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  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
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 
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


100 posted 05-22-2004 03:59 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

As you've all added another comment I'll add my last.

quote:
Actually, Raph, That poke at President Clinton was very simply a one liner... it was a JOKE. Anyone who engages in oral SEX and then says he didn't have sex deserves to be hammered on his word choice.


Joke away. Ringo I have absolutely NO problem with the joke or Denise's cracks at Moore, my problem is good o'l Deer's double standard that pegs me for sarcasm and digressing to humour while ignoring yours (which just happen to coincide with his beliefs).

I don't think Clinton was a perfect president and can't I defend bedroom antics, the pants around the ankles crack was joke, it works both ways people.  I just happen to think he was a better president in some respects and that he was diplomatic, intelligent and well spoken.


quote:
Your comments were basically Bush is stupid and Bush lied, because what you think should constitute an  amount of WMDs necessary to justify war did not materialize. WMDs have been found, but the amounts found do not seem like that big of a deal.



Have you forgotten that 'evidence' linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons programs, which the  administration and the British government produced in speeches and their case to the UN, were known forgeries? This was followed by a period of contradictory statements, finger pointing,and a claim that the FBI was looking into a possibility that ' a foreign government is using a deception campaign to foster support for military action against Iraq'.  Despite the fact that CIA officials said that it had warned the administration the information was untrue, months before Bush's state of the Union address it was still used.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm
http://www.robincmiller.com/art-iraq/b67.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17888-2003Mar12?language=printer
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3129950/site/newsweek/  

Let's go back to my semantics/word manipulation comment. While Bush did not to use the term imminent threat, he did use the term 'grave and gathering danger' which suggests the same thing. To gain support for action against Iraq, they admin embarked on a long campaign to  heighten the perception of an Iraqi terrorist threat.  This despite a CIA report that found no links and no evidence of Iraqi attacks since 1993 attempt to assinate Bush Sr.  prompting the infamous and confusing  'known unknown/unknown unknowns' Rumsfield justification. Failing to find links between Saddam and Al-Queda or 9/11, members of the administration inundated the public with references to WMDs and threat  in a media blitz. Suggesting that, with the US occupied with Afghanistan, Iraq was primed to move on the region or the US and later that it was best to stop Iraq to prevent the possibility of another 9/11 attack.

As for WMDs it stands for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not weapons plans, not weapons fuel, not weapons materials. No nuclear program, No stockpiles, none of the 'overwhelming' evidence that would prove the US's justification for an immediate attack against UN and international disapproval. I'm not defending what was found, they are indeed violations of UN laws. But they are not WMDs and could have been discovered without an all out war.

quote:
But I don't find any justification for the hateful, undermining behavior that is being exhibited by some who disagree with his decision, especially by those in leadership positions in Congress who originally supported his decision.


The justification is that there were many who,  in the early days of the war, voiced their dissapproval and were labeled unamerican and unpatriotic for it. As the war goes on there is evidence enough to pose a reasonable doubt against the administration and it's handling of affairs. Deception, profiteering and murder is cause enough to be irrate.


As for my comments regarding Bush and his lack of intelligence, it's based on his horrible public speaking, reporter responses and trouble with any non-prepared statements.
Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


101 posted 05-22-2004 04:53 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

I would like to add my thoughs to this thread and outline Bush's real input since he took power...but i would just get into trouble again..so i will go back to my poetry...oh hum....peace and love to the world....

Goldenrose.

''There is no need for temples, no need for complicated Philosophies.
My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness''-  Dalai Lama

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


102 posted 05-22-2004 09:25 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:
  FBI Probes Fake Evidence of Iraqi Nuclear Plans
By Dana Priest and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 13, 2003; Page A17

The forgery came to light last week during a highly publicized and contentious United Nations meeting. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the Security Council on March 7 that U.N. and independent experts had decided that the documents were "not authentic."

The CIA, which had also obtained the documents, had questions about "whether they were accurate," said one intelligence official, and it decided not to include them in its file on Iraq's program to procure weapons of mass destruction. (emphasis mine)



From the link you provided, it seems that it was decided that the documents referred to by the CIA were not proven to be “not authentic” until after (notice the date of the article and the date that the U.N. and independent experts decided that the documents were not authentic) the State of the Union Address, and that the CIA indeed did not tell the President they were untrue…they said they had questions about whether they were accurate, not that they were untrue. Tony Blair still stands behind Britain’s “source” on the matter. From the below article, it seems that there was more than one source, more than one set of documents, not just the documents that have since been proven forgeries.  That President Bush trusted Britain’s other source, despite the questionable source that the CIA was investigating  (ongoing at the time and which had yet to have been proven untrue), does not make Bush a liar.  
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33756
quote:
  
As for WMDs it stands for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not weapons plans, not weapons fuel, not weapons materials. No nuclear program, No stockpiles, none of the 'overwhelming' evidence that would prove the US's justification for an immediate attack against UN and international disapproval. I'm not defending what was found, they are indeed violations of UN laws. But they are not WMDs and could have been discovered without an all out war.


