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
 A Life in slow decay?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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

A Life in slow decay?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


0 posted 08-28-2004 08:47 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

Dear PIP people...

While looking at the world news stories, the death of innocent people, the starvation of fellow humans, and in particular the wars that are raged around the world, a few thoughts occured to me...are we as a society in slow decay?....have we learned no lessons as a race? Has the two world wars inflicted on this planet meant nothing?

The Governments of this earth that are democratically ellected need to be there because we put them there, so when these same governments go and wage war in OUR name, surely we are as culpable as the members of the Government, we put the weapons in their hands.
Maybe when we go to vote, we should do so only with the previso that no war should be waged in our name, and that any government that contavenes this previso should be immediately forcefully removed from office.

When you voted for whoever you voted for, did you do so with the knowledge that the people you trusted would not wage war? If it had been on the voting paper, ''that we may have to go to war in order to sell arms and make lots of money, oh and maybe kill a few members of your familly in the process'' would you have voted at all?

To me we should be way past killing each other by now, it should be a thing of the past, but it never will be while there are huge amounts of money to be made from selling arms, we are stumbling back in time, not striding forward.

We the people put these warmongerers in their position, we should be standing up and saying NO more wars in our name.

Once they are in office they dont care about the people, they only care about money and power, if they have to kill people as they go along they will.
Is it not a complete shame that we as a race are extremely inteligent, but we fail ourselves when we kill one another, life is so sacred, so precious, so unique, when we have a world council where the people cast the votes for or against war, that is the only time we will be walking as homo sapiens...and not neanderthal man as we are now....peace and love to all..have a great weekend everybody..

Goldenrose.
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


1 posted 08-28-2004 02:00 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

this expresses an all too common, idylli, naieve point of view (paradise syndrome).

not only is this one-sided, it's narrowly focused and provides no potential for rectification.

what about those who fight for beliefs?
should we not fight back if someone attacks us? (turn the other cheek... what if Los Angeles is our other cheek?)

and assuming the motivations of someone is inherently dangerous and always wrong.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


2 posted 08-29-2004 11:05 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Uh, yeah. What he said.

Seriously, you ahve to liv in the real world. I mean, I'm fairly liberal, and I know I'm an idealist... but chill out and get your nose out of Micheal Moore's books.

There's more than one opinion out there. I don't like Bush, I think he's an idiot, and foolhardy, and arrogant... and worse than anything else, I think he's all those things AND the unfortunate figurehead and puppet who gets the glory or the flak, depending on public opinion.

If you don't like it, vote. But don't vote for Kerry- he said he'll use force if necessary (key words), and apparently, you don't want that. Oh, but also don't vote for Nader, 'cuz that's a vote for Bush.

So, I guess if you don't like it, don't vote.

That'll show 'em.
ice
Member Elite
since 05-17-2003
Posts 3059
Pennsylvania


3 posted 09-04-2004 08:25 AM       View Profile for ice   Email ice   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for ice

Goldenrose
I have looked hard at your questions and statements in this post..I find it difficult to understand why you have not received more feedback on your thoughts....Perhaps others who have read this, have also blown you off as some kind of dreamer "Candide" as those that did read it, apparently did..
I assure you that you are not alone with your feelings, I have asked the same questions you ask in your first paragraph...

"are we a society in slow moral decay?"

Perhaps so..The "society" associated with the human species has risen quickly, far beyond normal evolutionary speed and has been unable to cognize a comfortable future because of it...This being apparent it has made up all sorts of folly's to prove itself righteous..  but not but responsible for its own behavior "the devil made me do it"

"have we learned no lessons as a race?"

Not only have we not learned lessons as a race, we have not learned lessons as a species...that is obvious...but what really has happened (in my opinion) is that we have simply forgotten how to act like human beings...It seems to me that modern life has inflicted an amnesia on much of  mankind, things around us have changed far too quickly and this has had an adverse effect, we have too many choices now and it is confusing us...
A small example...look down the cereal isle in and supermarket in America..Do you feel comfortable or a little irritated?

"Has the two world wars inflicted on this planet meant nothing?"

Yes we do elect our government officials, and yes when they wage war we are responsible for its outcome and destruction...Some groups in our society...lets call them "fringe groups" have demonstrated their feelings, (mostly based on faith or religion) about war (mainly Amish/Mennonite/Quaker groups) by legally refusing, through loopholes and other ways, to pay "war taxes" Which by the way, are far more, percentage wise, than any budget analysis will tell you.......

