hi, What is HGTV? *I watch Fox News for all my National News and I watch KDFW Fox4 for my City or State News. *I have tried other cable news stations but they are more to left. *I did watch Donahue's show when the subject was &quot;Angry White Men&quot; and I was sickened by it. *I used to like Donahue along time ago, but he has changed so much. *He seems to me to be the &quot;Angry White Man&quot; and he seemed to shout most of the time. *Kindof scared me. lol *

I am really sick of the anti-war demostrations. *They call for Peace but it seems to me that they are full of hate and anger. *Why is that?

Texas Princess

[conn.servative]

Locutus-Read the U.N. resolutions. *It states that Iraq must disarm. The regime has attacked Iran, Kuwait, and other muslims inside of it's borders. *Saddam gave the UN Inspectors the run-around for 7 years before they were finally pulled out. *Was Clinton wrong in 1998 when he ordered a 4-day bombing campaign in retaliation? *Was he wrong when he stated at that time that Iraq was a threat to US interests, and the US itself? *

SH had 4 years without the weapons inspectors, who were already looking for a needle in the haystack. *He has shown his propensity for violence. *He has murdered family members. *He has murdered innocent civilians. *Is this the reason we support war? *No, this is the basis for our belief that if given the ability(weapon) and opportunity(terrorri st) he will strike out at this country with the most devastating weapon in his arsenal. *And will have complete deniability.

If you think the terrorrists are going to stop attacking because we decided not to follow the UN resolution, you're naive. *They will continue to attack us regardless. *They don't know and don't care that the French, Germans, and Russians all have a greater stake in their oil than the U.S. *They don't care that we allow any form of religion in this country that doesn't violate our law. *You can't tell me that i'm supposed to care about an Iraqi who paints a picure of Bush with a swastika in front of it. *Regardless of whether or not you agree with our policies, to call bush a Nazi is outrageous and the artist obviously has no idea what's going on in the world. *When was the last time Bush invaded a country, took over the government, and incinerated millions of people. * We can't be overly concerned with the opinion of people who are being lied to, the lies will continue regardless of our actions.


I care not about the many muslims who live in a country who's media is state-run and frequently and successfully use the U.S. as a scapegoat for all of it's problems. *They cannot hate us anymore than they already do. *So I support Bush who's looking to enforce the DESCISION OF THE UNITED NATIONS to disarm Iraq by force if necessary. *Bush has received the support, and authority of Congress (despite Pelosi &amp; Daschle now contradicting themselves) to do this alone if the U.N. is not willing to bite after it's been barking for the last 11 years. *

Do you care that Saddam supports terrorrists? *Do you care that he has and will use chemical &amp; biological weapons on citizens (men, women &amp; children)? *Do you care that he shares the common enemy of fundamentalist terrorrists (Western Civilization)? *If you don't care about any of this, then you don't, and never will, see the threat he poses. *How long till he gets a dirty nuke into the hand of a terrorrist to deliver to our soil? *If you don't think this is possible, then maybe you should look up &quot;myopia&quot;. *We are focused on the future. *The future of the safety of our country and our interests.

Pakistan, while many terrorrists live there, is our ally. *Despite the unrest, the government in that country has supported the US war on terror, to the extent that they can without risking civil war. *The government of Iraq, is a different story altogether. *If you're going to mention N. Korea, don't . *We feed 20 million N. Koreans a day. *Clinton gave the N. Korean government 2 Nuclear Reactors for their energy crisis. *We tried amnesty with them, they are now blackmailing us with nucluear weapons. *They will be dealt with when the time is right. *
Iraq is a threat because they've shown their aggression towards their neighbors, and towards US interests.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The warmongers in this group should look up the word &quot;myopia&quot; in the dictionary.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Ironic. *&quot;myopia&quot; has 2 definitions. *Since you're only concerned with 1 usage. *I'll define the other for you. *

myopia- A visual defect in which distant objects appear fuzzy because their images are focused in front of rather than on the retina. *

Could it be that the distant object, the threat of Iraq, is fuzzy because you're focused on your distaste for Bush and the GOP? *

This country supports religious freedom. *So if the muslims in the middle east think we are attacking their religion, they are confused and are being lied to by their media/government (one in the same). *We all know that this country is not fighting a war on muslims, there are mosques throughout this country. *If the rest of the world believes we are out to destroy Islam then the rest of the world is being lied to. *

Do you honestly think we can't think for ourselves, but the muslims in the middle east can? *Don't insult us by assuming we can't think for ourselves because you disagree. *Again, I ask you to read the UN resolution, then ponder the evidence....all of the evidence, not middle eastern public opinion. *I feel as if you're questioning our intelligence because you disagree with our politics. *Don't, it doesn't do anyone any good.