I disagree. Saddam’s capabilities, past record, evidence of intent regarding WMD production, along with his deception towards and lack of cooperation with the U.N. inspectors in proving he had destroyed all his known weapons, proved him to be a threat.  And in recent weeks WMD’s have been turning up: mustard gas and sarin gas, as well as VX nerve gas found in the possession of Al Qaida in Jordan, in quantities too large to have been produced by Syria, but which coincides with Saddam’s known production capabilities prior to the war, which, according to intelligence, was most likely part of the convoy of materials shipped to Syria prior to the war, and since transported to "Lebanon's heavily fortified Bekaa Valley."

And just because past intelligence has proven unreliable, that doesn't mean all intelligence is untrustworthy. If the majority of intelligence reports were found to be questionable, I'm sure the liberal left would be all over that information. To date, I've only heard of the one that was proven to have been false, although that doesn't mean that more couldn't be. Maybe the left just hasn't uncovered it yet?   
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/markalexander/ma20040521.shtml http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38528 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38447


quote:
  
Let's go back to my semantics/word manipulation comment. While Bush did not to use the term imminent threat, he did use the term 'grave and gathering danger' which suggests the same thing.


Not to me. “Grave and gathering danger” is not time-qualified, let alone linked with the term “imminent”, even if it were not in the same speech with :

“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

To me it only suggests a sense of urgency,  i.e., seriousness, gravity, crisis, emergency, necessity.

quote:

reasonable doubt against the administration and it's handling of affairs. Deception, profiteering and murder is cause enough to be irrate.

And all of this “reasonable doubt” is conjecture posited by the left. It does not equate with deception, profiteering and murder, let alone prove such allegations.
quote:

As for my comments regarding Bush and his lack of intelligence, it's based on his horrible public speaking, reporter responses and trouble with any non-prepared statements.


I don’t think a person’s public speaking ability is grounds to question their intelligence. But even so, I think he has improved in this area over the past couple of years.

Janet Marie
Member Laureate
since 01-22-2000
Posts 18986


103 posted 05-22-2004 09:57 AM       View Profile for Janet Marie   Email Janet Marie   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Janet Marie

quote:
We are all saying the same things over and over,and there in NO ground being gained... we are fighting over the same hill that we started on, and the only thing happening is the hill is getting blown to pieces.

sounds a lot like WAR to me.....

but then, isnt that how it happeneds???

everybody wanting to be heard...have the last word...


and so--the "right" fighting goes on ...(and on)

dont ya wish poetry threads would get this many pages of responses and effort...


guess not even poets can keep the peace....


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


104 posted 05-22-2004 02:24 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
From the link you provided, it seems that it was decided that the documents referred to by the CIA were not proven to be “not authentic” until after (notice the date of the article and the date that the U.N. and independent experts decided that the documents were not authentic)


Denise, however you choose to spin it, the evidence was questionable and the administration though warned months before the addressused this information a means to coerce support for military action. As for the other reliable British evidence it has yet to surface. Where are the nuclear materials and facilities?

quote:
I disagree. Saddam’s capabilities, past record, evidence of intent regarding WMD production, along with his deception towards and lack of cooperation with the U.N. inspectors in proving he had destroyed all his known weapons, proved him to be a threat.


I'll say again materials are not weapons.

weap·on
An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.

ma·te·ri·al  
The substance or substances out of which a thing is or can be made.

Intent to build WMDs and the possesion of WMDs are wholly different things. I've never argued intent, given Saddam's past there was certainly cause for concern based on intent(which the world conceded), but intent wasn't the sole reason for attack.

Possesion and evidence of possesion was claimed. Enough to shift focus from Afghanistan to Iraq for fear of Saddam's threat. Yet, into the second year of war no 'hidden stockpiles' of weaponry or damning evidence of a nuclear program have been found. Just materials and potential.

quote:
Not to me. “Grave and gathering danger” is not time-qualified, let alone linked with the term “imminent”


Denise I still argue a matter of semantics. You used the term crisis whose definition is:

An unstable condition involving an impending abrupt or decisive change.