I have gone off course, sorry

To "forcefully remove them from office" is out of the question, perhaps if we had a parliament, this would be possible?


"When you voted for whoever you voted for, did you do so with the knowledge that the people you trusted would not wage war?"

No, I did not have that advanced knowledge, and do not think this is possible....But what I did expect was someone with a least a tinge of descent diplomatic ability, and not a hidden , faith based agenda .....In the last election my vote did not matter anyway as the supreme court ended up selecting the president...

"To me we should be way past killing each other by now,"

Yes, it seems like this should be so..
But apparently we are not..But if we stumble back in time far enough, I believe we can find the solution to our problems...As Dylan said in his song "The answers my friend, are blowing in the wind" They are still seem to be beyond normal human comprehension on a  whole, but some people have touched on the fringes of enlightenment...Jesus and Ghandi for two and many more that are not as famous..
They also were called naive and idyllic, narrowly focused...told they were consumed by a paradise syndrome with no potential for rectification...Jesus did turn the other cheek and was killed...but Ghandi did not, he was actively pacific...unfortunately he was also killed....both assassinated for their beliefs....perhaps the truth is a threat to those who believe that violence is the only way to settle disagreements?

Moderate liberals will tell you that they are idealists, but that seems to be a conflict of definitions....I try to stay away from categories of political thought, groups bother me, I guess I lean towards anarchy in that way.

I see no relation to what you say and "Michael Moores book", what I do see is some comparative thoughts expressed in  Thomas Mores book  (Utopia)  This , in my mind, is a better comparison...

I don't think bush is and idiot, that is obvious, but he has demonsrated his foolhardiness and arrogance many times in the last few years, perhaps it is just his inability to articulate our language that has caused me to think so, perhaps loving the spoken word and trying to be a poet has made me look very close at the way phrases are arranged?

Kerry is far from our saving grace, He is a moderate liberal, which means he can be swayed away from liberal causes..He did say he would "use force if necessary" But perhaps he would use this force in a more humanitatarin way....such as to stop the ethnic cleansing in the Sudan? But if he is elected he will have to get us out of the rathole of  Iraq, a formidable task, maybe immposible, we may be there 50 years or longer, like we have been in Korea..

"peace and love to all..

I notice that you say "all" in your end lines..that wish for all mankind is the only hope we have to straighten out the mess of reoccurring war..

I have turned this into a novel....sorry

"peace and love to all

-------ice
  ><>


Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


4 posted 09-04-2004 09:31 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

Christopher...

I have to say i take exception to your words. I do not believe my words to be naieve at all, i think you may be better served by not expressing your views at all, if you cannot do it by verbally abusing my thoughts.

No you dont have to ''turn the cheek'' you simply have to offer the hand of friendship rather than the gun of war.

Peace to you and yours

Goldenrose.
Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


5 posted 09-04-2004 09:34 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

Hush..

I think that more than one person has listened to MM and maybe more should do so too, he appears more braver to face down the demons that are determined to drag America to the abyss of hell...

Peace and love to you..


Goldenrose.
Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


6 posted 09-04-2004 09:46 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

Ice...

Your arguments are very good and intellligently done. You have obviously seen and recognised the area i was aiming for people to see, seems that others missed that.

As for the ''dreamer'' part, if i genuinely want the world to be a more peaceful place, and a safer place to live , then i will be happy to be called a dreamer.

One other point i wanted to share is , how much better would America have looked if it had said ''ok no more, let's have peace, let's stop the tit for tat killing, and enter into global peace''.
But that would have been far too courageous, far better to take the ''eye for an eye'' angle, it's better for the economy when selling arms that may kill your own citizens, and so the vicious circle continues....

who of any future president will have the courage to go down the road of peace?....i can think of one from the past...Mr Lincoln..he would have had the courage..but then the presidents hand book was made for Lincoln.....he was a REAL president...not the empty suit that occupies the white house today and brings shame on the courageous work of past great presidents...

Peace and love to you...and all of your loved ones...

Goldenrose.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


7 posted 09-04-2004 12:07 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

I apologize for intruding on the thread, but found the "fringe group" comment relating to the peace churches a tad bit humorous.  

I suspect most Mennonites would prefer being called a religious denomination rather than a fringe group.

In any event, Mennonites do not avoid paying "war taxes" by utilizing legal loopholes.  They either pay their taxes or face the consequences for their civil disobedience.  Some might include a protest letter when they pay their taxes and a very small minority might withhold a small symbolic amount the IRS does not bother with collecting due to the cost, and a large number, but certainly not all would support peace tax legislation.