[LOCUTUS]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There must be some logic in this statement, but I can't find it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I am not surprised that you cannot see logic when it is presented to you. You have been indoctrinated with a jingoistic perception of this country and the world that has nothing to do with logic or reality.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Those who flew planes into the WTC not only disregarded the lives of their fellow Muslims who were in those buildings and died in flaming agony, but disregarded their own.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Terrorism - especially suicidal terrorism is a weak man's attempt to fight an overwhelming force. They did not hate America because of Britney Spears, Ma or Apple Pie. They hated us because of our policies in the middle east and elsewhere. We blindly support any Israeli attack - regardless of the relevance, scope, or collateral damage. We have supported scores of dictatorial regimes throughout the world - turning a blind eye toward the suffering populace until it is politically convenient. We've been bombing Iraq several times a week for the past 10 years. We helped Saddam Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war.

When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprit was Saddam's own forces. There was only token official protest at the time.

They hated us because we've meddled in the middle east for 50 years with little thought to the will of its people, the long term consequences, or the impact our actions have had on the everyday Muslims. These people were not cartoons. They are not Yosemite Sam gunslingers wanting to root and toot and fight em all. They are regular people that have had nothing but negative experience with the United States.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only thing they're motivated by is an unrelenting hate for our culture and because we are, for the most part, not Muslim[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

There are hundred of countries that are -for the most part - not Muslim. Why didn't they attack Japan? China? Australia? etc, etc. That argument may work if these terrorists were cartoon characters. I know that might be a little simpler to understand. But they are real people - as real as you and I. There is more to their hatred than Muslim fundamentalism.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's really quite simple, rhetoric notwithstanding. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You people believe a cartoon version of the world. Get real. In reality, empire has a price. If we continue to impose our will on the world, the blowback might soon become unbearable. Hasn't history taught you anything about what makes a vicious cycle?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exactly right, Charie. I find it quite hilarious that &quot;You all&quot; can't think for yourselves![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I know that making a cogent argument against an opposing point of view must be hard. It is nice that you can stop thinking and rally 'round the flag. When your kids get left with the bill for this war, and the blowback gets felt in 15 years, I am sure you will still be wrapping yourself in the flag to ignore reality.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If they are a threat to us like IRAQ~~YES!! YES!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You know, anybody can ship a nuclear bomb right up the Hudson river. It does not take a state's support - as 9-11 proved - for a group of determined terrorists to attack America. Saddam has many enemies in the Arab world, he is not about to give his WMDs to a terrorist organization - they may be used against him. That said, there are other sources for WMDs. The IAEA does not have an accurate account of all of the Russian warheads that were removed from the soviet satellite states. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. North Korea has nuclear weapons. Unknown numbers of states have biological an chemical weapons capabilities. If someone wanted to procure these weapons, I think they would get one eventually.

Terrorists have financing networks that are as varied as the number of terrorist groups. Why do you think that toppling Iraq will have any negative impact on terrorists.

In fact, their ranks will likely grow. For every man, woman, mother, father, child or relative that dies in the coming war, a terrorist is going to want revenge. They know that Saddam is incapable of launching an attack against the U.S.. They know that Saddam is less of a threat to the region than he was 10 years ago. and they probably feel that Saddam was justified in taking Kuwait.

Attacking Iraq will only swell the ranks of the terrorists that are out for American blood.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What about it? They are there. IF you would read the UN resolutions you would see that it is incumbent on Iraq to produce them or produce proof of their destruction. They have failed to comply. They leave us no choice.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

It is easy to make black and white decisions on gray areas when your family will not be killed a consequence.

