How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Does anybody take responsibility anymore   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ]
 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Does anybody take responsibility anymore?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


275 posted 07-06-2004 02:12 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Raph, my comment regarding the link you posted referred to your choice of link with no personal comment aimed at you. In return I get "glass houses", "classic D", "again you've missed or ignored the point". etc. Apparently you can't control the urge to mix personal insults into your replies..is it that hard for you to keep them out?
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


276 posted 07-06-2004 06:08 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

aenimal........


You even said earlier that saddam had connections to terrism, Just not 9/11..

My point is it's the "war on terrism." As for Iraq being the center of terrism. Yes it is.  The great majority of terrist are coming from other contries than Iraq though. There has always been terrism in the middle east.
It's a long and complicated story, but basically all of the terrist groups have many similliar bieliefs and roots like: Anti-jew, Arab unity, any people who die from holy war go to heaven........ and most are anti-foriegn influence. So because of this, many have gone to Iraq.

Juju  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


277 posted 07-06-2004 08:34 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Raph, the administration did not link Saddam with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What the administration did say was that because of the 9/11 attacks we can no longer afford to look the other way and be appeasers of terrorists, and we must act to root out terrorism and destroy it, or it will destroy us.

Zakawi and Al Qaida are not the only terrorists, but apparently Iraq was in cahoots with bin Laden previously. Isn't he the head of Al Qaida? And Saddam was also paying sizable checks to the relatives of the Palestinian suicide bombers. I'd certainly consider that aiding and abetting terrorism. Despite their differing agendas they joined forces and I have no doubt that all the terrorists organizations would do the same against their common enemies, just as we are witnessing now in Iraq.

I don't think we are ignoring Saudi Arabia either. To my knowledge they are currently helping us out with intelligence and in clamping down and arresting known terrorists, and have supposedly stopped sending aid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Could they be doing more, and is what they are doing just a smoke screen to keep us at bay? Possibly. Time will tell.

As Juju said, we are not at war with a country. We are at war with all terrorists, and Afghanistan and Iraq are just two battlefields in that war. There may have to be more in the future, depending, of course, on whose will is broken first, ours or the terrorists. I'm rooting for us.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


278 posted 07-06-2004 09:07 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
Concerning you final remark about Bush, obviously you have progressed (or is tha digressed) from intelligent conversation to crude sarcasm that weakens whatever sensible points you were trying to make....


No personal comments there right? My digression from intelligent conversation to crude sarcasm wasn't personal at all. And of course, it totally ignored comments on Clinton by those who share your views.


quote:
to post links intentionally leading to pages you acknowledge are slanted and biased makes little sense


Deer, questioning my logic in posting the article by saying it makes 'little sense', and then completely ignoring the explanation is a slight.

Followed by a comment that while directed at Ron:

quote:
Right, Ron....and are people thinking for themselves when they simply post opinions of others?


is in reference to my choice in posting the article which Ron discussed.

Always the innocent. Some good came out of this, I actually had money riding on your response. That again, rather than respond to my accusations you'd ignore them and/or deflect them by blaming me. We have a history and it's played out the same each time
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


279 posted 07-06-2004 09:37 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Denise:

quote:
but apparently Iraq was in cahoots with bin Laden previously


Denise the commission's findings did more then discredit a Saddam/BinLaden link to 9/11 but any partnership at all. The report says that while Bin Laden 'explored' a 'possible cooperation with Iraq', Iraq never responded and: "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Not to mention that bin Laden "at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan."

And to say the administration did nothing to link Iraq with the 9/11 attacks is false. Cheney for one, repeatedly touted the Czech intelligence of a meeting between Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi official as 'overwhelming' evidence. He also stated "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


280 posted 07-06-2004 09:59 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Raph, the Commission only referenced any collusion specifically regarding the 9/11 attacks. That is what they were talking about, not terrorist connections other than that. L.R. offered the below regarding Iraq and OBL. I added the point that Saddam supported financially the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Those are terrorist connections.

quote:
Well that's where the problem gets a little bit sticky for the left and the right.  Way back in -- let's see -- no time for research right now -- but let's just say it was 98.  Clinton lobs a few Tomahawks at an 'asprin' factory.  Intel said it was producing chemical weapons.  (Which it just so happens it was.)  This was a confirmed joint operation between Iraq and OBL.
  
