Things that make me optimistic--things that make me pesimistic!!! [Archive]

12voltman59

May 4, 2007, 3:13 AM

Here in the US--late last week the US House of Representatives and the Senate both passed legislation that would require the beginning of the pull out of American troops from Iraq.

President Bush had said that if the legislature passed such a measure---he would use his veto power for only the second time in his presidency.

The bill was sent to the White House on Tuesday for his signature (or not) in order to become law.

Good to his word in this case--Bush vetoed the legislation.

Since the elections in 2004---I have been doing some things with a local chapter of the political action organization MoveOn.org.

To lodge a protest of sorts to President Bush's veto of the bill---rallies were scheduled to take place on Wednesday afternoon in cities all over the nation.

I have taken on the role as media person for the group and I made contact with our local television and radio stations, and newspapers.

We had a nice turnout for the rally considering it was a Wednesday afternoon after work--we set up our rally at a major intersection during the end of day commute.

We did get media coverage--I was interviewed for one local TV news broadcast and a major AM newstalk radio station's news shows.

Group members held up signs and the like. We got reactions from drivers both positive and negative.

We had some people stop and say they agreed with our stance and even if they had once supported the war--now are at least considering a change of heart.

It was some of the other folks that bothered me--we had some people yell nasty, horrid things and others who stopped and wanted to fight us because "you are a goddamend bunch of communist bastards" and things such as that.

I had one old lady get right in my face --it is hard to be nice--she did slap someone's 11 year old daughter--I wanted to call the local PD and file assault charges but the child's mother and others did not see the sense in that since she was an old lady who really made no sense.

I do recall the old saying back in the Vietnam era of "America, love it or leave it!!!" The implication of that saying----as was much of what we heard on Wednesday --was that we as a group and as individuals are not good Americans--don't deserve the freedom our boys and girls are fighting for and all of that.

Another guy got in my face about how I was hurting our troops--I told him that I was a veteran-did my duty and all of that and served proudly--but he thought I was akin to a communist and should "get the fuck out of this country now!"

There is no talking to such people---I have to admit--as press person-I should have kept my cool but it was hard to do faced with that--we had a bit of a shouting match that got very heated and I thought he might hit me, but he just walked off telling me I was a "fuckikng goddammed communist mother fucker" and that I was a disgrace to the uniform and the country---so with such words--he doesn't deserve any response.

We had other people in the rally with similar tales--fortunately all did end peacefully and it seemed they happened all in the time span of five or ten minutes or so.

I knew that things are polarized to such a degree in our country now--these experiences just brings that more sharply in focus--

I said this to folks at the rally--I can understand Bush and Cheney and anyone who works for the administration who has to spew the line on whatever--and then you have the Beltway Boy pundits who favor the Bush side who get all hot and such and of course you have the slime bags like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter who make a good living being right wing spin meisters--but what gets me --why do these average folks--in a place like Dayton, Ohio--far removed from the spin machines of Washington and New York--take such a hard core line and serve as an effective of a role of spin meister as do the folks at Faux--I mean Fox News--the news network that is not really a news network but plays one on television----and become such passionate and I think mindless defenders of something that is indefensible??????

Such times as these do show very clearly how a free nation can devolve into tyranny such as Nazi Germany did back in the 1930s---certainly having such people in power as Hitler is not a good thing--but it is the populace of a nation that can allow for tyranny to take hold and while we are far from being like Nazi Germany---I could see how we could slide down that slippery slope so very easily---it would not take much.

We had an "in your face" example of how the average American Joe has no problem with shutting down one's right to free assembly if they could (one guy wondered why the Kettering Police keep letting us hold our rallies at this intersection and how if he had his way--we'd all be in jail or worse)--{someone did point out to the man that we were walking on pubic sidewalks and that we had a right as Americans to assemble there and to take a contrary stand to the administration's policies---} and free speech. We had a few folks come by in cars making threats to our well being for even daring to challenge the status quo---(usually guys wearing ball caps driving pickup trucks-now I am going to piss of the guys in here who wear ballcaps and drive pickemups!!!)

What makes me optimistic??? The fact that we still can hold such a rally to ask our leaders to listen to a sizeable and growing number of people--that is what the poll takers say--most Americans are now very much against the war in Iraq.

What makes me pessimistic? That we can have leaders who just go on "staying the course"; who arrogantly refuse to consider the value or merit of views contrary to their own and most especially-that so many people just have accepted without question a whole package of things that don't seem to really be working out to our favor----and that you cannot try to at least get them to accept the fact you have a legitmate difference of opinion with them and "their president."

Just some things to think about!!!

darkeyes

May 4, 2007, 4:04 AM

POSITIVE:Scotlands progress in the European Football Chamionships, Englands strugglin..tee hee. This is bank holiday weekend..tee hee

NEGATIVE: Me luffly Jambos bein ruined by a Lithuanian clown.

Domino

May 4, 2007, 4:48 AM

I am an optimistic.

Pessasimistic: One thing you can always rely on is, humanities innate hatred, distrust and lack of hope for themselves.

Optimistic: Life is short, manage it well, keep yourself happy, be kind to yourself. Life was never ever meant to be a struggle.

Domino

May 4, 2007, 4:53 AM

POSITIVE:Scotlands progress in the European Football Chamionships, Englands strugglin..tee hee. This is bank holiday weekend..tee hee

NEGATIVE: Me luffly Jambos bein ruined by a Lithuanian clown.

Do you actually talk like that in real life??? :eek:

Solomon

May 4, 2007, 5:03 AM

you're right voltman. you've got every right to assemble and have your say

i don't agree 100% with your stance, but your rights to stand up an be heard is in black and white, so good for you that things went at least somewhat smoothly

truthfully, Abraham Lincoln had alot more debate over his stubborness when he was president.... so, i'm not surprised in the least that the Bush Admin has theirs as well

TaylorMade

May 4, 2007, 10:53 AM

Optimistic: New Job. . .I work with a more human crowd of people, without the intracollegate politics. I see exotic, good looking men and women every day. I learn new cultural quirks.

Pessimistic: No car still. Kinda still at loose ends as to what I want to do with my life.

Short term pessimist; long term optimist.

*Taylor*

Dr.StrangeLove

May 4, 2007, 11:03 AM

Sad...I have to go to school now.

Happy...I only have one class today!

biwords

May 4, 2007, 11:23 AM

"America, love it or leave it" actually sounds like good policy to me. But it has nothing to do with Iraq. How about "Iraq -- love it or leave it" :)

But then, "my country, right or wrong, but my country" always struck me as a good sentiment too. Never understood what the objection to that was...maybe I missed the point.

Optimistic -- "O brave new world, that has such people in't!" -- Shakespeare

Pessimistic -- "Most men live lives of quiet desperation" -- Thoreau

Herbwoman39

May 4, 2007, 11:42 AM

I totally disagree with your stance on Iraq and I'll tell you as much along with reasons why I disagree if it wouldn't stir up a big pile of crap.

The difference between me and those people you met at the rally is that I completely support your right to voice your opinions. When we stop having a voice, that is where our liberties stop.

Where I *disagree* with you is when you stoop to name calling just like the people you claim were so awful to you. How can you expect there to be differences when you choose not to take the higher ground?

And for reference, the name calling I'm talking about is calling Rush Limbaugh a slime.

:2cents:

12voltman59

May 4, 2007, 2:23 PM

To respond to Herbwoman regarding my calling Rush Limbaugh a "slime ball"

There are actually many reasons but I offer one tangilble case--for years he has rallied against those who are drug users and has called for tough enforcement against them--yet when he has his own troubles both in terms of his addiction and his actions regarding how he got those drugs---he did have a prosecutor in Florida ready to file felony drug charges--but like many who abuse drugs---he was able to make use of they system that has options for such cases and that is fine to get out of his legal problems and even though Rush can spin it anyway he wants--he dodged a legal bullet by taking his agreement.