I think that Saddam is making a grave mistake by not being forthcoming with his weapons program. But, invasion of Iraq will not guarantee that Iraqi WMDs will not slip through the cracks. All it takes is a small canister of ricin to devastate a city. The chaos that will ensue after the Iraqi invasion will surely be enough to allow plenty of WMDs to slip by. Jumping through the door - guns a blazin - only works in the movies.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It may come to disarming nations one by one[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Not much of a history scholar are you. If we try to topple one nation after another, the instability that will be caused will be tremendous. If the people do not want American rule, why do you think they will happily capitulate? A nation of people will not live in fear of U.S. aggression forever. Hasn't our history taught you anything about the cost of meddling?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This will have to be show and tell. When we don't take their oil, but instead help them to set up their own government that will be self evident.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Dictatorially enforced democracy - that is a good one. Who do you think will lead Iraq? You understand that there is more than one tribe in Iraq, right? People generally vote along tribal lines, how do you think the U.S. will be able to maintain stability? If we install an American puppet government in Iraq, it will have no legitimacy with the people. Don't you remember what happened when we tried to set up a puppet in Iran?

When American oil companies go in to collect the Iraqi oil - do you really think that the Iraqi people will see that as evidence that it is holding the oil &quot;in a trust&quot;? How much money do you think those companies will give to Iraqi people? Who decides which groups get what?

What will probably happen is that rich oil interests and regional tribal leaders will split the spoils and the majority of the Iraqi people will be left out in the cold.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The question might better be will they forget the tolerance of the world for the dictator who was allowed to remain in power for so long because the world didn't have the guts to do anything about him.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Mao, Pinochet, Idi AMin, General Rabuka, Milton Obote, Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier,the Shah of Iran, Kim Jong Il, Stalin, etc, etc, etc ---- you can go on and on about evil dictators. The world has no shortage of them. The united states has supported many of them - when it was politically expedient. This issue has never been about who has the &quot;guts&quot; to &quot;take em out&quot;. The issue is whether it is strategically desirable to take one course of action over another. The U.S. has never been interested in the human rights violations that have taken place to further U.S. interests. The U.S. has never been interested in &quot;taking out&quot; dictators that played along with the U.S. agenda. The only time the U.S. has the &quot;guts&quot; to &quot;take em out&quot; is when a dictator has clashed with U.S. rule.

Then, we make a big scene about how outraged we were that human rights violations were taking place, or that a dictator would gas his own people. Save the sanctimony for someone that is as ignorant of the issue as many of you seem to be.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't worry about blowback. They hate you and all of us as much as they possibly can already. They will not care that you argued on the side of terrorists. They will see you as an American and hate you just the same.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Don't you ever wonder why they hate America? I know the &quot;Fuhrer&quot; tells us that they hate us because of our liberty, freedom, etc - but doesn't that all seem like a trite reason to carry such acrimony? READ A HISTORY BOOK! HISTORY DID NOT START WITH THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, and if you believe that you are quite naive[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

When an American F-16 pilot drops a bomb on a facility that he has been told is a water treatment plant, he knows that other Americans might be in the building as human shields. He knows that innocent people may die. His rationale is that you cannot bake a cake without breaking eggs. I am quite sure the terrorists that plowed their airplanes into the WTC felt the same way. They were fighting a war against what they perceived to be American aggression.

I do not condone either action, but I think you need to understand that these people are not cartoons. They have the same types of motives for their actions that you do, or the pilot does.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They were motivated by hatred taught to them from the cradle by the religion of peace.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

They were probably taught a different flavor of history than you were. I know you think that America has been nothing but a benevolent force in the world, but there is much more to America's history than you'll find in 8th grade history class. Many people have benefited from the U.S. After World War 2, however, quite a few people have been caught in the crossfire of the cold war, got shortchanged by U.S. economic control, or have been oppressed by U.S. supported dictators. Our &quot;War against communism&quot; has had a great deal of blowback. The mujahadin would not exist if it was not for the cold war - and 9-11 might not have happened had our leaders thought about the consequences of their actions.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I am beginning to believe that you would like to see our system of government replaced by something quite sinister.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, because I disagree with you I must be a communist. I am a liberal, but I am also a capitalist. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, you know. Ever heard of social capitalism?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The idea that Bush or America wants to conquer the world is laughable. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

We have military bases in every region in the world. We toss aside the rest of the world's opinions on a whim. We control the pace of the world's economies. We have more weapons of mass destruction than any nation on earth. We have the most powerful military in history. We make and break treaties when it suits us. We give arms and support to nations around the world - in return for cooperation with U.S. interests.

