To ThaRealest: Great Posts.
To Stella: I would love to tell these people to go back and re-read The Constitution but I don’t think they’ve ever read it in the first place.
To P-Dog: I would be against this war no matter who is in office. The ideas I’m referring to can be found in The Constitution and The Bill Of Rights. These have been slowly taken away from us by a crimminal style government in compliance with a lazy and ignorant public. When the pro-war crowd screams that the people who are aginst this war are anti-american they are trying to imply that we don’t love our country and are probably a bunch of warmed over 60’s liberals. It’s this whole “love it or leave it” mentality that sickens me.
I look at it like this.If I am having a feud with some joker in my neighborhood, and I had to whip his ass once,cool no problem.Then if later on I see him taking in shotguns or an assault rifle, or I know he is trying to put together a pipe bomb, well he might not look like a threat to me now, but I sure as hell will not wait around until he gets strong enough to hurt me,I would march right down and calmly stomp a mudhole in his ass and run him out of my hood.That is what we need to do in Iraq, and anyone who disagrees is NOT anti-American,but rather naive and misled.
My turn to wade into turbulent waters. It is not un-American to disagree…even if it means going to the streets. I feel that Saddam Hussien (sp?) needs to go for numerous reasons: work on wmd’s, financial support of international terrorism, repression of his people, etc. What keeps us from being the people of Goerings quote is the willingness to let folks disagree publicly. And that is why I will listen to the other view, repects it’s opinions and disagree with it…
Iraq still hasn’t done anything to the USA, & there are about 40 other countries who pose a greater threat.
Say, I’m simply tired of your feeble-mindedness.
Please do us all a favor…
Rod, you made a good analogy about your neighbor, but no one is arguing about disarming your neighbor. A better analogy would be if the same scenario happened but you called the police, and they said don’t worry we’ll take care of it, then while they were in his house you ran over and tried to kick his ass. Why not let the people you called in to do the job finish their job?
An even better analogy would be if you first claimed you wanted him gone, but then ammended that since kicking someone out for no reason is illegal, so instead you claimed you just want him to disarm. Then when the police came you gave them forged documents saying he has armed himself, and then when they’re halfway through his house you kick them out and fight him even though they’re making progress. It’s pretty obvious that you never really wanted disarmament in the first place, you just wanted him kicked out so you created a pretext for it.
Charlie, what is the point of listening to the other side’s point if you’ve already made up your mind to disagree? How do you guys feel about the head of the IAEA saying in his report on friday that progress was going well, he has seen nothing yet to suggest that Iraq has the capability to restart its nuclear weapons program, and that he has verified that the documents the U.S. gave he suggesting that Iraq had tried to purchase Uranium were in fact forged?
I agree w/ DocT will just Shut up Say!!!
A few quick and random notes:
For those who are convinced that the inspections are “working” and that the U.N. inspectors are an inherently unbiased group, I would like some speculation as to why Dr. Blix failed to bring out in his report the fact the the Iraqis possessed cluster bombs and drones fitted out to deploy chemical and biological weapons? I’ve seen speculation (although I don’t know if it’s true, it is interesting and something to consider) that Dr. Blix is angling for a Nobel Peace prize, along with its accompanying $1 million check – of course, the only way he will get that is if the war does not occur. Thoughts?
A little bit on the burden of proof (as DocT pointed out in another thread, this is not a court room, but I think the idea of a burden of proof is applicable in this context) – It is Iraq’s burden to prove that it has destroyed the chemical/biological agents we knew it to possess, that it has dismantled its nascent nuclear weapons program that we knew it had (irrespective of how long it would take to weaponize it Realest), and that its current delivery systems (e.g. missles) are in compliance to the limits imposed by the treaty that ended the Gulf War. Iraq has not abided by its duty to demonstrate those facts, and has actively engaged in obfuscation and lies to hide both its new systems and its noncompliance in destroying its previously discovered stockpiles.
Note, it is not the duty of the “inspectors” to go in and root out Iraqi malfeasance and abuses – they are not international Inspector Cleauseaus off searching for clues. The inspectors are ostensibly over there so the Iraqis can meet their burden of proof by demonstrating to the inspectors that the Iraqis have complied with the terms of the treaty (and the various U.N. resolutions). Thus far, it seems all the Iraqis are interested in doing is hiding and obfuscating, even when given opportunity upon opportunity to disclose facts about their weaponry and come into compliance. The non-complying missle systems, as well as the drone and cluster-bomb delivery systems, were discovered by the inspectors randomly (or not-so-randomly, based upon U.S. and British intelligence reports).
These discoveries demonstrate that the inspection process is not “working” as it is supposed to work – it is simply a giant game of hide-the-ball that Saddam is using to stall for time, in the hope that extra time works in his favor.
Now, as to the Constitution and anti-Americanism, it is definitely a Constitutional right in this country to hold one’s opinion of the government and everything else, and to not be prosecuted by the government for that opinion. However, the First Amendment does not protect one from censure, insults or the like from those who disagree with that opinion. In fact, America has a long tradition of its citizens insulting in various ways, including questioning their loyalty and patriotism, those with whom they disagree. Whether this is genteel or fair is a legitimate question (to me it smacks of demagoguery in most instances); however, the First Amendment most assuredly does not grant you protection from having your patriotism or motives questioned by other people.
Similarly, the First Amendment also does not protect businesses or individuals from boycotts of their products by those who disagree. For example, some movie industry group was chirping the other day how the idea of a boycott of the films of actors such as Martin Sheen and Susan Sarrandon who are anti-war was some horrible censorship that smacked of oppression. This is just silly. Firstly, private citizens can boycott whomever they like on a political basis – just think what a hubbub it would raise were the rule otherwise and people were disallowed to boycott companies who supported Nazi pamphleteering (or some such other example).
Secondly, the fact that these war protestors would whine about having those who disagree with them not buy their products strikes me as amusing. Into the grand tradition of peace protestors and those who engaged in civil disobedience and suffered the consequences, such as Thoreau, Ghandi and King, we have this group of spoiled “artists” trying to intrude, all the while caterwauling about the horrible consequences of the “censorship” that might cause their box office receipts to dip by a few million $$.
They say we really need the french though, and frankly I agree, that way once we invade Iraq we have an example of how to surrender.
The french say “war for us is failure” …well DUH history shows that.
I have a french rifle for sell on Ebay it’s great never been fired, was cleaned often, unfortunatley it’s been dropped alot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/10/international/middleeast/10WEAP.html?pagewanted=1
There are two articles from sources most of you will find at least reasonably credible, the Times of London and the NY Times, referencing the drones and the cluster bombs I mentioned above. They are pithy, direct, and believable -- and, while I don't know the London Times position, I note the NY Times is fairly staunchly anti-war. Enjoy. (PS -- You may have to sign up for a free password to access those articles).