Impending is defined as: about to happen. Gathering isn't solely accumulative it also means: to come to a head.

All these words are suggestive of imminent danger. While the word imminent was never used the administration was manipulative in causing a sense of urgency that wasn't actually there. Should Saddam's threat be stopped, undoubtedly, was there a pressing need, so much so that the coalition should steamroll over the UN? No. A brilliant Orwellian tactic by the administration.

quote:
And all of this “reasonable doubt” is conjecture posited by the left. It does not equate with deception, profiteering and murder, let alone prove such allegations


With regards to profiteering:

William Bush(uncle) is head of ESSI, a military goods distributor. The firm made up to $380 million from the pentagon alone and signed a $19 million dollar deal to provide chemical shelters in the first week of the war, on top of a $44 million dollar deal earlier.

Marvin P. Bush's Winston holdings owns substantial stock in Sybase, who developed money tracking 'Patriot Act compliant solution' enabling banks to successfully prove they are not laundering money to terrorists. Sybase is also a significant government contractor that has gained millions in contracts in the last year alone.

Not to mention other links between republican backing companies like Halliburton, Bechtel etc. I'm not saying these are reasons for war, but it's not conjecture that the Bush family and friends are profiting from War in the meantime.


Now I'm certain you will come back say its all liberally slanted conjecture anyway. That's fine, the fact of the matter is I'm not liberal or anti republican, I'm anti BS. There's enough BS lying around to cause a reasonable doubt amongst not only liberals bu non partisan thinkers. Peace.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


105 posted 05-23-2004 10:21 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I guess we two non-partisans will just have to agree to disagree, Raph.

Ringo and Janet Marie, discussions eventually end when everybody is talked out, when people finally realize that they aren't going to persuade others of their point of view. I wouldn't compare it to battles or war, though. Discussions of opposing views is healthy, I think.
Craw
Member
since 09-11-2003
Posts 73
Scotland


106 posted 05-24-2004 04:58 AM       View Profile for Craw   Email Craw   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Craw



I don't know why people continue to worry about whether Iraqi WMD programmes existed or not. It is clear that this was never a matter of principle. It is clear that the US and Great Britain are prepared to tolerate states in the Middle east with illegal stocks of weapons of mass destruction as long as these states are called Israel.

It is clear similarly that the US and Great Britain are prepared to turn a blind eye to a campaign waged against innocent civilians which amounts, in the words of Amnesty International, to "state sponsored genocide"
as long as the perpetrator of these atrocities is called Israel.

Did you note the words of the Israeli Justice Minister yesterday? As a death camp survivor he was brave enough to liken the current devastation being visited on the Palestinians in Gaza to the Holocaust.

Israeli Ministers are now using language that would not be out of place in the Third Reich. Dehumanising people by, for example, labelling an entire civilian area as "a nest of vipers", makes it easier to contemplate civilian casualties on a virtually limitless scale.

The war on the Palestinian people is not a war "against terrorism". Israel is illegally in occupation of Palestine. The Palestinians are faced with one of the biggest and best equipped armies in the world. The Israelis who fought against the British in the 1940s and used any methods at their disposal including "terrorist" bombings of civilian areas are regarded in Israel and elsewhere as freedom fighters. Yet the Palestinians are regarded as terrorists.

This is the crux of the problem facing us all and if we don't persuade our governments to do something about it, then our troubles are only just beginning. Because of our hypocrisy over Israel we are making an enemy of every Arab that's not got an economically vested interest in toadying up to us. That's a lot of Arabs.
How many potential "terrorists" are we creating daily in the Middle East by our lop sided policy of  supposedly dealing with rogue Arab Governments while letting the Israeli Government trash international law and human decency on a daily basis?
If our leaders weren't midgets they would foresee that a policy based on short term political gain is going to wreak havoc for us all.

Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


107 posted 05-24-2004 05:36 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

I just want to use this thread to congratulate Michael Moore for winning best picture at the Cannes film festival..the first time in the festivals history that a documentary has won the top prize....and also to point out that the talk around the Cannes film festival was not about which actors and actresses were there, but the gross censorhip that is sweeping America at the moment..all of the news teams picked up on it....and even the American actors were saying that the ''news'' in America is a joke..but i was pleased for Michael Moore after all he is just a ''stupid '' film maker...a stupid film maker that is not affraid to tell the truth about Bush and his government.....well done Michael Moore...now let us see Fareneit911 in America and watch Bush squirm....