The U.S has conquered the world. We do not need the headache of ruling over nations - we just want other nations to buy our culture and our products. If they do not play ball, they can always be sanctioned or added to the &quot;Axis of Evil&quot; list.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Read some history on your own, not the leftwing pap[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Why don't you tell me what I should be reading. Ann Coulter's &quot;History for Dummies?&quot;. I have been around the world and I have read quite a few history books - written by socialists and American jingoists alike. Both sides have an agenda - the truth lies in between. If you only read Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly approved material, you are bound to have a warped perception about America's manifest destiny and our place in the world. If you sit back and think for a moment, understand that all pundits have polarizing opinions, and do a little research, you will learn that the world is much more complicated than the simple black and white portrait presented by the president.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">fed to you by your professors. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

As a matter of fact, one of my favorite professors was Karl Rove. He was an American jingoist then - and now he is spreading his fervor to the rest of the flock. He was a brilliant teacher, but he had an elitist, warped world view. I got an A in the class, but he said he gave it to me under duress.

[Floridaguy]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I got an A in the class, but he said he gave it to me under duress. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> small wonder. Actually, I am glad you have a sense of humor, even though your logic is warped. I am enjoying the exchange, though. It is good to have someone with such a contrary outlook to our own, for us to clarify our beliefs when they are challenged. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif

[Saber]

Speedy Gonzalez checking in to animated Cartoonland. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sarcasm.gif

You've obviously got alot to say. I'd suggest you say it without any further personal attacks. They're so unbecoming. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sarcasm.gif

[conn.servative]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When an American F-16 pilot drops a bomb on a facility that he has been told is a water treatment plant, he knows that other Americans might be in the building as human shields. He knows that innocent people may die.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Those 'human shields' are not innocent. If it was a police matter here in the states, they'd be arrested for obstruction of justice. They have the right to protest, march, vote, etc. However, if during a time of war, you deliberately hinder the duties of our military, you may as well be taking up arms against this country. That is treason, the penalty for which is death. Iraqi citizens are innocent, American citizens who decide to go over there and intentionally stand in the way of our military are not innocent, they've placed themselves in grave danger. They asked to be in that situation, the Iraqi citizens didn't, you cannot equate them.

[Drewman626]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The US and other Western governments turned a blind eye to Amnesty International reports of widespread human rights violations in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and ignored Amnesty International's campaign on behalf of the thousands of unarmed Kurdish civilians killed in the 1988 attacks on Halabja. *But now you are using the attacks to justify America's attack?! [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I don't pretend to be an expert on US Foreign Policy. *And by the same logic, I don't expect you to be either.

However I can say that Iran/Iraq of the late 80's was a lot more complex than &quot;they're killing people. *Stop it.&quot; *We had to make a very difficult decision and chose the lesser of two evils. *Had we gone in and taken out both regimes, then you'd be crying foul about how we dictate other country's affairs. *We can't win with you people.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Lots of governments around the world have WMDs. *Pakistan, for instance, has quite a progressive nuclear program. *They also have extensive ties to the Taliban and most of the Muslims in Pakistan support Osam Bin Laden - to this day! *[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

&quot;You're either with us, or against us.&quot; *

Right now, we're betting on the hope that we can postpone our War on Terror with Pakistan due to the fact that they are preoccupied with India. *They aren't the top priority at the moment.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Actually, a great many nation have weapons of mass destruction - should we attempt to take them one by one? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

There are two things a person needs in order to be able to classify them as a &quot;threat&quot; to you. *They need the DESIRE to hurt you. *And they need the MEANS to hurt you. *If they have the desire but not the means, they're just a nuscense. *If they have the means but not the desire, we might have to watch them with a careful eye, but other than that, they aren't a worry. *When someone has the DESIRE and is aggresively pursuing the MEANS... then's it's only a matter of time. *It's not a quesiton of IF, but WHEN. *