Has the Czech intelligence been discredited? Has it been discredited that the Al Qaida terrorist camps existed in Iraq? It seems to me Cheyney was referring to Al Qaida, not Saddam.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


281 posted 07-06-2004 10:09 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Raph, I can assure you that I have responded to everything you have said I considered worthy of a response....glad you won your bet.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


282 posted 07-06-2004 10:40 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Incorrect Denise, the commission quote I included was in reference to cooperative efforts between Iraq and Al Quada at all, not simply 9/11. The possibility was explored in 1996 but Iraq did not respond.


Yes the Czech intelligence has been dismissed by US and Foreign intelligence. First of all Czech officials recanted, and now US intelligence has stated it believes that Atta was in the US at the time of the supposed meeting.

Did Al Quada camps exist withing Iraq, undoubtedly but that doesn't link them to the government. Terrorist groups and militias exist within the US, do you link them with your government? Also, as I mentioned before Bin Laden sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.


As for Cheney's quote, it seems to me he had no hesitations linking Iraq to the Al Quada attacks especially when he'd already pointed out that the Czech intel was 'overwhlming' evidence of a 9/11 link in another appearance.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


283 posted 07-06-2004 10:42 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Deer, I can assure you that I have always treated you in a manner worthy of your responses.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


284 posted 07-07-2004 09:27 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Okay, Raph, bottom line, so what if some of the intelligence turned out later to be flawed? Even if Saddam had no provable links to Al Qaida, per se, he still had links to other terrorists. He was a terrorist himself. He was still in violation of the cease fire agreement for 12 years. He was still not showing evidence that he had destroyed all his known WMDs, and he had plenty of opportunity to do so. And now we are finding evidence of some of those WMDs because he didn't destroy them. He wasn't in compliance. He was still financing Palestinian suicide bombers through support to their families. And now he's not in power any longer. And that's a good thing, one victory in the war on terrorism.

And maybe after folks get tired of attemtping to squeeze a lie or corrupt motivation out of everything the administration has said or done over the past two years, they may just pause and say 'thank you' someday to those responsible for ridding the world of one of its most heinous dictators.  
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


285 posted 07-07-2004 09:35 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

Shakes head.


..........No one is listening to me

I don't want to repeat every thing I said earlier. I am saying saddam Hussien had connections to terrists and  even though Many poeple argue he didn't with al quida, He still promoted terror and supported terrist organizations, wouldn't comply with un weopon inspectors, un was way to corrupt to pursue, months pass and saddam ships it all off, because he knows The Us will hold him accountable for his actions. There has been proof of this senario too. But Basically we cant let terrorist let us stop this war. Besides the fact that saddam Huissian Violated Un Rules several times, Responcible for the deaths of countless people, Caused terror to his neighbors, supported many terorist organizations, had terrorist training camps in his country, organized assasination attempts on several leaders (including 2 for george bush senior, for an example), wanted to take over a good portion of the world........


People still say taking him out of power was wrong. . . .


uhg
I have a head ache.

-Juju-
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


286 posted 07-07-2004 11:20 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
And maybe after folks get tired of attemtping to squeeze a lie or corrupt motivation out of everything the administration has said or done over the past two years


You know, what I find it appalling, is your clear disdain for Clinton's action(deservedly so), while totally ignoring an entire administration's actions leading to full scale war.

There's no need to 'squeeze' lies that are evident to anybody who looks at them rationally. I have absolutely NO doubt, that were the parties switched, you'd be equally opposed to the manner in which the administration has dealt with the public.

The bottom line is that, in true Orwellian fashion, a fragile American public was told exactly what it needed to hear in order to sell an uneccessary war. Should Saddam have been dealt with? Undoubtedly, was there an immediate threat, an ABSOLUTE need for immediate action, at the cost of public trust, international respect and most importantly young lives? A resounding no.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


287 posted 07-07-2004 11:27 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Juju,

I've read what you had to say and am not ignoring you or denying the danger of Saddam's regime. The world would be better off with a few people out of power, that doesn't justify the administrations actions.