He holds himself to be some sort of a paradigm of virture yet he failed--as drug abusers often do-to face the music on his problem and admit to it---

He was not willing to take the same medicine for his drug abuse that he so vociferously has advocated for others-the only difference between Rush in regards to his drug abuse--his drugs were made by the drug industry and the folks he skews in his show over the years do 'street drugs"

As to Ann Coulter--well the woman has books with titles like "Liberal Traitors" or however it goes-----enough said on her---

As to the war in Iraq--one could write a book on the legion of reasons for why the war was wrong--but here in bullet form are some of my reasons why I oppose it -from the beginning and today:

*Saddam's regime was weakened and he was isolated--the sanctions were weakening due in no small part as a reaction to Bush administraton pronouncements and such and conduct of foreign policy--a more effective means of dealing with Saddam would to have shut off the "cowboy" rhetoric and conducted real diplomacy to have further isolated his regime.

*Afghanistan had not been fully secured and needed more troops and resources to effectively deal with that nation--now the situation in Afghanistan in many places is reverting back to being unfriendly to us since the Taliban is making a resurgance in many areas.

*Bush Jr should have listened to his father--for Bush Sr correctly foresaw the dangers inherent in removing Hussein such as the factional nature of the sides in Iraq--a country that was not really a country from an historical perspective and could only be maintained by a strong armed leader like Saddam.

*No real connectinon between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda-they were in fact blood, sworn enemies of each other and they could not come together in the sense that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to oppose and vex us in the West.

Now--thanks to our foray into Iraq--our military is stretched to the breaking point. Right now--our military is losing in droves--many upper level non-commissioned officers--the Sargents and such and the mid-level officer corps-such as Army captains, majors, Lt Colonels.

A recently retired Army Major General noted that the situation is like what took place during and after the Vietnam War---that those who really run the Army are leaving and he said it took us almost two decades after Vietnam to "rebuild" the Army--he fears that is going to happen now--that it is happening. We are also wearing out the equipment like trucks and such due to the harsh enviroment of the desert and that was not planned for in the budget--that equipment was forecast to last much longer but now needs replacement. They have stripped bare National Guard unit equipment to such a degree that commanders of units in many states fear the Guard will not have the resources available to them to deal with natural disasters like Katrina.

And there is the money--it has now been figured that the war in Iraq has cost us three-quarters of a trillion dollars thus far---to what end?? This war was supposed to pay for itself--remember?????

A growing insurrgency in Iraq that is pretty much a civil war---the continued degradation of the infrastructure of Iraq such as worse access to electricity, clean water, etc. The Iraqi middle and upper classes--the folks needed to run things--have businesses--invest and such have left or are leaving the country.

This war has increased tensions all over the Middle East along sectarian lines, etc that threaten to "not bring peace and democracy to that region of the world" in Bush's own words--but threaten to spread like a wildfire and that has frightening ramifications for the entire planet!!!!!

And instead of Saddam keeping out groups like Al Qaeda--the place is now a recruitment and training ground for an entire legion of terrorists and its only a matter of time till their violence really does make it in a major way.

With what damage, death and destruction our presence in Iraq has wrought--we have most likely created a whole new generation of terrorists that we will be dealing with for years to come---

And how long is this war going to last? We are now going past the length of WWII and we don't need another Vietnam style war that goes on and on without much going to be shown for it...

Do we need to have this war kill 58,000 American soliders, sailors, airmen and Marines like Vietnam to not be a disaster???

We are there, but we do need a plan and some measures of success or failure and if we need to "fold em" and leave the table-then so be it--we have a Hobson's choice irrespective of whatever happens-and no matter what --the blame goes to one person and one person only--

George W. Bush---for it is clearly his war--a war that we did not need ---

flexuality

May 4, 2007, 2:35 PM

coyotedude

May 4, 2007, 6:21 PM

Politics! WooHoo! I love debating politics!

Seriously, I love the t-shirts you sometimes see on the rez:

"America: Love It or Give It Back"

It seems to me, though, that we Americans who opposed the Iraq War in 2003 did so precisely because we love our country and we knew that our government was making a terrible mistake in launching this ill-advised adventure. We knew that there was no credible evidence of ties between the Islamists of Al-Qaeda and the secular Arab nationalists running Iraq. We knew that this conflict would distract from the wide array of real threats currently facing our country and the world. And we feared - rightfully so - that the ineptitude of the Bush administration would squander what little opportunity we might have had to achieve not only victory in war, but success in peace.

Of course, 4 years and thousands of deaths later, it's not enough for us to say, "I told you so." As has so often been observed, wars are much easier to start than they are to stop. Bush and Co. have made a bad situation worse, and the question now becomes: what can we do about it? Do we have a reasonable chance to salvage something from the ruins of our hubris, at the cost of trillions more dollars and thousands more lives? Or is it better for us to cut our losses and regroup, risking expansion of the already horrific violence within Iraq and conflict throughout the region?

And the reality is that no matter what we do, we're screwed. I really don't blame either side - those who wants us to leave and those who want us to continue on - because they both represent nasty choices. What we really have to decide is "Which is the lesser of two evils?"

And that makes me pessimistic as hell.

Peace

NorthBiEast

May 4, 2007, 7:06 PM

Volt, I mostly agree with the points you bring up, and I definately agree that its time to admit that there is not going to be a happy ending to the Iraq war (for us, or for them). I can see why you're the media man too, you've got a way with propaganda. ;)

Herbwoman39

May 4, 2007, 7:15 PM

For Volty: First hon, no I don't hate you :) We'll talk more in PMs

I just wanted to clarify a few points.

Please note I didn't mentioned Ann Coulter, only Rush. I don't have a very high opinion of her. Granted in the last few years Rush has gone downhill in his commentary but he has, in the past been a valuable voice in the conservative talk community.

As for the war in Iraq, the one and only reason I feel that we should stay put is that if we don't make certain that the new government is fully cemented in place, they will end up reverting to the way they were before only under some other dictatorship. Whether the original reason for the war was wrong or not, these people are now our moral responsibility.

coyotedude

May 4, 2007, 7:41 PM

As for the war in Iraq, the one and only reason I feel that we should stay put is that if we don't make certain that the new government is fully cemented in place, they will end up reverting to the way they were before only under some other dictatorship. Whether the original reason for the war was wrong or not, these people are now our moral responsibility.

Herbwoman, you apparently subscribe to what I learned as a kid from my mom: if you make a mess, you have a responsibility to clean it up!

That's why I'm so damn torn about the Iraq war as it currently stands.

On the one hand, we made one hell of a mess in Iraq. Iraq wasn't a terrorist training camp before Bush and Co. made it into one, but it is now. Ironically, they aren't entirely lying (for once) about the consequences for Iraq and the region if we just up and leave.

On the other hand, I'm so pessimistic about our chances, I honestly believe that the best we can hope for if we stay is, well, another dictator in power. I'd love to be wrong; I'd love to see a vibrant, stable Iraq with healthy respect for human and civil rights for all. But I just don't see that happening.

And it makes me so angry.... the people in Iraq who just want to live their lives (just like the rest of us) don't deserve any of this.

Sigh....

Peace

Herbwoman39

May 4, 2007, 7:59 PM

Herbwoman, you apparently subscribe to what I learned as a kid from my mom: if you make a mess, you have a responsibility to clean it up!

That's why I'm so damn torn about the Iraq war as it currently stands.

I couldn't agree more completely. We decided that we were going to liberate the Iraqi people so we need to do what we said we were going to do.

I don't like hearing the daily count of casualties, which is why *I'm* torn. Any loss of life is the loss of one too many.

biwords

May 4, 2007, 8:31 PM

I have great respect for herbwoman, but I don't see how the US can liberate the Iraqi people since so many of the Iraqi people believe in things that are inconsistent with the very idea of liberty as understood by Americans. You confer freedom on people who then use it to impose seventh-century laws. That's not "liberation". "Liberation" would mean turning them into something more like Americans. Apart from the impossibility of the task, that would be "imperialism", which is generally understood to be a Bad Thing.

As for Ann Coulter, I'm willing to forgive her a lot for her wit.

12voltman59

May 4, 2007, 11:56 PM

This is not to get into a shouting match with Herbwoman-but one thing I thought of later about Rush Limbaugh--she got pissed because I called him a Slime Ball and I don't apologize for that one bit.

For years, the man has been on radio and during that time--most of the time he rallies against "liberals" and calls them names like one of his old time faves: "Feiminazis!!"

My God--the man ranted for ages about "Feminazis"

The man makes his living by spewing hatred and by helping to coarsen the debate in this country to the point that people feel its just fine to come up to people when they are peacefully gathered expressing their rights and make some very hateful and almost physically threatening comments---

So no--I think Rush Limbaugh in my book is a pretty reprehensible person and I have no use for him at all--I do listen to him from time to time just to see what he is pissing and moaning about now-but after about ten minutes or so--I have to turn the dial and go take a shower!!!

For me to call Rush a slime ball is no big deal--the man has made a career of calling anyone he does not like names much worse than that---

Solomon

May 5, 2007, 5:40 AM

damn volty

i feel the exact same way 'bout CNN, which is newscasting's equivelant to Hanoi Jane....

spartca

May 5, 2007, 6:35 AM

I totally disagree with your stance on Iraq and I'll tell you as much along with reasons why I disagree if it wouldn't stir up a big pile of crap.

ROFL good luck with that one on bisexual.com :)

Solomon

May 5, 2007, 8:56 AM

well, no shit

can't post a different perspective on the war without having the same exact people accusing the Bush admin of Naziism, blasting away at people that don't agree with the Dem's

i just wonder why there's such a need to be so defensive if ya'll indeed have the courage of your convictions?

spartca

May 5, 2007, 9:09 AM

Why can't we all just get along? :grouphug: :rolleyes:

Solomon

May 5, 2007, 9:20 AM

i'm very easy to get along with :cool:

spartca

May 5, 2007, 9:21 AM

Me too! :three:

12voltman59

May 5, 2007, 5:28 PM

me three!!!!!! :three: :bigrin: :grouphug: :grouphug: :kiss: :kiss: :bibounce: :bibounce:

jamiehue

May 5, 2007, 6:58 PM

neo cons are lousy in bed,

Solomon

May 6, 2007, 6:55 AM

neo cons are lousy in bed,

sorry to hear about your inadequacies there, ya might wanna stop being one if that is the case.....

usedbear1950

May 6, 2007, 8:52 AM

This is just an obsevation and in no way meant to accuse anyone of anything..... :rolleyes:

I am always amazed at how people lacking in the information that the military "higher ups" must have, seem to have all the supposed answers to a situation they are lacking info on.

Like I said, just an observation..... :cool:

The assumption that the so called "higher ups" know more than we the "unwashed masses" may have some truth but in a free society we have the right to not only express our opinions but call for a change. The generals, by the constitution and military code, answer to the Commander in Chief. POTUS answers to the people, as do all elected officials. This paternal belief works for the young but not for responsible adults in a free society. As an aside, the free in free society is somewhat a malapropism. There is nothing free in free society. We pay with our attention to issues and voting. As I do with doctors and lawyers, I pay for their advice but I, as the consumer, do not blindly take their advice as fact. Caveat emptor! The generals may know things I don't know but I still think that the fallacious premises upon which this war have been based is only costing the lives of young men and women in uniform. As a good and loyal American, I can no longer condon the senseless death of our people. My father, uncles and grandfather fought in WWII. My grandfather also fought in WWI. This same grandfather was so opposed to the Vietnam War that he offered to pay for my moving to Canada if it came to that. He caught on very early that the US was not in the war to win, just to fight. For what reason, only those "higher ups' ever knew and they were wrong then. Do we really know what the military accessment of the situation is? They are bound by military code. I am not. I am bound by the rights offered to me as an American and the free will given to me by God. You may disagree with me and I will die in defense of your right to do so. However, if you try to impose your beliefs upon me, I will fight you to the death for my rights.

What makes me pessimistic is that there is more truth coming from a political comedians (Bill Maher, Lewis Black, Chris Rock, etc.) than our elected officials (Bush, Cheney, Hillary,Harry Reid, etc.).

ur ever luvin
usedbear

Solomon

May 6, 2007, 9:44 AM

maybe the biggest problem with Vietnam was the jackass college fucks that took it upon themselves to shit, spit, and dance on the graves of the soldiers that fought over there!!

many of my uncles, one of my grandfathers, and several cousins were in Vietnam... at least they took a side

the only thing i see the 'pull out people' taking is a big shit on the troops that serve over there.... and no i don't care about how much anybody wants to claim that they're blaming Bush for all of the evils in the world....

the troops are the ones that follow his orders voluntarily

and it's the troops that suffer the consequences of people like Congress pulling the budget

and that's my opinion.... the one I have a RIGHT to express as well as everyone else

usedbear1950

May 6, 2007, 1:33 PM

hmmmmmmmm...
Solomon...is continuing a failing policy wise?
And I am not one who desecrated the graves or honor of our Vietnam soldiers but I was against the Vietnam War. And that is my right to express...it seems that a reasoned approach is beyond our American psyche...we seem to cherish being polarized. Lumping everyone who disagrees with oneself into a denigarting pharse seems to be the American way. Why not have a reasonable discussion, agree to disagree if that is the outcome and defend the others right to have that opinion.
I did not serve in Vietnam...I comforted those who came home. The ones in body bags I helped the families deal with the lose of their loved ones. The ones that came home in living body bags who could not sleep thru the night, who had terrible and threatening flash backs; I held their heads in the dark night and quieted their memories so they could rest.
I had and still have no problem with our invasion in Afganistan. I did have and still have problems with our invasion of Iraq. There were no WMD's, they don't want to be a democray. They are a fabricated country, made up by the British and the only stabilizing force in Iraq was Saddam. He hated us...but was he really a threat? POTUS clearly stated that the next president will have to finish the job.
I defend your right to be intolerant but to class me as "shitting on the troops", I beg your pardon. I think that keeping them in harm's way for no good reason is not honoring them and their commitment to our country.
Our brave men and women will do their duty and follow orders. These orders come from POTUS and his orders come from us, We the People. The honor of the dead service men and women in Iraq is that they were true to their oath in defending the Constitution and following the orders given to them. The dishonor is that of those who sent them there for what now appears to be unknown reasons. We can only guess if it was about his Dad or oil or both.
Please take notice that I did not call you or those who agree with me a name. You have every right to disagree. I choose not to get into name calling. It only brings honest discussion into the mud and enlightens no one.

ur ever luvin
usedbear

FerociousFeline

May 6, 2007, 2:21 PM

Whoa.

Heavy Duty.

I'm pleased to see that everyone here is paying attention and voicing their opinions regarding the situation that affects all of us, and that apparently so many will ignore in their daily lives out of a general feeling of helplessness, hopelessness and frustration. Positive change of anything begins with dialog, introspection, and the exchange of information.

I'd like to offer a few opinions in that regard. My opinions are my own and I acknowledge that they may be colored by my perspective, my experience, my ignorance and my bias.

First of all. Make no mistake. Rush limbo is a fucking Slimeball. Here is a man who is so out of integrity with both himself and his followers that to see him as anything else but a sensationalist for the purpose of developing his own career would be a mistake. This man does NOT do the country of America a service. Far from it. He is has been the mouthpiece for ignorance, fear and hate for many years now. I will stop there because I need my fur to stop standing straight up.

Second, Our country has fallen into an extremely bad habit of viewing the world in over simplified terms. Should we have gone to war in the first place?
Maybe. Could it have been avoided? I doubt it. In the big picture, our country and actually anyone included under the broad brush stroke of "The West" has had the ill will of many of the smaller countries for some time now. Power and the struggle to get it has been the story of human beings across all cultures and tribes throughout our entire existance. Up until this point the United States has been one of the most powerful countries in the world. There have been many other countries who envy this position as top dog, and many countries who have attempted to wrestle power from us. Because in our hearts the American people are a generous group, and because of the very nature of our diversity we as a group have discovered that the best way for all of us to get along is for everyone to have a say, for everyone to have a piece of the pie, because we all are, after all, much more similar than we ever were different. It isn't such a stretch to want to believe that if others across the planet had these things we take for granted, that they might be happy and flourish as well. However, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him backstroke. We have had the unpleasant implied obligation as the most powerful tribe on the planet to become the planets "world police". and it only took a few decades for the rest of the world to recognise that our achilles heel is the fossil fuels that we depend on to maintain our way of life.
So in my opinion, the specifics of what the hell is going on over there really don't matter. The BIG picture is, we have the power, the middle east wants the power, and that's really what the fight over there is about. If we as a country really wish to end the war, we should see all these anti-war activists, all the pro-war activists... put their energy into pushing our government and local industry into hydrogen fuel cell technology. Because if we don't NEED the oil that the middle east is trying to cut off, then we render their primary attack against us useless. As for the specifics of what's going on over there and whether our leadership is doing the right or wrong thing by trying to "stay the course"....personally I think that the biggest issue here is that we went over there with a certain set of expectations. True to most things in life, once we got there we had reality totally mess with those expectations. Now, we are in a situation that has changed significantly from the days where we were all waving flags and sicking the our military might on sodamninsane and his minions. So, while it once may have been a good idea, to believe that we can actually effect a stabilization of an area that has been unstable for the entire history of the human race seems folly. Whose fault is it? Nobodys.
I'm not certain what the best course of action is for us, but I do firmly believe that due to the personalities of the collective cultures involved here, the massive rift between the haves and the have-nots....and the religion....I don't see that "staying the course" will be either beneficial or productive. The world moves fast and life even faster.

FF

Solomon

May 6, 2007, 7:03 PM

darkeyes

May 6, 2007, 7:24 PM

flexuality

May 7, 2007, 1:16 AM

Usedbear, I am not trying to 'impose' my beliefs on you or anyone else. It's not actually possible to do that anyway, so you can back off with your threat of "if you try to impose your beliefs upon me, I will fight you to the death for my rights".

Just what these "rights" people keep demanding? Are they truly rights....or are they privileges? Do we even understand the difference anymore? Have we taken these privileges that are honourable and worth fighting for and turned them into "rights" that we demand? It is not a right to live in a 'free' country...it is a privilege.

These extremists, terrorists, whatever you choose to call them, do NOT think like "we" do. They are not interesting in negotiating or talking.

To imply that Bush is trying to "dominate" the world is absurd. If the US wanted to dominate the world, they are perfectly capable of doing that, so my question would be....if that's the intention, then what are they waiting for?

If they are only in Iraq for oil, then again I ask...what are they waiting for?

Do you understand the teachings that these extremists are following? They are not interested in having the "infidel" back off and play nice, they are bound by their extremely literal interpretation of the Quran to destroy the "infidel."

And ANYONE who does not believe what they believe is the infidel. Period. No exceptions. I am talking about extremists here, not Muslims in general.

I hear and I read these "anti-Bush, anti-US" views and I keep asking myself the same questions.....do these people understand the teachings that these extremists are following? Have any of them read any of the Quran or even tried to learn about the terrorists view of things? Are they on the side of the terrorists??

These are not just "western" or "european" thinkers with a bug up their ass. They have no qualms about death, whether of others or their own. They do not want to "talk."

To pull out of Iraq and that area right now would be to invite the death of millions. These extremists are not going to just stop if the US backs off. They would like nothing better than to have the US pull out and get out of their way.

I agree that war is not the best solution to anything. I also believe that it is VITAL to know your players. It is naive, in my opinion, to assume that because WE don't want war that these extremists don't want war.

War is horrible and ugly and in my opinion, it should be that way. It makes it something to avoid at all costs.

War does not bring peace, nor does lack of war bring peace. I don't think that peace really is attainable anywhere...not completely. I mean, good grief, it's hard enough to get 6 people to agree on what to have for lunch!

But I do have to wonder if there is a war to stop someone like Hitler or some of these extremists, would that not result in FEWER deaths than to just let them continue? Particularly the people that want to rid the world of (in Hitler's case) non-arians....or (in the case of the extremists/terrorists following the literal interpretation of the Quran) infidels?

Most of the world's population is non-arian. And most of the world's population would fall under the extreme definition of infidels.

According to what both those examples believe, they're not going to stop until it's "mission accomplished."

As much as I hate war and killing and am opposed to shoving my beliefs down anyones' throat I guess I have to stop and realize that that is NOT the way people like that think.

Perhaps the war has made the US a bigger target, but more in the perspective of making it a more publicized target. I believe that the extremists are using that to rally support for their "cause" and loving the media attention the US (and Britian now) are getting as being the "bad guys."

And it's having the effect of making an "enemy divided", probably the greatest tactic known to mankind.

No victory can replace those lost and buried in wartime. Nothing can replace those lost and buried when people do nothing to stop those who don't care one iota who they kill either.

I have no idea where the responsibility lies for any war. All I know is that if someone came into my home and tried to kill my child, I would fight.

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln, when faced with many complaints about a certain general of his (I forget the name at the moment)in the Civil War. The complaints were mainly around what this particular general was doing and people did NOT like it or approve of it. Lincoln's reply to them was "At least he's DOING something."

TaylorMade

May 7, 2007, 1:38 AM

neo cons are lousy in bed,

Broad brush much, Slick? Sex is a skill that comes easy to many people no matter their political persuasion. There are liberals who won't do anal, just as there are conservatives that cross dress when no one's looking.

This post shows your ignorant assumption that a statement like this would be an automatic points scorer.

I'm betting you don't even know what a neo-con is.

*Taylor*

Moto1

May 7, 2007, 6:34 AM

used bear... it wasn't a failing policy until the half the country decided that war just isn't pretty, as if this is some sort of new thing and forced the politicians into covering it up to try an keep from entering into a rebellion or simple widespread panic

...

i support the troops, i have confidence that our military's the best in the world bar none!

Just to take the perspective of a UK citizen, I must say that the first statement doesn't seem correct. The war was failing from the start, many soldiers were dying, it took ages to track down Saddam, and there was never a time when we had control of the country any better than we do now. Furthermore no troops from either the UK or the US have been brought home, so any change of heart won't have made a difference. It failed because, as was learnt in Vietnam, you can't invade a country with nothing left to lose.

To answer the second point, I must ask you to check your facts. The US army is one of the worst trained in the world, the least physically able on average, and worst equipped with a weapon that jams easily, shoots bullets that are too low calibre to kill someone wearing body armour, and was out of date in the Vietnam war. Your special forces are good, but your regular troops are pretty useless, especially at peacekeeping. They haven't been trained to deal with civilians who's language they don't speak, a recipe for disaster.

These extremists, terrorists, whatever you choose to call them, do NOT think like "we" do. They are not interesting in negotiating or talking.

To imply that Bush is trying to "dominate" the world is absurd. If the US wanted to dominate the world, they are perfectly capable of doing that, so my question would be....if that's the intention, then what are they waiting for?

If they are only in Iraq for oil, then again I ask...what are they waiting for?

Do you understand the teachings that these extremists are following? They are not interested in having the "infidel" back off and play nice, they are bound by their extremely literal interpretation of the Quran to destroy the "infidel."

And ANYONE who does not believe what they believe is the infidel. Period. No exceptions. I am talking about extremists here, not Muslims in general.

I hear and I read these "anti-Bush, anti-US" views and I keep asking myself the same questions.....do these people understand the teachings that these extremists are following? Have any of them read any of the Quran or even tried to learn about the terrorists view of things? Are they on the side of the terrorists??

These are not just "western" or "european" thinkers with a bug up their ass. They have no qualms about death, whether of others or their own. They do not want to "talk."

To pull out of Iraq and that area right now would be to invite the death of millions. These extremists are not going to just stop if the US backs off. They would like nothing better than to have the US pull out and get out of their way.

I agree that war is not the best solution to anything. I also believe that it is VITAL to know your players. It is naive, in my opinion, to assume that because WE don't want war that these extremists don't want war.

War is horrible and ugly and in my opinion, it should be that way. It makes it something to avoid at all costs.

War does not bring peace, nor does lack of war bring peace. I don't think that peace really is attainable anywhere...not completely. I mean, good grief, it's hard enough to get 6 people to agree on what to have for lunch!

But I do have to wonder if there is a war to stop someone like Hitler or some of these extremists, would that not result in FEWER deaths than to just let them continue? Particularly the people that want to rid the world of (in Hitler's case) non-arians....or (in the case of the extremists/terrorists following the literal interpretation of the Quran) infidels?

Most of the world's population is non-arian. And most of the world's population would fall under the extreme definition of infidels.

According to what both those examples believe, they're not going to stop until it's "mission accomplished."

As much as I hate war and killing and am opposed to shoving my beliefs down anyones' throat I guess I have to stop and realize that that is NOT the way people like that think.

Perhaps the war has made the US a bigger target, but more in the perspective of making it a more publicized target. I believe that the extremists are using that to rally support for their "cause" and loving the media attention the US (and Britian now) are getting as being the "bad guys."

And it's having the effect of making an "enemy divided", probably the greatest tactic known to mankind.

No victory can replace those lost and buried in wartime. Nothing can replace those lost and buried when people do nothing to stop those who don't care one iota who they kill either.

I have no idea where the responsibility lies for any war. All I know is that if someone came into my home and tried to kill my child, I would fight.

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln, when faced with many complaints about a certain general of his (I forget the name at the moment)in the Civil War. The complaints were mainly around what this particular general was doing and people did NOT like it or approve of it. Lincoln's reply to them was "At least he's DOING something."

The extremists you speak of are a tiny minority in the world. So small they could have very little influence under normal conditions. Then why are they a problem? It is because the people in many Arab countries are scared. They see the western world in general and the US in particular invading countries, attacking Islamic nations left and right (remember that many Arab nations got caught up in the cold war, and were so attacked by either Russia or the USA, or in the case of Egypt the UK and France tried to steal land), and so they are terrified of us. And to be honest I don't blame them. The extremists have control because the people are scared enough to give it to them. Fighting only gives them a chance to tighten their grip.

Solomon

May 7, 2007, 7:07 AM

Actually Sol, I reckon that as far as Iraq is concerned hun, Bush has run roughshod over the military..... they dont like bein ther ne more tha I thin I like us bein ther... but then we havta put up wiv Blair for now who is also an arse... the miltaries of both the US an UK know it just aint winnable... the governing elites refuse 2 lose face..hold out till replaced an then blame their successors..arseholes!!

I do not support the troops..they are there in a war I think was wrong and unnecessary and unwinnable... who suffers most? Americans? British? between us we have had some 3000 or so dead...Iraqi civilians alone?? 30 maybe 40 times that?? sure... what a way to win friends and influence people..what a way to defend the peace...

Finally Sol sweets.. I love ya dearly..an Adore Flex..but wer did Bear threaten Flex???? The bit bout fightin for his rights?? Cos me wud fight me best friend in the world to defend mine!!!

i am very painfully aware of your stance on this issue eyes.... and i'm not budging from mine, 'cuz i'm just as passionate about it if not moreso than you are about yours....

but maybe the reason why ya'll need to talk about it so much is 'cuz you need to keep convincing yourself of you're rightness

i don't need to convince anybody

Solomon

May 7, 2007, 7:19 AM

Just to take the perspective of a UK citizen, I must say that the first statement doesn't seem correct. The war was failing from the start, many soldiers were dying, it took ages to track down Saddam, and there was never a time when we had control of the country any better than we do now. Furthermore no troops from either the UK or the US have been brought home, so any change of heart won't have made a difference. It failed because, as was learnt in Vietnam, you can't invade a country with nothing left to lose.

To answer the second point, I must ask you to check your facts. The US army is one of the worst trained in the world, the least physically able on average, and worst equipped with a weapon that jams easily, shoots bullets that are too low calibre to kill someone wearing body armour, and was out of date in the Vietnam war. Your special forces are good, but your regular troops are pretty useless, especially at peacekeeping. They haven't been trained to deal with civilians who's language they don't speak, a recipe for disaster.

The extremists you speak of are a tiny minority in the world. So small they could have very little influence under normal conditions. Then why are they a problem? It is because the people in many Arab countries are scared. They see the western world in general and the US in particular invading countries, attacking Islamic nations left and right (remember that many Arab nations got caught up in the cold war, and were so attacked by either Russia or the USA, or in the case of Egypt the UK and France tried to steal land), and so they are terrified of us. And to be honest I don't blame them. The extremists have control because the people are scared enough to give it to them. Fighting only gives them a chance to tighten their grip.

talk about getting facts straight.... i was talking about Vietnam...

and quite frankly if the U.S.'s military is so piss poor in regards to Iraq and lost right from the beginning..... i'm just scratching my head trying to figure out how the hell they literally destroyed the Iraqi army in what.... a couple WEEKS??? not to mention that the 3,000+ death rate happened in the majority after it turned into a guerilla war.... before it turned into a guerilla war the casualty rate for the U.S. was miniscule..... not to mention that compared with any other war the casualty rate is unprecedentedly low

the Iraq tank division (the world's 4th largest) was reduced to piles of rubble in what 2 days? with NO casualties on the U.S. side?

you're right.... absolutely fucking piss poor... maybe you should take a shot at'em? i'm sure you'll do well... have a great time!

oh... and the extremists are such a small minority of the world and can't influence much unless ya happen to be on of the skyscrapers of the WTC, or the pentagon, or standing next to one of their suicide cars bombs, or shopping at the wrong mall when one of these idiots decides to self detonate.... etc.. etc...

Scootertrash

May 7, 2007, 8:06 AM

Here is an opinion from a vietnam veteran..(me)

Vietnam was a war where the people didn't want us there and we didn't want to be there.. We did not understand their culture or their leaders and still don't.. we lost 50,000 plus lives before we decided to let them take care of their own problems..

are we going to do the same in Iraq?? Another country whos culture we do not understand. We have created a problem that we cannot fix... We need to remove our troops and let Iraqs government take the responsibility for the welfare of their people..

I realize that we have a responsibility because we created the mess.. but propping up a government that is doomed to fail will not work.. The Kurds have elected their own government and maintain their own security and the other factions will do the same.. If we are not there.

Just another opinion.. by the way I have two sons that have served in Iraq that agree with me.

TaylorMade

May 7, 2007, 10:37 AM

I'm going to throw my hat into the ring with my two denarii.

I've had friends go over there, and even an ex boyfriend who served in both theatres (Afganistan and Iraq), and their opinions vary, but the general consensus is that...we went in to fix things, let's actually fix them. Many in the military believe they can be fixed, if people at home would support them in this belief. Some simply believe the opposite.
From those who have been there have shared and we have discussed, I am of the feeling that this was an inevitable conflict that we had not thought through totally. I had a friend who served in Desert Fox ( stepped up aggression in Iraq during the Clinton Years) who really thought that the war would have happened earlier if not for other things at hand (Somalia, Kosovo, et al.). Trying to blame one set of people for a situation that took a decade or more to build up is unfair and potentially short sighted. For such a long build up to come to such a hasty mess is kind of odd, but not unprecidented.
I'd like for things to work out - and I want to believe that at the heart of it, many people would like the same too, no matter which side of the aisle they fall on.
But honestly, will they? You know. . .It will take decades for this to shake out totally, so I refuse to give an answer here.

Damn, I seem non-commital, but I guess if it were me and we could go back in time, a middle solution would be in progress.