&quot;So why don't we just make sure people don't want to hurt us. *Why don't we just stop doing things that make people mad.&quot; *There will always be people with the Desire. *You can't control that. *

&quot;If you fear making anyone mad, then you ultimately probe for the lowest common denominator of human achievement.&quot; -- Jimmy Carter. *

You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time... but you can't please all of the people all of the time. *To think otherwise is naive. *There are decisions that have to be made to keep the country functioning. *Those decision please some people, here and abroad, and piss off others. *That's uncontrollable. *But OUR interests HAVE to come first above another country's. *For instance, I like the idea of feeding the hungry. *The harder choice is who do we feed first? *The children of Brazil or the children of Chicago? *

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> If we attack Iraq, the Muslims of the middle east will think that we are attacking them for their oil. *No matter how much propaganda we throw at them, they are still going to think we attacked Iraq for the basest of reasons. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That's the fault of thier own governments and government run media. *Iraq produces 2% of the worlds daily oil supply. *If we really wanted oil so badly as you say, we'd be going after Venuzuala and Russia. *It's an irrational argument perpetuated by the liberals that don't want to see a war boost their oppenents image.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Do you really think that the people living in Iraq and in the middle east will forget the humanitarian crisis that will ensue? *[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That will ensue? *Let me see... the ending of murdering and raping political oppenents' children. *Maybe a new regime that will actually feed its people rather than buy guns and golden palaces... maybe DEMOCRACY! *(or at least a Republic http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif) *Yeah, there's an f'ing nightmare.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Don't you understand that the people that flew their planes into the WTC were motivated by America's disregard for the lives of their fellow Muslims? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm... so if you piss me off by not having regard for my life and my hardships, I have the right to fly a plane into your house while you and your kids are asleep?

Or better yet... if your daughter was flirting with me all night long and wearing a skimpy skirt, maybe I have the right to rape her because she was asking for it. *Or better yet, maybe John Lee Malvo should be set free because &quot;Society drove him to anger.&quot;

Hey, life it tough. *Deal with it.

This &quot;blame the victim&quot; mentality that you &quot;bleeding heart liberals&quot; *(yes you are!!! ) has got to stop! *People MUST be accountable for their own actions. *You had a rough childhood?!?! *JOIN THE F'ING CLUB! *Just because my mommy didn't hug my and my dad died when I was a kid doesn't mean I have the right to go on a shooting spree. *

We may live in a screwed up society... but it's the best screwed up society in the world. *If you really hate America as much as it sounds like you do, leave. *Seriously, just leave. *Go live in the Sudan for a few years. *Then you'll see how bad it is in America. *If you have no regard for the people that lost their lives giving you the freedom you have, just leave. *No hard feelings. *But STOP making me feel guilty about being an American. *I'm proud of my country.

[Terri]

Locutus, did you oppose these statements about Iraq too? Please give us your thoughts on this story.

Iraq has abused its final chance (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/clinton/)

[navyblue]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are hundred of countries that are -for the most part - not Muslim. *Why didn't they attack Japan? *China? *Australia? etc, etc. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It's quite simple if you remove your blinders. *The Islamic world is bent on world domination and conversion to Islam. *They attack us because we are the greatest military power ever seen in the history of the world. *If they can take us down, there would be no force to stand in thier way! *You need to understand this! *Have you forgotten that they invaded Europe and conquered a good portion of it before they were destroyed as a military power by the Christian fleet at Lepanto in the year 1491? *There is nothing new here. As always, history repeats!

[BillyYoung]

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND FREEDOM TO SPEAK AND DEMONISTRATE YOUR OPINIONS!

In the strongest of terms I totally disagree with their opinions, but millions of WWII, Korean War, and all of the Armed Services patriots since then have dedicated themselves to maintaining this unique American RIGHT!

They have the right to protest, but I think many want peace at any price!

I believe that I am one of the Vast majority of Americans who will not sell out America for ANY PRICE!

I might equate their demonstration to the ACLU call to remove all crosses from Governent property, such as Federal Cemeteries!

They have a right and they exercised that right which is denied to MOST PEOPLES IN THIS WORLD!