My threads have dealt with the administration's handling of this war. To swallow information without question is madness. In questioning their evidence there are holes and worse there are lies.(though Denise will call Powell's foreknowledge of fals information 'squeezing' a lie) That's the issue you're missing in all this Juju.

Not whether Saddam was a tyrant. Nobody's questioning he was, what we're questioning is that there was no immediate need, or imminent threat to justify a full war at the cost of truth, respect and lives as this fiasco has. The ends do NOT justify the means.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


288 posted 07-08-2004 12:11 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I don't believe that the administration has dealt with the public in a manner deserving of disdain or distrust. That is a conclusion that you have come to. Equally rational people have looked at the same evidences and have drawn a different conclusion. Shame on Powell if he lied. The fact remains we had a case for war even without that one piece of tainted intelligence that shouldn't have been used. And that one instance is not the basis for my comment about folks squeezing a lie out of everything that the administration has said. I'm talking about the sickening endless muckracking, the half-truths, the spin, the innuendo, the denunciations for things supposedly said that were never said.

Twelve years is not immediate action, Raph. How much longer would you have given it and why? And if you deemed it unnecessary, does that really mean that it was unnecessary? When would you have deemed it necessary? Under what circumstances do you believe that war is necessary?

International respect? What's that? Respect from the folks who were lining their pockets with Saddam's money while mouthing empty threats at him for show? How many lives are they responsible for? How many bodies did they find in that one mass grave, 30,000? I'll forego their respect, thank you. And as the author of this article, I'll wear their hatred as a badge of honor.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040622.shtml

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


289 posted 07-08-2004 01:32 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

When did 'international' come to mean the Taliban, Hamas, and Al Quaida?

Curious though, what has the government asked you to do to shoulder all this hatred?

Oh, that's right, you gotta tax cut.

quote:
America, largely alone, calls these groups and regimes what they are -- evil.
America, largely alone, wages war against them. America, largely alone (with Israel), prevents them from assuming far more power.


So we all agree that the coalition was a farce?

Perhaps, that badge of honor should go to the fallen British soldiers rather than American civilians.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


290 posted 07-08-2004 04:43 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
International respect? What's that? Respect from the folks who were lining their pockets with Saddam's money while mouthing empty threats at him for show? How many lives are they responsible for? How many bodies did they find in that one mass grave, 30,000? I'll forego their respect, thank you.



Unbelievable, always pointing fingers elsewhere, whether it's other nations or other parties! How about a look inward for once?

Considering that Reagan's Republicans are directly responsible for Saddam's rise in power, it's hypocritical to cast stones at the international community. Reagan had FULL knowledge of Saddam's use of gas and yet the State Department still dropped Iraq from its list of state sponsors of terrorism in 1982. Internal documents and memos, show that his administration knew full well, but said little, about the gas attacks and continued trade even after until after a UN study on Iraq's gas attacks was released.  At least then the US was forced to publicly denounce Iraq.

It didn't stop them from trading with them of course. Trade before and after the public statement included:

US military intelligence on Iran

The approved sale of $200 million worth of UH-1H and MD-500 Defender helicopters to Iraq. Sold under the guise of 'civilian' aircraft, no objections were made as they were easily converted to military use including further gassing of Iranians and Kurds.

Export permits for high tech equipment for weapons programs and advanced weaponry was purchased from other countries with full US knowledge and consent.

Also a memo discovered by the NSA, shows that US policy for the sale of equipment to Iraq's nuclear program also was reviewed and stated "results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities."

What this 'war' is, and the 'evil' members of the international community understood, was another 'cleanup' war. Another State supported and/or installed regime gone sour. Absolutely nothing has been learned from history.

I know I've said I'm leaving this conversation before, but I really wash my hands of it. Christ, it's an administration's dream come true, exactly what Orwell warned against, blind, unquestioning devotion to the Party. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Eurasia, Oceania Eastasia/Saddam Hussein or Emmanuel Goldstein doesn't matter. Just serve it steaming and swallow it whole.


Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


291 posted 07-08-2004 08:32 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

But Aenimal thats not what I am saying............