*Taylor*

Long Duck Dong

May 7, 2007, 12:13 PM

interesting comments in this thread..... a few I agree with and a few I don't

when i served in the nz armed forces, we were told that the three top rated armies, in regards to attack / defense and equipment, was the swiss, the russian and the korean....

the us ranked lower, mainly cos the use of superior fire power doesn't make a true soldier, and their idea of * if it moves, shoot it * is how friendly fire happens

nam was a good example, simple villagers took on tanks, bombs, napalm, etc etc and dealt a unbelievable hiding to the us.....
iraq is not a good example of warfare, cos tank, missiles and airborne tactics work well, but the stories of troops running out of supplies, showed that the emphasis was on superior fire power and not troop survivability

one thing i learnt is that you can't judge a soldier by the size of his gun, but his ability to survive when he doesn't have one....

as for this terrorist stuff.... just who are the terrorists......the people that attacked the twin towers or the people that nuked two cities in a country, killing woman and children and saying its ok, its to bring peace
are we saying that its not ok to fly planes into buildings but its ok to blow up cities....

I sure would love to hear how flying planes into a building and causing death is wrong, but wiping out two cities with innocent child involved is ok

question: why was the us, the ONLY country to be made EXEMPT from the war crimes tribunal at the start of the kuwait war and the iraq war.....

question:. how is spending trillions in iraq, benefiting the people back home.... are they now safe from the WMD that were never found... are they safe from the terrorists, including timothy mcvie or the V.A tragedy ??

question: is the us gonna continue to * bring balance * to other countries and * save them * from dictatorship, while telling the us gays that they still have no rights......

one of the best sayings I have heard, is simply * clean up the mess in ya own back yawn before you look over the fence *

in war there is two types of people, the dead and the people left to pick up the pieces ......

12voltman59

May 7, 2007, 1:01 PM

It was either in the thread or elsewhere that I mentioned the affect this war is having on our National Guard and that the Commandants of some state Guard units have expressed concern they won't be able to respond to natural disasters and other such emergencies is shown very starkly by the tornado that destroyed that Kansas town this weekend-in the article I link to below--both the state governor and a spokesperson for the Kansas National Guard state they will have trouble responding to this emergency for the reasons expressed in the article:

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/kansas-tornado/20070505031309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

usedbear1950

May 7, 2007, 6:24 PM

I don't make threats....they are illegal...
I stated my position...

and you took my words out of context...do you by chance work for the media? You left out that I would fight to death for your right to your opinion.

...and isn't fighting to the death for the rights of individuals and their freedom what America is about, even ones we disagree with.

ur ever luvin
usedbear

Long Duck Dong

May 7, 2007, 7:22 PM

...and isn't fighting to the death for the rights of individuals and their freedom what America is about, even ones we disagree with.

usedbear

if only the nature of american law reflected that fact.......

in new zealand, gays and lesbians can marry, serve in the forces... prostitues have rights ....etc

sure NZ'ers are in iraq,....as peacekeepers.......

many countries fought in ww 1 and 2 to give out our respective, home countries, the rights to freedom and their individual rights.....
over the years, many countries have given people individual rights and freedom

the US is one of the few that is taking away the right to freedom in speech and deed and STILL discriminating based on sexuality....and yes, still going to war to protect the * freedom and individual rights * of its people

I am not slamming ANYBODY in the us, either for supporting or opposing the war..... but I am curious how it will truly benefit the us people ????

flexuality

May 7, 2007, 8:37 PM

I am not an American.....but this song always strikes something in me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rnf7DS5YlQ

Sometimes I wonder if it even applies anymore.....there is a Canadian version too, but I can't find it online....there could be a version for every country in the 'free world'......

What happened to us?

Amidst all these views and opinions voiced here, I see one thing we all have in common....we want this war to stop.

Some of us take the 'fight' response, others take the 'flight' response....but the bottom line seems to be that at some level we're just all scared....scared because somewhere, somehow we 'know' that war can no longer be won....or lost.....

The deterrent to war has become the deterrent to victory....and the deterrent to loss.....none of us want to risk anyone pushing that final button.

The button that lets the nukes fly.....

Sol and I were talking....and he pointed out the nuclear factor...it just really hit me....

*************

usedbear....I guess it was just the fact that you put the word "you" in who you would fight to the death....meaning me....I know these kinds of topics get very emotionally charged, and so they should.....so if you're saying that you were not threatening me, then I'll take you at your word....

Ms. Ally Kat

May 7, 2007, 10:03 PM

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln, when faced with many complaints about a certain general of his (I forget the name at the moment)in the Civil War. The complaints were mainly around what this particular general was doing and people did NOT like it or approve of it. Lincoln's reply to them was "At least he's DOING something."[/QUOTE]

Grant, the quote was actually "I can't spare this General, he fights" said it right after Shiloh when everyone up north was so appalled by the huge losses there

Herbwoman39

May 7, 2007, 11:57 PM

pecker

May 7, 2007, 11:59 PM

After my last drunken bout on replying to post on here I told myself to stay off of this BUTafter reading your post...........I hope I get kicked off of this site..............I am an AMERICAN that was in VIETNAM in 1969 and [by the way]spent some time with the Aussi's......These guy's hated you fuckers.......Wish you had been there to defend your bad ass country.......If your so up on the Iraq problem ..Why Isn't your Bad ass country there to show off how bad you fuckers are??????????Real country's like the Aussi's are there to help.I'm not in total agreement with what is happening there......But I am in agreement with the fire power of the good ole U S of A ............I think your a piece of shit................Load your gun now MOTHER FUCKER.........

flexuality

May 8, 2007, 12:17 AM

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln, when faced with many complaints about a certain general of his (I forget the name at the moment)in the Civil War. The complaints were mainly around what this particular general was doing and people did NOT like it or approve of it. Lincoln's reply to them was "At least he's DOING something."

Grant, the quote was actually "I can't spare this General, he fights" said it right after Shiloh when everyone up north was so appalled by the huge losses there

Thanks Ally!

I knew I didn't have it quite right....and Sol wasn't here when I posted, cuz he told me the same thing!

flexuality

May 8, 2007, 2:40 AM

for you..long duck DICK
After my last drunken bout on replying to post on here I told myself to stay off of this BUTafter reading your post...........I hope I get kicked off of this site..............I am an AMERICAN that was in VIETNAM in 1969 and [by the way]spent some time with the Aussi's......These guy's hated you fuckers.......Wish you had been there to defend your bad ass country.......If your so up on the Iraq problem ..Why Isn't your Bad ass country there to show off how bad you fuckers are??????????Real country's like the Aussi's are there to help.I'm not in total agreement with what is happening there......But I am in agreement with the fire power of the good ole U S of A ............I think your a piece of shit................Load your gun now MOTHER FUCKER.........
Quaint.

A little too much chocolate in the old milkshake?

Let's see....you've targeted me in other threads...and now you're targeting LDD...well at least I'm in good company. :bigrin:

darkeyes

May 8, 2007, 3:52 AM

Long Duck Dong

May 8, 2007, 5:12 AM

pecker... you served in nam ??? cool, I never served in nam, but I saw the results.....the men that came back from hell.... and I mean hell.....not the processed BS stories, but the pics taken with a camera smuggled into nam....
by a nzer, my step father.......I know a number of nzer nam veterans......
they are men that saw the * firepower * of the usa....and the side effects of weeks in the bush, living with leechs, disease, malaria, misquitos, lack of hygiene, the constant fear of getting shot, stepping in a punji trap, triggering a grenade trap....etc etc etc

I have watched my step father and his friends struggle with cancer, and the big fight over agent orange and napalm....and all the other chemicals dropped....I watch my step sister struggle with the birth issues that is showing up amongst many off spring of the nam vets.....

btw nz armed forces AND civilians are serving in iraq, ... one of my best mates works the convoys, the same convoys that were getting attacked..... hes not over there to * defend * nz, but to try and keep ALL the soldiers safe, so they can come home to their families again

I drink at the local RSA, ( returned services assocation ) in the presence of MEN that deserve all the respect in the world.....MEN that risked THEIR lives for me and other nzers....

if you wanna think of nz as some kind of wimpy, gutless shit hole....go for it..... but start by checking out ww#1 and work ya way thru our fighting history

as a little help, nz sent over 100,000 people out of a population of one million.... the single largest commitment in the whole war.....1 / 10 of the country....

lest we forget, those that will fall in the fields, valleys and plains
lest we forget, those that remain lost in the battlefield
lest we forget, those that served with honor and pride
lest we forget, those that will never come home
lest we forget, somebody remains at home, waiting and hoping....

Solomon

May 8, 2007, 5:19 AM

Solomon

May 8, 2007, 6:23 AM

Volty;

There's no shouting match here. I'm not pissed. I lufs ya hon. I just disagree with ya :) And ya know what? That's OKAY! I respect your opinion and hope that you feel the same.

As for the rest of y'all, I'm thinking that this sort of thread is the reason that those who care about each other should discuss neither religion nor politics. it just ends up in a heated pissing contest.

No one is going to change the other's minds so why don't we all just agree that we each have our own ideas an opinions and leave well enough alone?

i'm not so sure that i agree with ya on not talking about the issues herbwoman.... relationships aren't built on the good times, they're built on getting through the areas that we struggle the most

of course it gets passionate.... it's supposed to, 'cuz that's where the heart is, and what relationship survives without heart?

12voltman59

May 8, 2007, 11:02 AM

This I hope--and I am gonna try to stick to it--be my last post on here--

I am not going to apologize or tread lightly in terms of my quote, unquote "liberal" viewpoints on a web site that deals with bisexuality--I had thought coming here originally that if one considers oneself bisexual or gay or anything other than purely, 100 percent heterosexual---one would naturally take a political stance that is not to the right--I was obviously very much wrong on that score--but it is, I do believe in my humble and failed opinion--something natural to assume, but then again ya know what they say about assumptions........ :bigrin:

We do have Pecker, who seems to usually be trashed and makes no sense and does seem to be an unhappy individual who falls into the mindset of "America--Love It or Leave It!"

I don't want to leave America--I want to try to set my country on what I think is the right course--for us to not be so arrogant and bossy--to take our role as one more nation of this planet--to not be the country -that in spite of our modest size--each of us consumes multiple times more "stuff" of all kinds than most everyone else on the planet-and I will plead guilty to that myself!!--I don't want America to be the planet's big bully and the policeman--I want our country to live up to the ideals it holds in it founding documents and it doesn't condone torture of the prisoners of war or whatever it is we are doing now---

But I do tell ya--if one of these bozos that are trying to get the Republican nomination for president does get elected--especially one of the three who raised their hands that they don't "believe" in evolution--well--I may not do it right away--but as soon as I can--I will have to leave this country--for we are really, really in a sad way---there is no belief or not about "the theroy of evolution" for in science--when something is a "theory" that means it is one of those things that is pretty well established--maybe not all is known about the processes for whatever the "theory" is about--but the basic elements are there--go look up in any dictionary the scientific meaning of the word "theory"---it means far more than does the common usage term---to say one does not believe in evolution is the same as saying one still thinks the earth is flat and the earth is the center of the universe----you can "believe" any of these is the case-but it don't make it so!!!! (just like the earth is only a few thousand years old--plllluuuueezzzzeee!!!!!)))

Well--I do love America--and as an American-its is my right and my responsibility to speak up when I believe my country is wrong--the people we put in control of things-even the president are employees of "the People" or at least that is what we are taught they are supposed to be from the time we are in primary school---well-if that is not true and the president is some sort of soverign--I guess I must have dreamed up what they taught me then!!!

When the president--just like a grunt level solider, airman, sailor, Marine, FBI Special Agent or any employee of the Federal, State and Local governments swear that they "will serve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign or domestic" But he is not something more and not equal to the Constitution or the country itself--that is being a KING not an elected offiicial!!!!!

To criticize the POTUS (president of the United States) is not criticizing the country or harming it--or the troops who serve in harm's way---you are doing your duty to express yourself as a citizen of a supposedly democratic republic-the highest order of anything you can do as a citizen!!!!!

It is not just your right to do that--it is your duty to do that!!!!!!!!

The president works for the citizens of this nation--we fought many years ago to get rid of a soverign---and many have fought and died in subsequent years to prevent the establishment of another---this president seems to think he is some sort of soverign--we got rid of George III back in 1776--we don't want or need one now---

I cannot wait to see this Geo II go fade away---in my opinion-this man has done this country some very serious harm and in my opinion will come to rank as the absolute worst president in the history of the republic!!!

There are already presidential scholars saying this same thing---of course all is open to interpretation and perspective and to make such a value judgment does fall to those of future generations to make such a determination--my hope is that thanks to George W. Bush, POTUS #43--this country does have a future

And by God---somebody go slap my sorry liberal ass with a wet fish if I make anymore posts on this thread!!!!!!!!!!!! :soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox: :yikes2: :yikes2: :yikes2: :soapbox: :banghead: :banghead: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :cutelaugh :cutelaugh

usedbear1950

May 8, 2007, 5:59 PM

Some thoughts:

Unlike the romantic languages, the word you in English looks the same in the singular and plural form. Maybe from now on I will use the Spanish Usted for the singular and Usetedes for the plural and make life simpler.

Let me clarify my thoughts on war, war is unfortunately neccessary. I have no problem with our fighting in Afganistan. I question why we gave up on that initative and given all our attention to Iraq. I am too old to fight in a war...I would be a liability...but going to Afganistan is where to find the enemy. Bush is not a good president but he has all the power at this moment, so more of our troops will lose life and limb and return to mistreatment in the VA system. My stance does not dishonor our troops...it defends them. My friends who came back from Vietnam asked me why they were there. I had no answer then and I have none now. Some young people out there will be the ones to hold the heads of their returning friends as they try to make sense of why they were there. They will stroke their heads in the dark of night and say the same thing I said over 30 years ago, I don't know.

We cannot have a viable exchange of ideas while name calling is going on. I respectfully request that we all edit our posts and consider a manor in which to make our point and keep the name calling to a minimum.

ur ever luvin
usedbear

Solomon

May 8, 2007, 6:59 PM

voltman and others, for what it's worth i might actually be shifting my perspective on this mess.....

it kinda struck home, hard when i read Scooter's post... with the realization that the WMD's don't just deter war, that they in fact prevent the ultimate winning and losing which is necessary for the ultimate goal being attempted in Iraq

all throughout history there's been warfare, but it's only been since before the Vietnam war that they have the power to destroy the entire world with just a firing of a nuclear weapon that would start a domino effect of unilateral and global destruction

that changes everything, because it changes the fact that noone can ever again wage war and as in the movie Gettysburg (i don't actually recall if Lee in fact said this or not) Lee did say it best that "when you attack, you must hold nothing back"... but now to attack and hold nothing back would be suicide for everyone on the planet

sure they can not use the nukes.... and they've done well in not doing that seeing as how we're still breathing, but that in itself is hesitation.... which instantly steals passion..... and the truth is that's what ultimately wins wars

damn i hate living in a nuclear world

as far as name calling... get over it would ya? it's not my job to enlighten anyone except me..... and when i sense a potential threat, i'm going to respond...... whether that threat is real or only percieved, and used bear, i don't know you well enough to know the difference

as for Darwin's theory of evolution, there's merit to it as an adaptation. But it breaks down according to the mechanical equation of the irreducibly complex

the simplest living mechanical organism is from what i understand the flaggellum and it has 40 different working parts that if you take even one part away the whole doesn't function anymore

where did the 40 different parts evolve from? even assuming that the protiens would somehow magically mix properly in the first place

darkeyes

May 8, 2007, 7:03 PM

To Voltie an Used bear me sends the luff an kissies of a sumtimes daft a despairing lil Brit girl who has on more than one occasion said many things similar in other threads to that which ya both been sayin here... ya hav indeed restored me faith that not all of yas ova there are crazy.. me knew it of course but it warmed the cockles of me heart 2 see it written down here.. may jus take a lil issue wiv Bear bout Afghanistan, but in the overall tenor of his argument he is right wen it coms 2 Iraq..

My dad as young man and boy demonstrated and argued against the Vetnam War, was arrested several times for his trouble, and it was a relief to him that the government of the day would not countenance British invlovement in that folly. I have done the same frequently about Iraq, and yes Afghanistan Bear, and do think you are right about peoples attitudes 30 years down the line.

And Voltie's argument that people should not be quite so respectful of the President and as democrats, no, free human beings rather, have the right and the obligation to do so when he (or maybe she) is wrong, is a echo of a plea I made some months ago about that very subject. Failure to do so is an abrogation of your right of free concsience and rights as that free human being.

So to voltie and bear...spesh Fran kissie 2 each of ya for makin me feel much nicer... Muah! Muah! :bigrin:

flexuality

May 8, 2007, 8:09 PM

But I do tell ya--if one of these bozos that are trying to get the Republican nomination for president does get elected--especially one of the three who raised their hands that they don't "believe" in evolution--well--I may not do it right away--but as soon as I can--I will have to leave this country--for we are really, really in a sad way---there is no belief or not about "the theroy of evolution" for in science--when something is a "theory" that means it is one of those things that is pretty well established--maybe not all is known about the processes for whatever the "theory" is about--but the basic elements are there--go look up in any dictionary the scientific meaning of the word "theory"---it means far more than does the common usage term---to say one does not believe in evolution is the same as saying one still thinks the earth is flat and the earth is the center of the universe----you can "believe" any of these is the case-but it don't make it so!!!! (just like the earth is only a few thousand years old--plllluuuueezzzzeee!!!!!)))

And by God---somebody go slap my sorry liberal ass with a wet fish if I make anymore posts on this thread!!!!!!!!!!!!

*scratches head...looks puzzled*

**asks repsectfully**

What does the theory of evolution have to do with politics? I am confused....are we talking about the same thing?

The theory of evolution doesn't have anything to do with the earth being flat or not...or whether it's the center of the universe... or the age of the earth.

It has to do with the physical changes over very long periods of time of lifeforms...ie, the idea that we evolved from apes....or fish.....the idea that all life began as a single cell in some primordial ooze millions of years ago.

The question has always been "how did that first cell get there?" and until recent years no one had an answer for that, because no one could look inside a cell. Now that they can look inside, they are realizing that a cell is far more complex than anyone realized and that based on what they can now see, a cell couldn't just come into existance spontaniously.

A theory is a collection of "known" facts (although our knowlege of these facts can and does change over time) that point to a logical conclusion to which there seems to be no other reasonable explanation. Once any one of these known facts changes, then the theory must change.

A theory is sort of like a syndrome in the medical field. A set of symptoms that indicate a diagnosis, but the actual cause is not known.

So I am wondering if we are talking about the same thing here.....we 'evolve' in our thinking....and we evolve in our understanding of things...we evolve in our cultures and society.....but those are vastly different from the theory of evolution.

**slaps Volties' butt with wet fish** :tong: :bigrin: :tong:

Ms. Ally Kat

May 8, 2007, 8:56 PM

[QUOTE=Solomon]
that changes everything, because it changes the fact that noone can ever again wage war and as in the movie Gettysburg (i don't actually recall if Lee in fact said this or not) Lee did say it best that "when you attack, you must hold nothing back"...

He did

12voltman59

May 8, 2007, 11:55 PM

Well--I guess I am getting slapped with a wet fish---because I am going to make another post--

Well--I am not a scientist but when I was a member of a Unitarian Universatlist church in my town--most of the folks who were members tended to be academic and other professional types.

We had one person who was a top researcher in all things relating to biology, genetics and the like--at the time I had joined that church we did not have a minister and each week, the members of the congregation arranged each week's programs on Sundays.

This one Sunday--this person-along with several others in the same field---these are the kinds of men and women who have a whole wall full of degrees ranging from Bachelor's to Master's to Doctorates---they get degrees like the rest of us buy shoes---

This one man--I don't recall his name now---was doing medical research for our two local universities, the Ohio State University and the United States Air Force--and places like Harvard, Tufts, Cal Tech, The Mayo Institute and just about every major medical and related eductational institution going--he would fly all over the world going to seminars and presenting papers and such---so I think the guy knew something about all of this!!

Not long after that--he went on to work at one of the big eastern universities---

I wish I had paid more attention then--this was back about ten years or so ago and at that time--at least in the public---the whole issue of evolution had not come to much attention but maybe it was an issue of concern in academia---

I recall the man saying one thing about evolution--and this stuck with me---he said that thanks to the understandings made possible by the "theory of evolution"--it has made just about every major advance in medicine and such possible that has taken place in the last hundred years or so. He explained the reasons this is so--but I am hazy on that part of his presentation. I read an op ed piece recently done by another top researcher in such areas who said much the same thing --so I guess that must be so.

He explained that in science--scientists can never claim that things like the theory of evolution explain all things--just at any given point in time---they represent the best understanding that scientists have of such an area at the time--and as far as that critique Sol mentioned--that one has been making the rounds for a long time and the guy said that criticisms based on that are pretty much "hogwash" as I seem to recall him saying...he did say that the theory of evolution has it flaws, falings and shortcomings and if someone comes along with something better than can be proven according to the scientific standards---then he would leave evolution behind in a heart beat and do things based upon the new theory or whatever it gets called--but for now and until The Theory of Evolution gets superseeded by something superior that is "more elegant" as scientists like to say--then he is sticking with Evolution because it best describes the workings of biological processes.

I also recall him saying the reason that the theory of evloution is important--is because researches push things like cells and simple organisms in the lab setting to go through multiple generational jumps in relatively short time frames which leads to understandings of why cells become cancerous and the like, and also learn how to create medications, among many things. They learn what areas they can manipulate at those micro levels to get the results they feel they can achieve.

Like I said--I am not a scientist and don't claim to have much understanding of such things-but I do kind of have to put my trust in people who are working on things like cancer research, the development of life saving drugs and the like...

As far as calling the crop of Republican candidates "bozos"--the reason I say this was just a bit of hyperbole--I hope everyone caught that due to my placing the litttle avatars at the end-but I do believe that like most of the Democratic candidates--- this crowd of Republican candidates are pretty much lightweight---

I see no great and grand vision coming from nearly any of the candidates of either party--it seems that we have lost our ability to think big any more---to aspire to something greater---to call on Americans to strive for something bigger and better than we are--my dad used to always say--"you have to aim for the top of the door to hit the door handle"

Well--it does not seem that we are not even aiming for the doorhandle anymore and why do I call the Republican candidates "bozos"? ---especially the ones who said they do not believe in evolution?--It seems to me that it is more of the same thing Bush has done-to appeal to those who are anti-intellectualism---that it's an appeal to the lowest common denominator.

It is a matter of great concern that we would have leaders of one of the most supposedly technologically oriented countries in the world who appeal not to the intellect but to the emotions---George Bush already tries to appeal to the anti-intellectual crowd... we can't afford another four or eight years of this crap--we have real, serious problems that need to be addressed and to get this country really moving again--not to worry about things like gay marriage or other issues that serve to divide--not unite us!!! and bitching about the theory of evolution is really just one of those "stir up the pot to get out the base" kind of issues...but I believe this issue and others like it represent the tip of the iceberg of a whole set of things a certain crowd wants to see put into effect--and that has to be no good!!!!!

If we don't continue to educate our people--this country will not long endure in a technologically advanced and highly competitive global economy--the reason companies like Microsoft, Intell and Dell have moved so much of their operations to places like Mumbai and such - I remember seeing Bill Gates' being interviewed on a Charlie Rose show about a year ago--he said something to this effect and I have seen something similar in print: "we have a dearth of American college students going into the sciences and engineering---we have to go to places where they can be found--we don't want to have to put operations in such places--but we have no choice."

The balance of intellectual power may shift from the West to the East and maybe that might be a good thing if we want to be ignorant and stupid--the Chineese and the East Asians are going to make sure their kids know the latest and leading edge of nearly everything and that includes things like The Theory of Evolution and Stem Cell Research---we will be left in the dust if we don't watch ourselves....

As to the folks running for their respective party presidential nominations-- both Dems and Republicans---I am not too impressed---God--I don't want to go into the voting booth yet one more time holding my nose as I punch the electronic voting screen -on a machine that I hope is not rigged and is not counting or changing my vote!!!!