Again, sorry to intrude, just an observation from out here on the fringe.

Marge Tindal
Deputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 11-06-1999
Posts 43042
Florida's Foreverly Shores


8 posted 09-04-2004 01:30 PM       View Profile for Marge Tindal   Email Marge Tindal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Marge Tindal's Home Page   View IP for Marge Tindal

Goldenrose wrote-
quote:
not the empty suit that occupies the white house today and brings shame on the courageous work of past great presidents
By what measure of man do you present this claim?

Your opinion, nothing more ... nothing less~
Yours, not mine ...~

I SO RESPECT my President and voted for leadership ... not disappointed in the decisions made toward ridding the world of monster madmen wreaking chaos at every core of sub-level intent~

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to expound on just a tiny bit of my pride in my President~

I won't be back in with any type of rebuttal comment, because I firmly believe in what I believe in (as much as you do), and it's just not an arguable point~

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


9 posted 09-05-2004 12:18 AM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

quote:
i think you may be better served by not expressing your views at all, if you cannot do it by verbally abusing my thoughts.
Truly sorry if I offended your sensibilities (not really, just being polite ) - but if you weren't expecting any sort of rebuttal, disagreement, et al, then why did you post your thoughts in the Alley, a place well known for disagreement?

But, thank you for the reply. To repeat:
quote:
i think you may be better served by not expressing your views at all, if you cannot do it by verbally abusing my thoughts.
So let's tell the Muslims that they will be better served by not expressing their views. They are, after all, different from ours and in many ways, abusive of ours. Vice versa in many cases. But as you say, better not to express them. Better to remain silent?

So, say a country sees itself superior to others, thinks that they are the "one true race" and should wipe out the rest because they're not "pure." Should we perhaps then remain silent, not abuse their thoughts. That might have been better 'round WWII.

I'm not likening you to the Nazis, of course, just shooting for an extreme, albeit historically realistic example.

Silence, just like "turning the other cheek," can invite trouble just as much as searching for it can. Even more, when the rest of our neighbors aren't as "advanced" as you suggest we be.

This doesn't mean I don't agree that we should have evolved more by now, but we haven't. And we won't... not until everyone truly is equal... so, possibly never. Not sure equality is all it's cracked up to be. Too many people read equal as "same" anyway to suit me.

Criticize a man, criticize a country, it's all the same. Barring abhorrences (of which there are plenty, granted), people are people - even George W. Bush. I imagine that had it been Kerry, Clinton, Abe Lincoln, the story would be the same - there would be people who deify [him] for his actions [or inaction] and others would condemn. Can't please everyone and can't be more than a person.

Superman, on the other hand, might be more your style.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


10 posted 09-06-2004 04:20 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Small point Chris;

Turning the other cheek is widely interpreted as a pacifistic course of action but was more likely an act of defiance roughly equivalent to flipping someone off.  In a caste system a person of higher rank, say, a Roman Legion, would slap a person of lower rank with the back of their right hand, more as an act of putting someone in their place than an act of violence.  By turning the other cheek a person considered to be of low stature was actually confronting the abuser -- daring them to strike them with their open hand -- as an equal.  Jesus was a radical.

But, I understand the context in which you employed the example.
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


11 posted 09-07-2004 02:23 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

Interesting tidbit, Reb. Seriously... I love tales of defiance... do you know how it turned into the commonly accepted representation of non-violence?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


12 posted 09-07-2004 05:05 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Cultural context.  If you pluck the written word out of the culture that generates it and try to understand in another place and time without having any reference to the original customs and practices of the writers then it is difficult to interpret accurately.  The authors would not, instinctively, think that they would need to explain every single detail because they would assume some information as common knowledge.

What would George Washington think if he read the words 'bling-bling' or 'foshizzle'?
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


13 posted 09-11-2004 12:13 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

I thought "fo shizzle" was two words.

This makes my head hurt. Wasn't Lincoln a war president? Oh, wait... that was the war where our country decided to have at it with itself!

Don't get me wrong... I think this war in Iraq is a farce... I was disheartened the other day to hear that our death toll had breeched the 1,000 mark, and injuries 7,000. And we're the ones doing the invading... I don't even want to think of the toll on the Iraqis. I think this was entirely avoidable, I think that pre-emptively striking a country is unsettling (at best), and that it really seems like a load of crap that we get to go around saying "Hey, we're the strongest country on earth, so we get to decide who has weapons, and who doesn't. Oh, and we can also change our minds after once giving you those weapons and bomb you afterward for not proving that they're all gone."

But it's also unrealistic and short sighted to say "War is bad. Let's never have war again."

War is bad, and we shouldn't have to have it, and I think the concept of killing another human being is inherently wrong, no matter how you slice it. But I think there are sometimes that the wrong of doing so is better justified than inaction... for example, WWII. Sometimes, it's just unavoidable... but it should only be a last resort.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


14 posted 09-11-2004 01:19 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

fo rizzle?  
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


15 posted 09-11-2004 01:51 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Well, I've been thinking (always a dangerous proposition) about the views expressed in this thread on both sides and in the middle.  A few points.

Muslim countries, based on a militant religion, respect strength.  This isn't just the Middle East, but most of Africa, and large tracts of the former Soviet Union.  To them, turning the other cheek is a sign of weakness, and for those that, again, only respect strength, this is a problem.  And before anyone gets bent, Mohammed, the Prophet, was raised in a rather peaceful trade city of Jews, early Christians, and local tribesmen who sought revenge for the killing of his mother and father, and turned it into a religion to increase his military strength in eastern Africa.  Well, actually his son did to keep the power consolidated.  Mohammed died in battle, but I'm meandering again.

Mankind, specifically and generally, are warriors by nature, wearing thinly the veneer of 'civility'.  No offense, GR, but you aren't the first to espouse these ideals.  It has been done through countless millenia, and every time, those pacifistic agrarian peoples would be slaughtered wholesale by those seeking land/slaves/food/resources/revenge.  And even in modern 'civilised' times, pacifism has had disasterous results.  England, France, and the rest of the non-triad world 'turned the other cheek' when Hitler reclaimed the Sudetenland, then invaded Austria, Poland, and then France.  Turning the other cheek and pacifism only works when the other side(s} also follow suit, and that is inherently against human nature.  We try to convict and execute serial killers, but in other cultures, serial killers become Heads of State.

Is society in a state of decay?  Define society.  In the broad scope, there has been decay ever since Man developed the first stone tool.  As for any allusions about the military action in Iraq, I, for one, do believe there was terrorist collusion on behalf of the Iraqi government.  We have satellite photos of a 747 mockup on a peninsula south of Baghdad, where the Iraqi army was forbidden to interact with the trainess of that facility.  We have a governmental head and family who is only nominally Muslim.  Those were prime targets for Al-Queda [sp], who strive to bring back the Golden Age of Islam, circa 1300 AD, while, of course, firmly entrenching themselves in the seats of power.  Human nature, and all that.  Even the Bolsheviks, following the October Revolution, made for themselves new Czars.

As far as Bush is concerned, I respect him.  He says what's on his mind, even if it comes out as a maloprop, and does what he says.  And that resonates with this Texan living in the deserts of Arizona.  Barring Kenneth Lay, most Texans are like that.

Anyhow, that's enough for now, as I've rambled enough.

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


16 posted 09-12-2004 04:31 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
As far as Bush is concerned, I respect him.  He says what's on his mind, even if it comes out as a maloprop, and does what he says.  And that resonates with this Texan living in the deserts of Arizona


Unless there is a code that I don't understand, Bush never says what he means. At a bar the other night I said Bush was the worst president since Hoover, my friends corrected me. He is the worst president ever.

They are right.

Please show me why in the world anybody with a brain would vote for this guy?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


17 posted 09-12-2004 08:06 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

But I think most of us know what he means even if it doesn't always come out right and I think that his values, ideals, and goals, for the most part, resonate with the majority of Americans. I share Ali's respect for him and his leadership.

We're never going to have a 'perfect' candidate to vote for. Fault can be found with everyone. This year I will be a single issue voter: who do I think can best protect us from terrorism here at home. I have more confidence in Bush. Kerry confuses me. I still don't know what he really thinks or believes about anything. And I wonder if he even knows where he stands on the issues, particularly the terrorism issue. That scares me.
Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


18 posted 09-13-2004 04:49 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

Can somebody please tell me why everyone thinks this president can portect the american people better than everyone else, when he patently FAILED when he was required to protect the nation on 911, and was sat like a little boy lost in a shpping mall, when the country was being attacked.
This happend on HIS WATCH, and he failed then as he would fail in the future, do you need to give him another chance to see if he might mess that up as well? Before he is shown the door?....As someone not from america i find all of this quite incredible and scary, that he is thought to be doing a good job on terrorism.
Before 911 planes straying off course and having to have jets scrambled to move them back on course, happened 64 times, and yet on the fatefull day itself eveything failed, the jets were just an hour or so too slow, the norad warning was slow, thus giving them plenty of time. Warnings were issued and not followed up, briefings not read about the threat and yet here we are saying this president would keep the nation safe, if the briefings had been taken seriously and read then preventaive measures would have reduced lives, that patently never happened because he could not be bothered to read them, again i say, how would this president keep the nation safe?...