Saddam did not comply with un regulations, Supported terrism and had conections to terrests and promoted it. he was a terrorist him self. Don't get me wrong, many people hate him because of this. this was not just he is a bad person lets invade his contry he violated un laws, human rights ........


juju
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


292 posted 07-08-2004 10:10 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

One last one for juju

quote:
Saddam did not comply with un regulations, Supported terrism and had conections to terrests and promoted it. he was a terrorist him self. Don't get me wrong, many people hate him because of this. this was not just he is a bad person lets invade his contry he violated un laws, human rights ........


Exactly, and it was up to the UN to decide what to do, that's the way it works. The coalition moved against UN ruling, based on 'evidence' that Iraq was an looming threat. But that evidence has been discredited, and/or grossly exaggerated. There was no immediate threat which means that there was nothing to justify the complete underming of the UN commitee. Should Saddam have been ousted? Yes. But the manner and speed in which it took place is inexcusable. Stop focusing on Saddam's regime for a moment, and focus on the Bush Administration's tactics which has become the issue of this thread. If you want a government that lies in order to push it's agendas through by all means. But don't think this ruthlessness won't serve them well back home pushing questionable bills and legislature. Their business ties alone are enough to question the administration's ethics.
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


293 posted 07-09-2004 10:04 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

yeah as I have been saying The Un was too corrupt to do something about Iraq. There are five countries: Russia, USA, England, France, and every two years alternating country. The group of five are the leaders or over lookers of the un. Because of the corruption (Russia, France and other guy) the desision on doing something on Iraq was stoped. Inraged and Very confused USA and UK  were out raged. USA (George Bush) couldn't figure out why they would do that. So our president assumed they were very corrupt. Action had to be taken. Usa gave Iraq a month to let Un inspectors in. Iraq didn't. Bush declared war based on knowlage given to him by the FBI, CIA And other foriegn contries. Information was that He supported terrism (i AM NOT TALKING ABOUT GIVING MONEY TO THE FAMILIES OF SUICIDE BOMBERS) and had weopons of mass destruction.

The main opposing argument was that the Un should take care of it. If the manjority of the top Un council was being bribed how could they carry out there mission.  I am curios to see what will happen.

Juju
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


294 posted 07-10-2004 01:18 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

No Brad, the terrorists are not the same as the international community, whose 'respect' we are supposed to strive after, according to some, but their bias against America is similar.

We were hated and attacked long before the Bush administration and the tax cuts.

Largely alone doesn't mean completely alone, so no, the coalition is not a farce.

I think everyone who is killed or hated for standing against terrorism and oppression have nothing to be ashamed about. So, yeah, I'd give them a medal.

Raph, I think motivation should be taken into account when considering the actions of a country. We helped Iraq in the past because Iran was the major threat at the time. I guess two people can look at the same set of circumstances and see them differently, in a negative light or a positive light, depending on their perspective.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


295 posted 07-10-2004 04:02 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

ok, so i admit there's no way i can leave this convo now..grins


quote:
Raph, I think motivation should be taken into account when considering the actions of a country. We helped Iraq in the past because Iran was the major threat at the time.


So essentially you're justifying the administration's military trade, support and, most disturbingly, their blind eye to gas attacks when Saddam was an 'ally.' If that's the positive light, I completely abandon any faith in human ethics.

Perhaps it would do you well to look into your history of foreign interference to gain an understanding of why a bias against US exists in many countries. Since WWII the installment, support and coups of regimes; the creation, use and abandonment of guerrillas have created the enemies you've faced.

Should we go into the Viet Minh(Viet Cong), Afghanis or quite frankly some of the insurgents in Iraq? I'm not defending their actions, but at the same time, I can't fathom how anybody looking at thier history can't understand the foreign bias against American policy. Before simply crying victim, one should take a look at their involvement in the vicious cycle of war and hatred that exists today.

And this isn't Anti-American sentiment, it's a look at cause and effect. The British, Soviet, and French empires were guilty of the same. Let's not be naive, rather then find reasons to justify these wars let's focus on ending them.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


296 posted 07-10-2004 04:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Before simply crying victim, one should take a look at their involvement in the vicious cycle of war and hatred that exists today

I wasn't going to respond anymore in this thread but for you to make such an incredibly spiteful comment requires a response. Be careful, Raph. Your anti-American (despite you denials) views are becoming so obvious they are becoming harder to disguise.

Let me offer these thoughts...

