Val wrote, Val, you're great at dishing it out. Why so sensitive when it comes back it you? You're father was imprisoned by Stalin? ( He's lucky to have survived. Millions did'nt!) That's sad, and quite illuminating. Why then, when searching for an example of totalitarinism, did you not use Stalin as your example, rather than the relatively benign internment of Japanese Americans during WWII?

For all our faults, America is still a shining beacon of freedom and hope for the rest of the world. If it was'nt, millions of people would not be flooding our borders every year, fighting to get in. (Funny, we don't see many people fighting to get out!)

Perhaps I was a "putz", and worthy of being beneath your contempt; if so you have my sincere apology for any slight inferred. All I know is that, in life, there can be no "Ying" without "Yang".

To equate so-called "right-wing wacko Neo-cons" with Fascism/KKK cannot be done without a comparison of "left-wing wacko Neo-coms" with Communism. To quote Einstein, "For every action, there is an equal, and opposite, reaction."


Val, you also stated, Pull-eeze! With all due respect, to equate racial profiling with genocide is to belittle and minimize the horror of true genocide.

Let me get this straight; attempting to scope out, and prevent a terroristic act, by one's potential enemies, will lead to eventual genocide? A bit of stretch, me thinks.

Even, for the sake of arguement, assuming this to be true, an armed American populace would never stand for the mass murder and cremation of millions of Arab-Americans, or any other group, for that matter. Dis-armed, hence powerless, perhaps. Hitler and Stalin, both proved this to be an undeniable fact.

Ergo, I'll draw my own half-azzed, half-baked concluesion from my own hypothesis: If you want genocide, vote anti-gun Kerry/Edwards! Seems logical, to me.

Henry L,

While I am confident that you quoted your source accurately, apparently your source was not accurate, based upon Spin's source, obviously credible, as well as what Kevin B posted:

"and the hits keep on coming. Bush, Cheney Concede Saddam Had No WMDs web page"


"If Iraqis could develop nuclear weapons with French help, how hard could it be to develop bio/chemical weapons on their own or via another European power?"

(Not to mention the generous supply of ingrediants and technology supplied courtesy of Ronny Raygun and Big Enus, right?)

Henry and Arlow,

The strategic advantages of invading and occupying Iraq in preparation for an anticipated conflict with Iran cannot be denied. I honestly had never considered that before. However, I am still not sure how I feel about that from a moral standpoint. Is that proper justification, and do we have the moral authority, to act in a first strike capacity against another nation, merely because it is strategically advantageous for some potential future military action which itself is yet uncertain? We are the U.S., we cannot measure our tactics by those of our enemies; we have to be better than them in every way. This is certainly a difficult quandry.

I think on the whole I am reluctant to embrace Mr. Bush's rush to military action where either Iraq or Iran are concerned, given the present situation and that of 2 years ago when we first went into Iraq. Again, not to say they are not clearly our enemies, but I do not see that military action was inevitable or unavoidable and still feel that going to war with Iraq at that particular time was at the very least premature.

Waging war should never be taken lightly, or undertaken just because it is easier, faster, or strategically advantageous in anticipation of some future conflict, no matter how much any of us may want to "cut to the chase"; no matter how certain we may be that other means (diplomacy, containment, economic pressure, international pressure, etc.) are destined to fail. I think we are obliged to wait until after they have indeed failed, or until the other nation has in some overt manner provoked us. When you're the biggest kid on the playground, you don't go around beating up on those smaller than you, just because they look at you wrong, or verbally harass you or threaten you; you watch them closely, you never turn your back on them, but you wait for something stronger in the way of provocation. Afghanistan was totally legitimate in light of 9/11. I do not believe Iraq, or Iran, meet that same test.

Again, I am not suggesting this is easy, or clear cut, or that I am an expert on foreign affairs. I can only rely on my own personal moral compass. This is what my sense of values tells me is right. War is truly tragic and horrific, and I think we must do more to avoid resorting to it whenever possible. I'm not a "pacifist" or a "global appeaser", just adverse to the death and destruction brought about by war. And again, I am not convinced that any of this has made us safer today, or will make us safer in the long run.

I disagree with your assessment, Henry, that Hussein's actions were tantamount to a declaration of war. Those actions went back over a decade, why go to war now, when we had not done so previously, when those actions were ripe? And again 9/11 clearly does not meet that test.

And as you admit, Italy was a different dynamic, not only because they had made a formal declaration of war against us, but because Germany had likewise done so, and Italy was Germany's ally, therefore, they were fair game. If we were at war with Iran, and Iraq was their ally, then that certainly would change things, but that is not the case. If Iraq came to Afghanistan's aid when we went in there, that would have changed things also. But the way it all shook out, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth for us to start a war without something more solid to go on.

I realize this sounds weak, but again, war is far too drastic to resort too without absolute certainty of its justification, and I for one am not certain. What if it could have been avoided? How would you or I feel if we lost a loved one serving in a conflict that might have been avoided? How can I look the family of a fallen soldier in the eye and be certain that their sacrifice was absolutely necessary and unavoidable? I truly do not believe in my heart that this conflict passes that moral test.

This is not a clear cut case from any angle. It is truly one of the most complex and difficult issues our generation may ever have to struggle with.

Respectfully,

Jim

No JFM, When a small business hires 3 people to answer the phone, or sweep the floor, or wait on customers at the counter for $10 an hour it doesn't make headlines! WTF do you want, a ticker tape parade with a big brass band? JEEEZ! :rolleyes:

But when a big corportation lays off thousands, while declaring a big dividend for Wall Street and a six or seven figure bonus for its CEO, THAT makes headlines, because it is absolutely f**kin' criminal! Rob the poor, feed the rich!

But boo hoo , don't cry for the poor, just cry boo hoo for the rich who have to pay all those nasty wasty evil taxes!

Do you actually LISTEN to yourself?

Hey let's put these to clowns in a real debate with a Connecticuts Own Ralph Nader. It'd be intresting to see what these guys would do when forced to give real answers to real topics and not just act out a card of pre anayalized questions.

Nadar was on the news this morning questioning the Secret society that kerry and Bush are BOTH a part of. Also the papa bush and Prescott. But will not comment own.

If you think about the whole thing the reason our great country is in such turmoil Is cause it's not a a equal platform. which is the essenece of the whole problem . The Whole election process and "party affialation " is garbage.

Is this a democracy??? Sure doesn't seem like it.
Our government is making is a international embarassement.

as a weekley subscriber to the American free Press
I'm all to familar with all the "unanswered questions"

i'm of a firm believer that evil controls our goverment and the worlds. The Bible tells us of this fate.

Hey Henry,


You like to use quotes out of context, have you ever read the entire speech? The link is near the bottom.

Some Kerry quotes you missed from the same speech.


"The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the peoples in the greater Middle East retribution and war but little hope for liberty and prosperity." John F. Kerry 1/23/2003


"First, destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers." John F. Kerry 1/23/2003


"But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action." John F. Kerry 1/23/2003


"I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war. "
John F. Kerry 1/23/2003


http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cfm/record.cfm?id=189831


If you really want some hilarious quotes I’ll post Secretary of State Powell’s “ Proof of Iraq’s WMDs” speech to the United Nations.

I tried to find it sooner but was looking in the “non-fiction” section. This past week they moved it to the “fiction” area. He even had pictures,” Here are the mobile labs”, and over here are the “Tubes for nuclear weapons”,

He must get a lot of respect around the world these days.