Come on down John Kerry....the oval office awaits.....

Peace and love and Gods protection to the real people in this war The British and American soldiers on the front line...

Peace and love....

Goldenrose.

''There is no need for temples, no need for complicated Philosophies.
My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness''-  Dalai Lama

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


108 posted 05-24-2004 07:09 AM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

Yes, Come on down, Mr. Kerry....

Even though your own hometown newspapers are NOT supporting you... Even though the nation's leading economic newspaper says your economic plan will kill the growing economy... even though you are attempting to be everything to everyone, and showing that you stand for nothing at all except winning... Even though you decide which side of an issue you stand on depending on what the latest poll states... even though you have turned your back on two of the MAJOR beliefs of your religious upbringing, and yet proudly proclaim your religious faith...

COME ON DOWN, Mr Kerry... you are just what this country needs.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again...
http://www.cmlb.net/ringo

Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


109 posted 05-26-2004 05:35 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

Ringo ..i find your remarks insulting in the extreme and aggressive...i think you would be better served to back off from this situation before things get out of hand..i particularly take exception to you involving religion in this when the present president has sent 800 of his own countrymen to their deaths...i dont think John Kerry would have done that..but maybe you think the soldiers are ''collateral damage'' just like the president....

NO more war..peace around the world...

Goldenrose.

''There is no need for temples, no need for complicated Philosophies.
My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness''-  Dalai Lama

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


110 posted 05-26-2004 08:50 AM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

Insulting?? Yes they were... to Senator Kerry. Agressive? I don't believe so. As for me backing out of the situation??? I don't think so. To suggest that I back off before things get out of hand could be considered as an aggressive statement, although, I will choose not to see it as such.

As for my comments... Thereis absolutely nothing that I haev stated taht is not 100% fact, and that I cannot show you where I got the information.
The Boston Globe and the Boston Herals, from Senator Kerry's hometown of Boston, Mass specifically DID NOT support him in this election.
The Wall Street Journal stated that the Kerry Economic plan would hurt the economy.
Joh Kerry is very proud of the fact that he is a Roman Catholic, and uses it in his campaign. HOWEVER... As a Catholic, he supports abortion rights, AND gay marriages. Both of those issues are huge No-No's within the Catholic Church. His stance has even gotten some Bishops to suggest that Senator Kerry not be allowed to partake of Holy Communion. Again, it is on the record, and not the ramblings of an ultra-conservative, gun-toting, right-wing, environment-hating redneck. (BTW... I am more of a moderate, and I don't even own a weapon of any kind.)

Since I have opened my yap and made such hateful allegations, please allow my to elaborate with a few well chosen facts:

TAXES
Senator Kerry voted against the middle class tax cuts that President Bush proposed (HR 1836, CQ Vote #165)

"I will roll back George Bush’s tax cut..." CNN's Paula Zahn Now 2/2/04

Switching Sides on Issues
-"I'm the only candidate running for president who hasn't played games, fudged around," said Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.
Assiciated Press 1/26/04

During his appearance on ABC’s Good Morning America Monday, John Kerry either refused or was just unable to reconcile the differences in a variety of statements Kerry’s made over the years regarding what he did with his military decorations in 1971 while leading the militant anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
ABC News Good Morning America 4/26/04

-"And if elected president, I will nominate judges who will seek to expand rights and opportunities-not reduce them.  In this area, anyone who values a woman's right to choose in particular or constitutional privacy rights in general will have the clearest possible choice between me and President Bush in 2004."  
Sen. Kerry A Call To Service 2003, pg 182

-"I think people who go to the Supreme Court ought to interpret the Constitution as it is interpreted, and if they have another point of view, then they're not supporting the Constitution, which is what a judge does."

John Kerry yesterday said he'll back President Bush's call for $25 billion in extra funds to support U.S. troops in Iraq, after taking lots of heat for voting against $87 billion for the troops last fall. … Kerry took so much flak over the $87 billion that he tried to defend his "no" vote by saying, "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
Washingotn Post  5/14/04

Abortion Rights
-Sen. Kerry Boston Globe 4/9/03
Kerry "Recently Announced He Will Support Only Pro-Choice Judges To The Supreme Court."   http://www.johnkerry.com

As for religion and Presidents and deaths, etc... President Richard Nixon was a Quaker who sent 10's of thousands of Americans to their death. President Kennedy was a Catholic who sent men to their death in the Bay of Pigs. President Clinton sent American servicemen to their deaths. What does one have to do with the other? One of the MAJOR stands of the Roman Catholic faith is anti-abortion/pro-life. That is not an opinion, that is a full blown, internationally recognized fact. It is also proven (read above) that Sen. Kerry, A CATHOLIC, is for abortions. that is why a recent Harris Poll shows that the majority of Catholics are against Senator Kerry. They aren't necessarily FOR president Bush... they are just against Sen. Kerry.

Now, as far as my thoughts that American fighting men are "collateral damage". You owe myself, and every other miltary veteran on this site an apology. There is NO discussion with that. To suggest that I would consider ANY American life to be worthless is the most abhorrant thing I think you have ever put on these pages. You also owe an apology to every memeber of the foreign military that is currently serving in Iraq... especially the 11 nations that have combat casualties besides the United States.
Collateral Damage?? Without getting into too many specifics, I spent six years in the service gto my country and have- on more than one occasion- had the blood of my compatriots on my uniform as I busted portions of my anatomy attempting to prevent them from dying from a gunshot wound that they had recived while in service to their country in a combat situation. One of these days, if happen to meet in a bar and I am blindingly drunk, I will show you my little pieces of colored cloth, and explain what each and every one of them is for, and what it was that I was doing that I earned them.
Perhaps I will even show you the newspaper clippings from the past year with my picture standing as part of the honor guard for an American miltary personnel who fell in Iraq and Afghanistan... including Capt. Christopher Seiffert USA, one of the very first casualites of the war... including Sgt. Andrew Baddock USA, a neighbor, who died attempting to save members of his unit.
Perhaps I will introduce you to Sgt. Robert Lerch USAF, my girlfriend's son, who was injured while in country.
There are two very prominent members of this site that have got, probably, more pieces of colored cloth that also have blood on their uniforms, and the memories to haunt them. I will guarantee you, Sir, that they do not feel that ANY american life is collateral damage.
There are also many members of this site who have written in support of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan who will tell you that THEY do not feel that ANY american life is "collateral damage".

You suggested that I would be better served backing off the situation before it got out of hand... Sir, I respectfully suggest that this situation just might get out of hand, however it will not be my doing. I was willing to allow everyone to have their own thoughts, and ideas about this event in our history, and to even engage in honorable and semi-friendly debate over it. As for you,Sir, I care not what your thoughts are, and will not be checking back on this, or any other thread where you have made statements, for I honestly could not care what you have to say... however, while you are saying and thinking those thoughts, be sure to thank one of those collateral damages who allowed you to have them.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again...
http://www.cmlb.net/ringo

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 12-20-2003
Posts 1200
Pennsylvania


111 posted 05-26-2004 09:03 AM       View Profile for Michelle_loves_Mike   Email Michelle_loves_Mike   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Michelle_loves_Mike

I see a pattern,,,it seems no matter what Ringo says,,,golden has something to say about it,,,lol, you should try a face to face debate with Ringo sometime, its good stuff, he has all the facts and figures at hand, or can show you where pretty quick,,,,,I've never known him to toss a debate out there, that he hasnt researched, as for smart alec comments, he is second only to me,,,
Best part about our grand land, no matter who's in charge, how much good they do, or how many times they mess up, we have the freedom to sit and banter around like this, so, even tho I don't do the pray thing, I'd like to ask Golden a favor, when you're asking for blessings on the fine military forces that keep the status quo, how bout a shout out to all of them, after all, maybe the "bad" guys, are just following orders.....

Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


112 posted 05-26-2004 09:10 AM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

Michelle- I just got an IM message about your post. While I thank you cvery much for the support, there is one small thing that I feel is in error, and I would be doing the people I haev disagreed with a disservice if I do not point it out to you, regardless of how much you have my love and respect.

I do not believe that Goldenrose feels the servicemen who are serving their country are the "bad guys". The heartburn he has is with the man that was chosen to lead the country. I might have missed it somewhere, and if I have, I apologize to you, however I don't recall ever seeing anything where Goldenrose has said any ill of the men and women themselves.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again...
http://www.cmlb.net/ringo

Craw
Member
since 09-11-2003
Posts 73
Scotland


113 posted 05-26-2004 09:26 AM       View Profile for Craw   Email Craw   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Craw

Ringo-

I'm afraid that the fact you experienced combat and had the terrible experience of having friends killed does not make you better qualified to judge whether the Iraq war is justified. In fact it possibly undermines it. My brother was killed fighting in the British army against the IRA in Northern Ireland, a conflict that most Americans still consider part of a fight for Irish freedom. I consider his death as an absolutely unnecessary tragedy which has destroyed or damaged many more lives than his own; for instance his wife's, his childrens', his parents'. It confirmed to me that there are no justifiable wars, and whatever pathetic justification is given at the time for them does not stand the test of years. There is now a peace process in Northern Ireland: the British army is standing down, the IRA is disarming. And what contribution did my brother's death make to all this? Nothing.

We have a duty as civilised human beings to question wars. In fact it should be the most rigorously questioned topic there is. We should continue to question them even when our loved ones are involved, in fact especially when our loved ones are involved. Uniting behind the flag is the most cretinous thing we can do: it's what our politicians hope we do, what politicians have always hoped their peoples would do since the beginning of the nation state. Remember no politicians die in wars. George and Tony in 10 years time will be writing their memoirs or be engaged in lecture tours.

When you say soldiers die so that miserable whiners like us can be free, I must tell you that that is both insulting and wrong. Soldiers die obeying orders. Civilians die as the collatoral damage implicit with modern ordinance. Where's the honour, where's the glory? Where's the necessity?

You should not as Wilfred Owen said:

"...tell with such high zest
to children ardent for some desperate glory,
the old lie: Dulce et decorum est
pro patria mori."
Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 12-20-2003
Posts 1200
Pennsylvania


114 posted 05-26-2004 11:01 AM       View Profile for Michelle_loves_Mike   Email Michelle_loves_Mike   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Michelle_loves_Mike

Craw,
While I am sorry for your loss, again, have to take Ringos back...
  In his reply to GoldenRose,,,he made no statements that did ,or did not, justify  such loss.
I know he has questioned some of the decisions made involving this recent war, as I also feel, that we should have gone all out, and finished the job the first time, too often, any more, we do a so half job,,,then have to go back in , and end up losing even more lives.
Lets see, no politicians have fought while IN office, however, many did fight before taking office. I.E. Bush Sr.and Eisenhower,and former congressman Duke Cunningham,,the first american flying Ace in Vietnam. Heck, Senator McCain was a POW in that war.
To be fair,from  across the pond, Prince Andrew flew Harriers in the Falklands.
I know he, as well as I, rallys behind the TROOPS, not the flag, HUGE difference.
I have never heard him say, or seen him write, that someone was, "a miserable whiner" when they didn't agree with his views,I have heard him say other, less flattering things, that I can't say here,,but that's a different story.
He doesn't believe that soldiers "die for our freedom"( that phrase has always irked me), rather, they FIGHT for our freedom, dying is an unfortunate by product.
There is no glory or honor in dying.(unless you are a Klingon)
Those left behind, bestow those words to the ones lost,,,,those lost, only know they are dead.
I wonder if the men and women sitting in a burned out basement, that used to be their home,  felt the war was unjustified, as the RAF (and some Americans) were fighting the German Luftwaffa overhead?

In closing, I'll follow Ringos suit,,,and use a quote...

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better  men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill



I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


115 posted 05-26-2004 11:05 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Kerry Recently Announced He Will Support Only Pro-Choice Judges To The Supreme Court.

Good, and hopefully he will reverse the insane ban restrictions on stem cell research.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


116 posted 05-26-2004 01:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"Washington (AP) - Democrat John Kerry (website - news - bio) said Wednesday he's open to nominating anti-abortion judges as long as that doesn't lead to the Supreme Court overturning the landmark 1973 ruling that made abortion legal.

Kerry, the presumptive nominee of a party that overwhelmingly favors a woman's right to abortion, struck a moderate note as he lashed out at one of the high court's most conservative justices, telling The Associated Press he regrets his 1986 vote to confirm Antonin Scalia."

"As fellow Democrats and abortion-rights groups demanded clarification, Kerry issued a statement after the interview pledging to not to appoint anybody to the Supreme Court who would undo the right to abortions. He left open the possibility of appointing anti-abortion judges to lower courts."

" Kerry said he has voted in favor of "any number of judges who are pro-life or pro-something else that I may not agree with," some of whom were nominated by Republican presidents. "But I'm going to make sure we uphold what I believe are constitutional rights and I'm not going to pick somebody who's going to undermine those rights."

"Do they have to agree with me on everything? No," Kerry said. Asked if they must agree with his abortion-rights views, he quickly added, "I will not appoint somebody with a 5-4 court who's about to undo Roe v. Wade. I've said that before."

"But that doesn't mean that if that's not the balance of the court I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I've already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge Scalia."