The foreign and defense policies of Ronald Reagan resulted in the
dissolution of the Soviet Union and the freeing of approximately 122 million
people in Eastern Europe.
The state of Israel would cease to exist if not for American protection,
and about 5.5 million Jews would be faced with extermination.
Nearly 23 million Taiwanese would be denied freedom if not for American protection. More than 48 million South Koreans would be living under a dictatorship if not for American protection. USA action led to the removal
of the Serbian dictator Milosevic, who was responsible for the murders of hundreds of thousands of people in the Balkans.
The USA and allies have removed Hussein, who was responsible for the murders of hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle
East - and we have also removed the terrorist Taliban government in Afghanistan.
America is sending $15 billion to Africa to help victims of AIDS.  American action in Central America, Grenada , and Haiti has kept millions of people out of totalitarian regimes. Of course, all of this has cost every American taxpayer big and thousands of American service people have lost
their lives protecting people overseas.

By all means, shake your finger at this war-mongering country that deserves the hatred of such upstanding countries like France, Germany, Russia and others. There are others who appreciate our audacious involvement in international affairs, I assure you.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


297 posted 07-10-2004 07:08 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
Your anti-American (despite you denials) views are becoming so obvious they are becoming harder to disguise



Had such an incredibly inane comment come from any other source I'd be offended at this personal attack. It's also not the first time you've accused me of this. It's especially silly considering I included the British and French Empires are guilty of similar behaviour. I suppose I'm Anti-British/French as well?

It is not Anti-American to point out instances where policy has caused disharmony. I wonder if this would be even be an issue were I American?

Would it make you feel better to hear things I find contemptable in Canadian politics and history? Because there are more than a few with the current Liberal government alone.

I've never denied the good the US has done the world so listing what you have doesn't diminish the point that they've also done wrong. It's those policies that have cost respect and problems abroad.

I'm not Anti-American I'm Anti-Policy. More than anything I'm Anti-Ignorance and Anti-Hypocrisy which there seems to be an abundance of. There's more truth saying you're xenophobic to opinions outside the US and outside your own views.

quote:
The USA and allies have removed Hussein, who was responsible for the murders of hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle
East - and we have also removed the terrorist Taliban government in Afghanistan.


Both of which have roots and ties to American support and assistance.


quote:
There are others who appreciate our audacious involvement in international affairs, I assure you.


What you're missing is instances where they aren't, and why they aren't. There are many declassified Military, CIA and FBI missions available for you to read about. Freedom of Information, use it.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


298 posted 07-10-2004 07:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Raph, if those policies we have done wrong have created the distrust and disharmony abroad, then why haven't the policies we have done right brought a certain degree of trust and harmony? Does anyone ever discuss the positives...apparently not. The US is not a country who attacks another for its own personal gain by conquest. You know that. You should know that our intentions are honorable...and yet you speak as if we are the criminals at times. Are there things I wish we would have done differently? Oh, yes.
Do I think Viet-Nam was a mistake? Yes - not that we were there but the way we fought the war. Your words drip disgust, whether you realize it or not....and if you were an American, I would be saying exactly the same thing. You can believe me when I tell you there are few countries, if any, I respect more than the people of Canada and I'm not being condescending when I say that. I served with the old RCAF for 3 years and got to know Canadians the way one gets to know another only by living with them. I will say, however, that I have lost a degree of respect for the government. From what I've seen of their newspapers, their view has turned much more liberal recently. The simple fact they they will not broadcast conservative stations, like Fox, is a clear indication of that. They do not want any opposing views exposed to the public and no wonder so many more Canadians have turned anti-American. That is such a shame because I don't think there are any two peoples more alike than Americans and Canadians....and yet a rift is being created. Hopefully it will not grow so wide it cannot be repaired....  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


299 posted 07-10-2004 09:24 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

If I didn't strongly believe that the U.S. has a moral obligation in helping those who need it, I'd advocate our immediate withdrawal from 'interfering', with our troops and our financial aid. I sometimes wonder if our critics ever consider what the world might be like without our 'interference'.

We've made mistakes in the past, and we'll make them in the future. But I believe our intentions are good. That's what I mean by seeing things in a positive light.

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Does anybody take responsibility anymore   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors