Tony Blaire - Look at the Internet

[jonza]

Please don't get too upset by this, it's only a point of view!

Could Tony Blair look at the internet now, please?

Why is the British Prime Minister the only person who seems to be unaware of the US hawks' agenda.

Terry Jones Sunday March 2, 2003 The Observer

It's heart-warming to hear Tony Blair's concern for the plight of the Iraqi people and how the only possible way to help them is to bomb them with everything the Americans have.

Mr Blair's sudden sympathy for the Iraqis' political aspirations comes as a welcome relief after all these years of US, UK-led sanctions, which have caused the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children, according to the UN.

But I'm a bit worried that Tony may be deluding himself that his friends in the White House share his altruistic ideals. I'm sure Tony has been reading all the recent stuff about PNAC - "The Project For The New American Century" - but has he looked at their website? (www.newamericancentury.org)

As everybody knows, the PNAC is a think-tank founded in 1997 by the people who are now closest to President Bush - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and so on. It's a pretty safe bet that what PNAC think is what George W. Bush thinks. PNAC represents the thinking of the men now in power in the United States.

PNAC's stated aims are to: "to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests", to achieve "a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad", "to increase defence spending significantly", and to pursue "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

They don't split hairs at the PNAC. George W. Bush and his advisers' stated aim is to ensure that America and American interests dominate the entire world for the foreseeable future. And what's more they make no bones of the fact that they intend to achieve this without diplomacy - that's old hat. What PNAC intend to do is enforce the Pax Americana through military might.

Does Tony Blair know that? Has Tony Blair read the PNAC Report called "Rebuilding Americas Defenses 2000"? It refers to the new technologies of warfare and goes on: "Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate."

So when George Bush and his colleagues talk about Saddam Hussein posing a "threat" to America - they don't mean he's going to drop bombs on Washington (how on earth could he without committing national suicide?) - what they mean is that he poses a threat to American military dominance in the Middle East.

Does Tony Blair know that's what they mean?

In fact, does Tony Blair know that President Bush's advisers regard Saddam Hussein as merely an excuse for military action in the area? The PNAC Report of 2000 states: "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

So Iraq is merely "the immediate justification" and Saddam's regime is not so important as establishing American military might in the Gulf.

Does Tony Blair know that?

If he has read PNAC's Report he knows that he is simply aiding US right-wing militarism and extremist Republican plans for world domination. Surely in such a cause he would not be prepared to expose the British people to the nightmare of permanent terrorist threats and attacks. Surely for such a cause he would not be prepared to set fire to the Middle East, to destabilize the entire world for the foreseeable future and - most important perhaps - to risk his own political neck by pursuing an evil and almost universally despised policy.

On the other hand, if Tony Blair, has not read "Rebuilding Americas Defenses 2000" or gone to the PNAC website to learn exactly what motivates Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz, and so on then why the hell hasn't he?

Go to your computer now, Mr. Blair. Look at the reality behind all this sanctimonious wringing of hands over the plight of the Iraqi people. Read what your American Republican friends are really intending. Please.

Terry Jones writes regularly for The Observer. To all those readers who have written in to ask if this Terry Jones had anything to do with Monty Python, the answer is yes

[Soledad]

Thank you, Jonza. This is exactly what I was trying to bring up in some other threads. These two words bring a chill to my heart: Pax Americana. :eek: :eek:

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by jonza
Please don't get too upset by this, it's only a point of view!

Could Tony Blair look at the internet now, please?

Why is the British Prime Minister the only person who seems to be unaware of the US hawks' agenda.

Mr Blair's sudden sympathy for the Iraqis' political aspirations comes as a welcome relief after all these years of US, UK-led sanctions, which have caused the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children, according to the UN.




yep the evil united states killed all these people .....
as for taking over the world, don't worry denmark is way way down on our list, the "kick ass and take over denmark' tour dates have not been given out yet......i'll post them when they become available. wanna back stage pass??

[Soledad]

Hmmm. Some people actually care about the rest of the world and not only their country. It's a strange habit, indeed.

[jonza]

Sorry Richard!
I was naive enough to think that we could possibly get a semi-intelligent discussion out of it.

john

[mugsy]

Gee, why not add a little sarcastic humor to an article that is obviously meant to anger 75% of Americans? A ridiculous article deserves a ridiculous response. Just a proud American's humble opinion.