Just my thoughts here....have a good and peaceful day...

Goldenrose.

The supreme happiness in life is the conviction that we are loved. Victor Hugo.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


19 posted 09-13-2004 06:26 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Where are you getting your information from Denise?  What is confusing about 100%, immediate implementation of the 9/11 Commission findings?

Available everywhere.

(Oh yeah -- Bush was against it before he was for it)
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


20 posted 09-13-2004 01:43 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

While we're pointing fingers, I wonder if anyone considered the contributions of British imperialism to Jihadist Islam's attitudes toward the West?  They hate us for a reason, and that reason cannot be adequately summed up in the word "Israel."

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


21 posted 09-13-2004 09:03 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

My information, L.R. is his twenty year voting record in the Senate. Doesn't match up with most of what he is saying today.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


22 posted 09-13-2004 11:15 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Ah yes, the dreaded spit-ball politics...

Let's see, he was against the F-16 Aircraft, wanted to cut the B2, Proposed cutting the AH-64 Apache, the M1-Abrams Tank, B-52 Bombers, Huge troop cuts, 70 base closings, civilian and reserve cuts...

oh wait...

That would be Dick Cheney's record.

My bad.


Jim,
I don't think you can discount that -- but it doesn't really speak to what we do now.  

The best way to think about this war was put well by the 9/11 commission -- pirates -- we got rid of pirates.  How?  Every country in the world banded together to get rid of them.  Read the 9/11 Commission report.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


23 posted 09-13-2004 11:44 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Miller didn't say that Kerry voted against the weapons on the list he rattled off, only that he opposed them. And indeed Kerry did, in 1984, as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for Senate from Massachusetts.

All the weapons cited by Miller are listed in a memo from the 1984 Kerry campaign, which we posted along with our Feb. 26 article on Republican distortions of Kerry's defense record. In that 1984 memo Kerry called for "cancellation" of the very weapons Miller cited.

Kerry the Senator

Once elected, however, Kerry's voting record evolved. He did cast votes more than a decade ago against the B-2 Stealth Bomber in 1989, 1991 and 1992. But by 1992 even President Bush (the current incumbent's father) was calling for cancellation of the B-2 and promising to cut military spending by 30% in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was no secret -- Bush did that in his 1992 State of the Union address. But Miller left out that little detail.

---

Kerry voted against the entire Pentagon appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995. Kerry also voted against the Pentagon authorization bills (which provide authority to spend but not the actual money) in those years and also in 1996 . However, he hasn't opposed an annual Pentagon appropriation since then, nor did he do so in 16 of his 19 years in office. So by the Republicans' own measuring stick, Kerry voted for the weapons they list far more often than he voted against them.

----

Kerry himself conceded that some of the positions he took 20 years ago were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then." That was in an interview published in June, 2003 in the Boston Globe. "I mean, you learn as you go in life," Kerry was quoted as saying. He added that his subsequent Senate voting record on defense has been "pretty responsible."

-----

Note: This isn't the only misleading claim made at the Republican convention. Miller falsely claimed "Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations," when in fact Kerry has said no such thing.

(Update, Sept. 10: It has been pointed out to us that Kerry DID once say such a thing -- more than 30 years ago. He was running in 1970 for the House of Representatives as an anti-war candidate. He was quoted in the Harvard Crimson as saying, "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." He lost that election.)

And New York Gov. George Pataki made a similarly misleading statement Sept. 2 when he implied that Kerry would "just wait for the next attack" before using military force to defend the US.

What Kerry really said -- in his own acceptance speech -- is this: "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required.  Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." That's the opposite of what Miller said Kerry "made clear."

---- http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=252





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


24 posted 09-18-2004 11:47 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

But I still don't know what Kerry means when he says "swift and certain response", especially given that he doesn't, presently at least, seem to approve of Bush's definition of "swift and certain" and under what circumstances would he consider the use of force to be required, as he also doesn't seem to agree with Bush on what those circumstances should be.

What does he mean, what are his core values and principals, what does he stand for? I think he needs to make himself more clear on the issues, especially the terrorism issue before election day.

His actions following the Viet Nam war also raise concerns.
 
 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 >> A Life in slow decay?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] 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