Later, aides said "some court" was not a reference to the Supreme Court, only lower federal benches. Kerry tried to clear up the matter with a written statement that said: "I will not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who will undo that right" to an abortion.

Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for Bush's re-election campaign, noted that Kerry promised during the primary campaign to nominate to the Supreme Court only individuals who support abortion rights.

"John Kerry (website - news - bio) 's reversal today on appointing pro-choice judges shows a startling lack of conviction on an issue that someone seeking the presidency should approach with principled clarity," Schmidt said.


How in the world does one know what Kerry means or for how long it will last? The Waffle house has been very busy lately. On the other hand, Aenimal, I agree with you completely on the stem-cell research....absolutely.

To change the subject slightly, two nights ago President Bush made a speech on Iraq to clarify our position there, our short and long term plans there and speak of the turnover to the Iraqis next month. These are issues that many people are concerned with. Was it a good speech? Liberals will say no - conservatives will say yes. That's not my point. The speech was applauded by the governments of Russia, China, France and the UN Security Council. That's not my point, either. The speech was not going to change anyone's mind. My point is that no major networks carried it. A speech that millions need to hear, that people all over the world were tuned in to was not covered by the major networks in prime time in the United States. Let there be no more talk of the "conservative news agencies supporting Bush and spoon-feeding us what they want us to hear". If the news agencies were truly conservative, you can bet the farm they would have carried that news conference. The fact that they refused to do so leaves little doubt of their liberal affiliations....so for those of you complaining about the conservatives ruling the news agencies this is certainly proof enough exactly where they stand, unless you have another explanation for their completely biased actions.....


Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


117 posted 05-27-2004 05:28 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

I am not against the soldiers fighting and if i upset any serving or veteran soldiers then i appologise to them, i am actually on their side here..what i do not get is why anyone should attack John Kerry...it is almost like saying i like Bush because he likes war...i just dont see the logic in that especialy when someone has been wounded in action...you would have thought that in that case they would be calling for an end to war not glorifying in it.
Kerry served with honours in Vietnam...but as soon as he came home he could see the futility of war and he was wounded in action...so he tried to do the only thing he could... campain to change, it is all a state of mind..if you TRULY want to change you can ...human beings are so capable of doing anything..why do they utilise their God given gift to make war and weapons?

As for the soldiers serving i say this..i hope that all of you come back from war, and that you live a joyous and fruitful life...
that is one of the reasons i am asking people to send a poem to remember the fallen on the 60th anniversay of DDay...i just dont see why Kerry should be attacked in such a way....

Peace to all.....

Goldenrose.

''There is no need for temples, no need for complicated Philosophies.
My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness''-  Dalai Lama

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


118 posted 05-28-2004 12:14 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

This frustrates me so much... I've mostly been reading and not really replying because I don't much see the point. I don't like Bush, but I don't see the point in trying to turn Kerry into some stellar candidate, or the point on putting Micheal Moore on some godlike pedestal just because he knows how to push buttons. I agree with what Christopher said in another thread- it's the lesser of two evils. Will Kerry really be the lesser of the evils... I hope, and that's why I'll vote for him, because I'd rather see a change in the way the country's going... and if I don't like it, at least I know I didn't just twiddle my thumbs and basically say "well, lets give it four more years."

BTW- I am under the impression (from news articles I've read) that Kerry's plan of action in Iraq isn't all that much different than Bush's. I've also read the Kerry is actually against gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions. (Really, it's just a distinction of semantics, but it's there all the same.)
Sudhir Iyer
Member Rara Avis
since 04-26-2000
Posts 7206
Mumbai, India : now in Belgium


119 posted 05-28-2004 09:00 AM       View Profile for Sudhir Iyer   Email Sudhir Iyer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Sudhir Iyer


Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 12-20-2003
Posts 1200
Pennsylvania


120 posted 05-28-2004 04:13 PM       View Profile for Michelle_loves_Mike   Email Michelle_loves_Mike   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Michelle_loves_Mike

Isn't it funny, how, we can identify a president by the rumors/stories/myths about them,,,,lets see,,,,,,you tell me,,,,
1. "I'm not a crook"
2. "I didn't inhale"
3. peanut farm
4. 1000 points of light
5. wooden teeth
6. "well"
7. "I don't like broccoli"
8. "I have sinned,,,,,,wait,,that was a televangelist,,,,,
I get them confused sometimes,,such similar scandals,,,,,

guess thats why we seperate church and state,,,so we can keep them all straight,,,,,

Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

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


121 posted 05-28-2004 10:11 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Not to belabor this, Raph, but in re-reading your reply to me I noticed you accused me of spinning. I'm not spinning anything.

The sources that Bush cited in his address were the as yet undiscredited British intelligence sources, not the documents that were being investigated by the CIA and later proven to be forgeries. You are confusing two entirely different pieces of information. And why would you equate discovery of nuclear facilities and materials with 'evidence' as to the validity of the British sources? The sources stated that attempts were made to purchase materials, not that they had been successful in their attempts.

As for materials not being weapons, do you not consider the sarin, mustard and VX nerve gas that have been discovered weapons? Not even when the sarin gas discovered is in an explosive device that was detonated against the troops?  Our 'conservative' press has been very diligent in supressing these discoveries, or dismissing their importance when they do mention them.

It scares me to think what it would take to convince some folks of the very real dangers that we are facing, and who the real enemy is in this war on terror, but I sadly suspect that not even another 9/11 would do it.

This is just some of what we are up against:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38709

Thanks for the chuckle, Michelle! You don't know how badly I needed that!
vlraynes
Member Rara Avis
since 07-25-2000
Posts 9136
Somewhere... out there...


122 posted 05-29-2004 12:38 PM       View Profile for vlraynes   Email vlraynes   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit vlraynes's Home Page   View IP for vlraynes


http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum89/HTML/001835.html

Peace...

"When the power of love overcomes the love
of power the world will know peace."
--Jimi Hendrix

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


123 posted 05-29-2004 10:58 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

http://slate.msn.com/id/2101424/

I don't think this is going to change anyone's mind, but then if you think "You're either with us or against us" and "I'm a uniter, not a divider" crowd, maybe . . .
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


124 posted 05-31-2004 10:33 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
The sources that Bush cited in his address were the as yet undiscredited British intelligence sources, not the documents that were being investigated by the CIA and later proven to be forgeries.


Sigh..If Bush was not citing the eventual forgeries, why(oh lord why) was that the information provided to UN inspectors by the US as evidence?  After it was deemed a forgery by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the administration went into damage control trying to explain their actions, and a period of conflicting stances took place with outright denials and embarrassed admissions made. It was only after it had all hit the proverbial fan that the administration finally synched and claimed 'another' source as the basis for their evidence. A source and information that has never surfaced along with any evidence of nuclear programs or WMDs after the invasion.


quote:
As for materials not being weapons, do you not consider the sarin, mustard and VX nerve gas that have been discovered weapons?


Nitroglycerin. Nitroglycerin is a chemical, not a weapon. It's only after fuses or charges are added that it can be used as a weapon. Chemicals on their own are not weapons, and certainly not Weapons of MASS destruction. I never claimed Iraqis did not have weapons or the 'potential' to create them. But the coalition did not attack 'potential' it attacked based on evidence of WMD stockpiles and a nuclear program. None of which have surfaced. There's a distinction between potential and existing weapons. By the way, where do you think those chemicals, particularly mustard gas, came from? Good old Ronnie Reagan sent it to evil Iraq for use in its war on Iran.

quote:
Our 'conservative' press ...


God, give it a rest. I mentioned earlier, it's sad how conservatives think the media is overly liberal while liberals claim the media is conservative. I'm not partisan, I can see both sides. I've seen and incredibly conservative media blindly support Bush and an incredibly liberal media tear him down. Every city in western civilization has  a conservative paper and a liberal paper. Conservative outlets and liberal outlets. You'd all see this if both sides would take the partisan goggles off.

quote:
It scares me to think what it would take to convince some folks of the very real dangers that we are facing, and who the real enemy is in this war on terror, but I sadly suspect that not even another 9/11 would do it


It scares me to think people can't see that Bush has used the anxiety and fear of 9/11 to push an unneccesary war. It would also see undisputable evidence that Bush and Admin are clearly profiting from military and defense, contracting to companies in which they have substantial holdings and interests. If world safety and stability was really the issue the coalition would:

*First have completed it's mission in Afghanistan, a legitimate mission that gained clear support from its allies and in world opinion.

*In a true war on terror, would target Saudi Arabia, an Al Queda haven, and destroy it's bases and factions there.

*Focus on stabilizing Israel and Palestine by making Sharon and Arrafat keep their word.

Will some good come out of this war? Perhaps. But while manure can produce roses, but it doesn't change the fact that it's BullS.

Nuff said. Take care. I have enough to worry about with lying liberals and conservatives in Canada's next election.
 
 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