[Soledad]

So, America cannot be criticised? Why would you be offended by our government's failures? Isn't that something a patriot would want altered?

This should not be personal. When someone criticises Bush and his administration, I see no reason why people should get so emotional and offended by it. It's something we need to THINK about as citizens, so we can help fix things.

[mugsy]

I think that a true patriot would be offended for attacks against his country. I wish Terry Jones would stick to Monty Python, since he's a lot funnier there.

[Soledad]

My idea of patriotism is a little different. It goes like this:

A true patriot listens to the world. Because no country exists in a vacuum.

A true patriot is offended by unfair, unfounded accusations that hold no water.

A true patriot listens to legitimate criticism in an attempt to hold their politicians accountable to true American ideals.

A true patriot is big enough to know when their country has gone down the wrong path, is not afraid to admit it, and actually does something to change it.

Here's what I DON'T believe what a patriot is:

A patriot does not say "my country right or wrong" and let their country go down the toilet in the process.

A patriot does not put a leader before the country.

A patriot does not seek to silence others for a differing opinion.

A patriot does not close their eyes and ears to the truth.

A patriot does not refuse to stand back and look at things from a new perspective.

A patriot does not stand by while its freedoms and values are being taken away.

[Tanya&Fritz]

Originally posted by RICHARD
yep the evil united states killed all these people .....
as for taking over the world, don't worry denmark is way way down on our list, the "kick ass and take over denmark' tour dates have not been given out yet......i'll post them when they become available. wanna back stage pass??

LMAO :D :D :D I think I've seen those tour dates and Switzerland and Lichenstein are right before Denmark :D :D :D

[jackiesdaisy1935]

Here's what I think, if a Patriot is so unhappy with their government, with their leader, and knows the country has gone down the path, then they should go to a little insignificant country like Denmark, learn the language, hope for the best, and start all over. Personally I'll take Britain and the United States just the way they are.
Jackie, Perry and Miss Daisy

[tatsxxx11]

"Patriotism," being a totally subjective concept, defies definition, except unto oneself. One man's traitor is another man's patriot, and vice versa. The Revolutionary War's Minutemen branded themselves patriots, while King George labled them traitors. I'm sure suicide bombers, strapping bombs to their backs and detenating them on crowded buses, fulfill someones definition of "patriotism," though not mine. Perhaps for your consideration...a patriot is one who has the strength of his convicitons? The validity or lack validity of those convictions is the subjectively viewed, arguable, and very personal precept at the core of the dilemma. Just a thought.

[Pam]

Originally posted by Soledad
Hmmm. Some people actually care about the rest of the world and not only their country. It's a strange habit, indeed.
How could you watch what is happening to the people of Iraq under the dictatorship of this madman and NOT care about another country. I think to stand back and do nothing is morally wrong.

Jackie and Sandra you took the words right out of my mouth!

[shellonabeach]

Speaking from the UK and can only say our country is divided...... there certainly isn't the patritotism that you americans are showing.

Even our foreign minister resigned when Blair announced we were going to war.

I don't know if it happened in the US but here the anti-war marches were HUGE which to men signified the intentions of the ordinary people. I'm a final year university student and if the marches hadn't been when my dissertation was due I would have joined them, as would most of the people I know (and I am a normal person not some strange fanatic).

Whilst we all wish that everyone comes out of this safely a lot of us do not support the war.

I certainly won't be voting for Tony Blair ever again, not that I did before! I'd like to see him out on the front line.

As for moving country, when this all blew up I thought of moving to the neutral Switzerland.

Sarah

[micki76]

Originally posted by jonza
If he has read PNAC's Report he knows that he is simply aiding US right-wing militarism and extremist Republican plans for world domination. Surely in such a cause he would not be prepared to expose the British people to the nightmare of permanent terrorist threats and attacks. Surely for such a cause he would not be prepared to set fire to the Middle East, to destabilize the entire world for the foreseeable future and - most important perhaps - to risk his own political neck by pursuing an evil and almost universally despised policy.


Oh, yeah, we're taking over the world. (wrings hands together in the usual evil way) bwaaa haaa haaa!!!!!

Did you really think there would be a semi-intelligent discussion about this? C'mon, it's hilarious!

[mugsy]

Well, I guess we SHOULD consider that it is written by a member of the Monty Python Crew! hehe

[Soledad]

Naturally patriotism is a subjective thing. But I think that what most people like to toss around as patriotism is suspect. Waving a flag isn't really patriotism. I think it takes a little more effort than that.

And I don't think it's necessary to call other countries "insignificant" because you don't like ONE person's opinion.

Terry Jones is not entirely joking. This Pax Americana thing is real, reported and has come out the mouths of many in the current administration. Of course, it is just easier to dismiss it, laugh at it, and forget about it. Which will only make things easier.

I don't believe we'll be stopping with Iraq. This is about controlling the middle east, this is not about humanitarianism. That's just a nice line that goes over well.

[mugsy]

Where do you think we'll go next?? Tell me this, when Amercia wins this war and we go in and help the people of Iraq to put in place a democratic government, run by their own people who have been elected by the people, will you feel differently? Also, how do you think the families of the American and British servicemen who have been killed would react to this thread and the other Tony Blaire thread?

[jackiesdaisy1935]

How much more effort would you like for us to be called a Patriot?
My family originally came over as Pilgrims, my Great Grandfather came down from French Canada and settled here. My husband was in the Navy for 25 years serving in Korea and VietNam on aircraft carriers in a Helicopter Squadron going to sea for 8 or 9 months of the year, and working around the clock at times for very little pay but loving his country enough to do it. I guess if we don't criticize President Bush or the Politics here we are not Patriots. Geeeez at your age with your great intelligence, expertise, wisdom and experience you should be running the country.
Jackie, Perry and Miss Daisy

[Soledad]

Don't worry, Jackie. I'm working towards getting myself into politics. So, hopefully soon, I'll be able to help my country.

My grandfather fought in Korea. My dad fought in Vietnam as did my uncles. I have cousins who have been in Kosovo, Somalia and desert storm. I have cousins who are NOW in the service. My brother was injured in 9-11.

Have I proven my credentials yet?

Look, the families of the servicemen (which I would be a part of) are all very varied and numerous. There are plenty of them who don't believe that you have to be in lock step with Bush to support the troops.

[mugsy]

Soledad, you didn't really answer my questions. I understand that some family members are not for this war, but I am asking how the families of the servicemen who were killed would feel reading these threads.

[jackiesdaisy1935]

Soledad, I didn't want to bore you with the many relatives besides Don who fought for this Country in our family. I hope you are not thinking of Politics here in the States, I would never vote for you, I believe your politics are prejudiced and that you are more Anti-American than Anti-War.
Jackie

[Soledad]

Don't worry Jackie, no one will vote for me because I'm not seeking out an elected position.

I love America and no one can really tell me otherwise.

What do I think families who've lost loved ones would think of the threads? I don't know. Maybe frustration that this administration has planned this thing so poorly and with such little justification that it obviously does not care enough about those in the army.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by jonza
Sorry Richard!
I was naive enough to think that we could possibly get a semi-intelligent discussion out of it.

john




no problem. i get naive too.........
and just to prove that there are no hard feelings,
here's a quote from two of our most critically thinking
citizens.

heh, heh, heh, he said naive, heh, heh heh-
beavis and butthead

[RICHARD]

just a thought,

yes we americans can tolerate to be criticized, you just have to
be ready when we laugh about the 'unsults'.....


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What I can do during the war.


During the war I had many options to choose from.

1) Join the service, but I am too old.


2) Rail against the war and my country. Maybe a protest or two. Blame all Political ills of the last 20 years on someone, anyone in the government.
Make it a point to get mad and call people names when they disagree with me.
(It works in other places.) When a point, that really doesn’t fit my
Views is presented, I’ll be creative and impolite, when cornered in a discussion/Argument

I will become particularly vicious making sure that my opponent’s
Right to speak is sufficiently stifled. My mouth IS bigger and ONLY my points
Count. I will be civilly disobedient, should the need arise I am willing to go to jail-
Ready to generate more paperwork for the city, state and country should I deem
It necessary.
I’ll use the ‘cut and paste’ method of presenting MY points. I will loose my
Sense of depth perception. That will help my view of an opinion, leaving me
Free from any critical thinking processes that may make me see things with dimension
And/Or any kind of depth.
When caught in a precarious situation, where I may lose credibility or face, I will
Revise or modify the view I have stated. Such as, “I do not ___________, But I
Do support the ____________! I will try to remain ‘on the fence’ until the picket
Wedged in my crotch forces me to fall on one side or the other.
I’ll will prepare my self for any interactions by practicing raising the volume
Of my voice so any opponent will fold just to hear peace and quiet again, after all
Peace, harmony and understanding, Zen and meditation are the foundation of my beliefs.

[Miss Meow]

Originally posted by jackiesdaisy1935
... then they should go to a little insignificant country like Denmark ...
Jackie, Perry and Miss Daisy

Size isn't everything
:mad:

[mugsy]

I think (understand I cannot speak for Jackie) that you missed the point of that statement.

[jackiesdaisy1935]

Just as I have said before, people on here feel free to say anything negative on here about the United States they want to, but pleaseeee to do not attempt to say something about another country, it was o.k. for Jonza to cut my country down. Ashamed?Not in the least, I think it's time we start looking around the world.
Take France did we not save them during world war 2? They want nothing to do with the war except we are finding out they have some sweet deals with Saddam and they don't want to upset the applecart, but they do want to be a part of helping Iraq after the war and I say that loosely and with a laugh.

Russia? Our new very good friends, the only problem is that they have their hands in the cookie jar too, selling military equipment to Iraq to hinder our soldiers in the war to free Iraq.

Turkey? maybe we will, maybe we won't, nope you didn't give us enough money.
I could go on and on

Britain and Israel? They stand by their convictions, they may be small geographically, but they have heart and they carry a big stick, more than I can say about those little insignificant countries who sit on their duff and wait for everyone else around them to keep the world safe.

If it was not for the United States and Britain, you could be one of those Iraqi women trying to protect your child, looking for food and water, watching your man go off to war with a gun to his head if he didn't fight for the evil dictator. Just think in the scheme of things you could be living there, WAKE UP!
Jackie

[Pam]

Jackie - **Deafening round of applause here!*** You have spoken well my friend!

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by jackiesdaisy1935
Just as I have said before, people on here feel free to say anything negative on here about the United States they want to, but pleaseeee to do not attempt to say something about another country, it was o.k. for Jonza to cut my country down.


i guess that means we can't say we'll take over the world and make donald rumsfelt president of his own nation?????



no wonder us americans get so cranky........we hear the same
line over and over and over and over again.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Taking over the world, are we? Hmmm?
I guess no one wonders why if we are wanting to take over Iraq and not care about the people we don't just wipe the towns off the face of the earth instead of trying to miss areas where civilians are located. It would be easier and certainly a lot cheaper and we could do it. But we aren't Hitler or Saddam Insane, or trying to take over the world like some think. But thanks for the suggestion. It's something to think about. BRAHAWHAWHAW!
:eek:

[Soledad]

You can call it taking over the world if you want to be ineffective and down play the whole thing. But it doesn't negate the fact that this is a very real plan. It's not about taking over the world as much as taking over the middle east.

[jackiesdaisy1935]

Oh Soledad, I respect your intelligence, surely you don't believe that we want to take over the Middle East, that is ridiculous.
You can't seem to get it that we are not an invading country, we are liberators, we could have occupied Japan during the second world war if we wanted to but didn't. The people of Iraq cannot cheer yet, their sons, husbands and fathers have guns to their heads to fight to the death. Think about it.
Jackie

[mugsy]

Jackie, you are a wise woman!!

[micki76]

Originally posted by Soledad
You can call it taking over the world if you want to be ineffective and down play the whole thing. But it doesn't negate the fact that this is a very real plan. It's not about taking over the world as much as taking over the middle east.

You believe this? If that's truly our plan, then why didn't we do it 12 years ago, when we had so much more support from all our allies? We were already there, in full power. The man in charge was our current President's father. If that was the intention of the USA, it would have been attempted long ago.
Do you think we're going to conquer Saddam's forces and call it New North America/Britain? C'mon, first of all, the rest of the world would destroy us. No one would stand aside and let that happen. Our leaders aren't stupid, or they wouldn't be running a country that you're so afraid of.

[Soledad]

I think you underestimate the deftness and cleverness of this administration. The difference between 41 and 43 is that 41 was a diplomat and EXTREMELY concerned about diplomacy. He absolutely was against regime change, and based on a recent speech he gave, he still is. This is why the hawks in his admin didn't get anywhere with this plan. Karl Rove was also not a part of Sr's clan.

JackieDaisy, I do think about this. A LOT. I also read about this and study this for work and leisure. The government is doing an EXCELLENT job selling this war as a humanitarian effort, as Pet Talk can attest to.

This government knows that your average Yank is repelled by the idea of colonialism, so they do it discreetly. Like getting people "elected" who have strong US ties. If you think that I think that they will go in and name it New Britain, then you have missed my point entirely. These guys are WAY smarter than that.

[mugsy]

It's already been stated that when the war if over that the only flag that will fly over Iraq is the Iraqi flag.

[Soledad]

And I don't doubt that, Mugsy. But when the U.S. installs a leader and has it's military bases and oil bases under ownership, you can't really think that Iraq will be truly "free."

[micki76]

Wow, Soledad. I'm actually more afraid of you than I am Saddam right now. No joke, that's not sarcasm. You really believe that and THAT frightens me to my core.
Tell me what you think the US plan for the Middle East is. I'm curious to know your information. Please don't give me web links. Anyone can set up a website and say it's so and so. I want your viewpoint, your reasons for believing that this is really possible. I want to know how this could happen. Please, I'm not being sarcastic or making fun of you. I'm truly interested in how you've come to believe this so strongly.

[mugsy]

I guess I don't see how they wouldn't be free. If we put military installations there it will stimulate the economy and give them needed protection from invasion from hostiles who would threaten their new found freedom.

[Soledad]

Perhaps instead of picking my words, you should have read the first addition to this thread in its entirety.

"As everybody knows, the PNAC is a think-tank founded in 1997 by the people who are now closest to President Bush - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and so on. It's a pretty safe bet that what PNAC think is what George W. Bush thinks. PNAC represents the thinking of the men now in power in the United States.

PNAC's stated aims are to: "to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests", to achieve "a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad", "to increase defence spending significantly", and to pursue "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

He then gives you a weblink to this organisation's site. If, after reading these, you need more info...I'd be happy to oblige.

PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/)

And seeing as this site is run by William Kristol, I think it's pretty legit.

[micki76]

Well, I was hoping to get your insight, your input rather than someone elses.

[Soledad]

I think I've given you my insight. But my insight isn't really relevant. What is is Richard Perle's, William Kristol's and Donal Rumsfeld's. That's the stuff you need to read.

[micki76]

I guess if you don't care to share, then I won't bother you about this anymore, but it makes it more difficult to take you seriously, Soledad. If you can't even explain it yourself without referring me to a website, well... :confused: :confused: :confused:
Like I said, I prefer not to read "something" on a website, simply because I know how the internet is, I could say I'm anyone and say anything I chose, but that doesn't make it true.

All I've seen of your insight is that you're against this war and you think we're taking over the Middle East. I just wanted to know how you came to these conclusions. That's all. Was it from reading info on this website you're referring me to? Sorry to bother you, I just thought you'd welcome the chance make your argument.

[Soledad]

You clearly do not want to read what I've supplied you with. Why is that?

I would supply you with more references, but I don't think you will actually read them.

I've stated my opinions. You wanted to know where I'd gotten this stuff from, I supplied a reference, and you say that's not enough? Wow, you sure read fast.

I find it hard to take someone seriously who refuses to read a few things.

[micki76]

Well, its the same site as in the original post and I have read a good bit of it already. It's been up here all day.
It doesn't matter if you take me seriously or not. I just wanted to know. Forget it.

[Soledad]

Well, I'd like to know your thoughts on what you've read. Does it make sense to you? Do you see where their line of logic is going?

[micki76]

I've read quite a bit, not all of it. No, I don't see anything that intimates "Middle Eastern domination".
In the Statement On Post War Iraq I read this :
'The United States military will necessarily bear much of the initial burden of maintaining stability in Iraq, securing its territorial integrity, finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction, and supporting efforts to deliver humanitarian assistance to those most in need. For the next year or more, U.S and coalition troops will have to comprise the bulk of the total international military presence in Iraq. But as the security situation permits, authority should transfer to civilian agencies, and to representatives of the Iraqi people themselves. Much of the long-term security presence, as well as the resources for reconstruction, will have to come from our allies in Europe and elsewhere - suggesting the importance of involving the NATO Alliance and other international institutions early in any planning and implementation of the post-conflict stage.'

I read that we're going to give them their country after we secure its independence. I don't read that we're taking over the Middle East as our own. I've looked for it and I don't see it. That was why I was asking you how you formed your opinions.

[micki76]

In the Second Statement on Post War Iraq I read:
'The Iraqi people committed to a democratic future must be fully involved in this process in order for it to succeed. Consistent with security requirements, our goal should be to progressively transfer authority as soon as possible to enable Iraqis to control their own destiny. Millions of Iraqis are untainted by service to the Ba'athist dictatorship and are committed to the establishment of democratic institutions. It is these Iraqis - not Americans, Europeans or international bureaucrats - who should make political and economic decisions on behalf of Iraq.'


And this:
'Administration of post-war Iraq should from the beginning include not only Americans but officials from those countries committed to our goals in Iraq. Bringing different nationalities into the administrative organization is important because it allows us to draw on the expertise others have acquired from their own previous peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts. It will also facilitate closer and more effective ties between the security forces in post-war Iraq and those charged with administrating the political and economic rebuilding of Iraq.'

I still do not see it. I'm still reading.

[Soledad]

Try reading in between the lines at times. They're not going to be obvious about it.

[micki76]

I can read between the lines in anything ever written, if I so choose. Soledad, I thought you had an argument here, but apparently you choose to "read between the lines". I could do that with every facet of life, but where would that get me? I could read between the lines of the constitution, of the bible, of Shakespeare for that matter.

Why wouldn' they come right out and say it? If that's truly how the feel and they're goal. Wouldn't they get much more support from people who would actually like to see that happen? Doesn;t make much sense to set up a site and then expect everyone to read between the lines.

[mugsy]

Soledad, I see where you're going with it, but I have to agree with Micki that the overall tone of the article is one of giving the people Iraq control of their own country, with help. Now, I'm sure that the U.S. will back the candidates that will be most helpful to the U.S., but, I'm not sure where the crime is in that.

[Soledad]

What I'm saying Micki, is that they are not going to say "we are going to go out and dominate the middle east, take over their oil wells, install military bases and impose American values on them." They would no more say that than say "we are going to war and we are going to kill a lot of innocent civilians and little Iraqi children", they are going to say "collateral damage." It's just the system. It's politics, Micki, they aren't going to "tell it like it is" if it's going to look bad in anyway.

[mugsy]

I guess I'm not getting the whole thing with collateral damage. It's the price of war. I asked my parents about how it was during WWII and they said there was not the discussion about it. It was accepted as part of the horribleness of war and nobody laid blame to anyone else for it.

[Soledad]

I wasn't contesting the use of the word collateral damage, just implying that it is a euphemism and that there is more behind those two rather clinical sounding words than most would expect.

It sure sounds better than massive civilian death, don't you think?

[mugsy]

But what I was saying was that in other wars that was not an issue, rather it was accepted as being a horrible part of war.

[Soledad]

That's fine, but I wasn't saying that collateral damage was bad, just misleading.

[mugsy]

Gotcha. Sorry, but standing out in the cold for 3 hours this afternoon made my brain tired! lol

[micki76]

Well Soledad, I've done my best to create a discussion of your views and opinions and I can see that's not gonna happen. I was very curious and interested in any information or views that you had, instead I get sent out into the Internet. (I'm generally not to trusting of websites, as they've been notorious for bogus information not saying that’s the case here.)
I reiterate. All I've seen of your insight is that you're against this war and you think we're taking over the Middle East. I just wanted to know how you came to these conclusions. That's all. I just thought you'd welcome the chance make your argument in a way that would enable people to potentially understand and grasp your beliefs about the situation.
I know we're all going off half cocked (myself included) about why this war is right or just, or why it isn't. So many feel the rights of Iraqi's are being violated and just as many others feel like we're doing an injustice if we look the other way and let Saddam continue in power. I HATE war. I FEAR war. I FEAR any person/group that will not even consider attempting to see another viewpoint. That kind of tunnel vision is scary, and I've had my own fair share of it lately.
No, I don't know what the Iraqi people want. I'm not so sure they do either. You don't either. I *think* if it were me living the life of an Iraqi citizen, I would want my freedom. But then again I may not know how to live any other way.

I truly believe that conquering the Middle East is not the goal of our leaders. I also believe if we ever did, it would be the end of our country. We would be blown off the planet. I don't think our leaders are so stupid that they don't realize that.

[Soledad]

That website was a starting point. It is not bogus. I don't know why you have this belief that anything on the internet is somehow shady. This site is run by Kristol, a major advisor to the president. I don't really know what else to say on the matter.

I would give you other information that has helped form my opinion, but it is mostly online and what is not I don't know that I feel like posting internationally (cost and all).

I am left feeling as though you want me to do all the work for you. I came to my conclusions about this war because A LOT of study and reading, if you cannot do some of it, then I can't really help you.

:confused:

[catland]

Originally posted by Soledad
My idea of patriotism is a little different. It goes like this:

A true patriot listens to the world. Because no country exists in a vacuum.

A true patriot is offended by unfair, unfounded accusations that hold no water.

A true patriot listens to legitimate criticism in an attempt to hold their politicians accountable to true American ideals.

A true patriot is big enough to know when their country has gone down the wrong path, is not afraid to admit it, and actually does something to change it.

Here's what I DON'T believe what a patriot is:

A patriot does not say "my country right or wrong" and let their country go down the toilet in the process.

A patriot does not put a leader before the country.

A patriot does not seek to silence others for a differing opinion.

A patriot does not close their eyes and ears to the truth.

A patriot does not refuse to stand back and look at things from a new perspective.

A patriot does not stand by while its freedoms and values are being taken away.

at least this proves that Saddam is NOT a patriot.

[micki76]

Originally posted by micki76
Well Soledad, I've done my best to create a discussion of your views and opinions and I can see that's not gonna happen. I was very curious and interested in any information or views that you had, instead I get sent out into the Internet. (I'm generally not to trusting of websites, as they've been notorious for bogus information not saying that’s the case here.)
I reiterate. All I've seen of your insight is that you're against this war and you think we're taking over the Middle East. I just wanted to know how you came to these conclusions. That's all. I just thought you'd welcome the chance make your argument in a way that would enable people to potentially understand and grasp your beliefs about the situation.
I know we're all going off half cocked (myself included) about why this war is right or just, or why it isn't. So many feel the rights of Iraqi's are being violated and just as many others feel like we're doing an injustice if we look the other way and let Saddam continue in power. I HATE war. I FEAR war. I FEAR any person/group that will not even consider attempting to see another viewpoint. That kind of tunnel vision is scary, and I've had my own fair share of it lately.
No, I don't know what the Iraqi people want. I'm not so sure they do either. You don't either. I *think* if it were me living the life of an Iraqi citizen, I would want my freedom. But then again I may not know how to live any other way.

I truly believe that conquering the Middle East is not the goal of our leaders. I also believe if we ever did, it would be the end of our country. We would be blown off the planet. I don't think our leaders are so stupid that they don't realize that.

Did you read any of this?
No I don't want you do "do all the work for me". I wanted your OPINIONS, IDEAS, INPUT not the "stuff" that's helped you form those opinions. Most people who argue their point so feverishly can (and want to ) do so without sending people off into the (sometimes) never, never land of the internet. I cannot (and do not want to) support an argument "for war" so I don't try. I simply try to support the forces and say a prayer that a madman will be stopped. I don't have all the answers and I don't know how to stop a madman. But I do know I want him stopped.

[Soledad]

I did read it. But what I was trying to tell you was that I had already given you my points and my input and was trying to show you some sources that lead me to those points of view. You were not willing to read them because they were on the internet (oh the irony).

I think everyone here on the Doghouse has seen my input and point of view. Why should I rehash it all? I'm wondering why you're backtracking when you originally asked for sources as to why I think the way I do. And I'm also wondering why you've returned after your declaration to leave the Doghouse for good because the only reason people are here for is a fight?:rolleyes:

[micki76]

And I'm also wondering why you've returned after your declaration to leave the Doghouse for good because the only reason people are here for is a fight?

Please don't be so angry. You're only reinforcing my statement. I saw that you had posted in this forum and got excited and thought you might like to actually have a conversation instead of an argument. My mistake. I don't think I said I'd NEVER return. This is the exact reason why I don't like the doghouse too much, but I am interested in different views and opinions. I'm quite curious about this issue and question many things about it.


You were not willing to read them because they were on the internet (oh the irony).

I read the one website that you keep touting. Don't say I didn't read it; I gave you direct quotes from it! Just because I don't chose to "read between the lines" and I don't glean the same thing you do from it doesn't mean I didn't read it!


I'm wondering why you're backtracking when you originally asked for sources as to why I think the way I do.

Where am I backtracking? I read your sources and became interested. You became angry for some reason and have continually been rude to me when I am only asking some basic questions. Oh the gall that I must have! :rolleyes: You act like I am interrogating you. Don't be so defensive. I am very interested in learning from others. Their views, their reasoning, etc. I obviously asked you for something that you either don't have or are not willing to share for some reason.

If you don't want me to ask, then why are you even here? You posed some interesting theories and I've come to believe some of the anti war sentiments I've read here, so I was INTERESTED. EXCUSE ME!!!

[Soledad]

I'm not as angry as you think I am. If you want to discuss this further, perhaps we should PM each other? I am more than happy to have an exchange and share my views in an environment conducive to civil debate. I don't believe the Doghouse is such an environment, but I am happy to discuss with you one on one my beliefs and further resources.:)

[micki76]

I have PM'd you Soledad.

[yorkster]

Originally posted by Soledad

And I don't think it's necessary to call other countries "insignificant" because you don't like ONE person's opinion.





I agree with this- calling another person's country "insignificant" is NOT nice whether you agree with their beliefs or not. I can't believe that there are so many of you out there that seemed to think that it was okay.........................:(
There have been other 'not so nice' remarks also, from other P. Talkers.

I have not been involved with PT too much lately, but saw all this stuff and could not believe the way it's all going here with this subject. My husband and I disagree about the war, and my sister and I do also. W don't get rude with each other about it though.

I don't like America-bashing any more than the rest of you, but there are some peole here from these other countries that simply are against the war, and have said so. That does not make them 'America-bashers' :confused:

On one the other threads on this subject, I believe *cheetahgirl* expressed some fear and concern because of living so close to Iraq and the war. Now, she may not be a huge USA fan either, but I did not see anything that she wrote that was exactily bashing us.
Besides, how can any of us here in the states really know how it feels to live so close to the war that is going-on and all the fall-out that is going to happen (whatever that may be)?

Here is my opinion:
I support our troops 100%. I pray for them daily.
I don't however, support the war, and I don't believe that it makes me a BAD AMERICAN.
Freedom of Speech applies to everyone, even people like me!

And by-the-way, I am an American. Born here, raised here.
I have a cousin that is in Iraq, and also the husband (and father too) of a good friend of mine. So you see, I DO care.

[Edwina's Secretary]

I proudly registered to vote on my 18th birthday and have not missed voting in a local, state or national election. I vote without regard to party, race or gender. I vote for the person I believe to be best qualified. I have voted for as many Republicans as Democrats. I consider voting together just about the sexiest and most romantic thing my husband and I do. I have willingly and proudly served on jury duty.

I am a war protester.

My mother’s family has been in this country since before the Revolutionary War (a HUGE protest against the government.) My father’s family immigrated fairly recently – in search of economic opportunity and religious freedom.

I am a war protester.

I read a daily newspaper and 2-3 news magazines a week. I am a student of world and U.S. history (I teach a course that uses US labor history to explain US labor law.) I pay my taxes – not happily but willingly -- as the price of communal living.

I am a war protester.

I consider it my obligation as a citizen to know history, geography, current events and to decide my position as a result. I see no contradiction between being a patriot and being opposed to this war and the actions of this administration. I have family members and friends with different beliefs – however I still drink their wine and eat their food – and they mine. And I hope and believe that any rational member of the armed forces enlisted in order to protect a country based on freedom – including the freedom to protest.

[mugsy]

You're right Sara, the men and women in the military DO fight for our right to protest, but, when asked, a lot, if not most, would say that they don't appreciate war protest when they're over there, putting their butts on the line, and some of their own countrymen (and women) are flaunting how much they hate the war. Just an opinion. And, just for the record, while I don't agree with war protesters I will defend to the death their right to do it.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Mugsy,

Some of the decisions made by the leaders of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen were appalling, bad, wrong. That doesn't mean that the hardworking men and women of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen were appalling, bad, or wrong. They were doing the job they were asked to do, to the best of their abilities, and proud of the work they did.

My disagreement is with the leadership team.

[yorkster]

Originally posted by Edwina's Secretary
Mugsy,

Some of the decisions made by the leaders of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen were appalling, bad, wrong. That doesn't mean that the hardworking men and women of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen were appalling, bad, or wrong. They were doing the job they were asked to do, to the best of their abilities, and proud of the work they did.

My disagreement is with the leadership team.


You're right-on about that Edwina's Secrectary!
I could not have worded it better myself.