View Full Version : Is dissension Wrong?
K0YNE
10-12-2004, 03:32 AM
I have to disagree with those who say, dissenting against the war or Bush is bad. So, When does one dissent? After a war rages for years or at the beginning?
Just remember that's how we became a nation. By dissent.
Hard to believe isn't it. No one has argued this side on the debate yet? If we hadn't been a nation of dissenters, we would still be property of England. Maybe worse, France.
We had a nation of dissenters during Viet Nam. Our boys coming home were'nt welcomed by ticker tape parades, and worse, scorned. It wasn't their fault. All they were doing is being soldiers.
You had all better thank God you can be a dissenter in this great country. Not afraid to speak your mind whenever and wherever.
So, in short, negative comments about the war and things Bush does, is an American right and guaranteed by the constitution.
amen....
K6UEY
10-12-2004, 04:13 AM
KØNYE,
I think dissent is a healthy thing and as American's we can enjoy that as the right of it's citizens. However nothing is FREE,the price of Freedom is one everyone is required to pay. Being a citizen involves far more than demostrating at a political rally,simply because you think you have the right.It requires all citizens stand together for the good of the Nation.
When we are attacked and the country is in the state of WAR it is the RIGHT of every citizen to bond together to repel the common enemy in any way we as individuals can.It is NOT the time to offer dissent and to encourage our FOE and attempt to divide the country.
You want to excercise your right of dissent then do it at the appropiate time,when the country is at peace,do it by voting for the candidate who reflects your personal political views. Write your Congressman,do you know who the Congress represenative for your district is ? Write BOTH of your Senators,tell them what you expect them to do for you.Vote for or against the local Bond measures,for your local Mayor,when was the last time you called or wrote to your local city council represenative.
YOU BETCHUM ,KIMOSABE I believe in dissent but not from some one who sits on their big behind until their support is needed then objects to the decision that had to be made.
I do not know you personally,nor do I know how much you get involved in the running of this country,but you will admit the largest number of the populace DO NOTHING until it is past time for their intervention.
My Pappy used to tell me "There is a time and a place for every thing under the Sun" and on my own I learned I may not always be aware of the time, but he was right.
If it is your GOD given right to protest, then protest some yahoo's disturbing the peace and tranquility of this country!!
We are a proud and peaceful country,but when it is time to Kick Ass we can do that too!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
-- excerpt from the Sedition Act of 1798
Cortland
K0YNE
10-12-2004, 02:20 PM
ka5s, what you say clearly overrides the first amendment, and the people of the united states as in "We the people" , therefore has no substance at all and would allow for "the people" to have no further input into the nation. Absolutely no and I don't know of a single case where 2000 dollars were fined to citizens of the United States for speaking out. It is a privelage or a right of people to dissent. Unquote...
As far as supporting our troops, that is another issue entirely. You can protest against the governments action and still be loyal to our military fighting personnel. Dissent, Dissent and Dissent is what keeps our government on the straight and narrow.
K0RGR
10-12-2004, 03:13 PM
It's very interesting that you bring out the Sedition Act - this law was passed by the Federalists to stifle the political opposition led by Thomas Jefferson. As a result of this law, several Democratic Republican newspapers were closed and their editors were jailed, for publishing editorials that "defamed" the president. I suppose that our current Attorney General is trying to resurrect this thing and show that it is still in force? Congress pardoned those convicted under the statute and compensated them for their trouble.
kb3cvo
10-12-2004, 03:15 PM
Quote[/b] (K0YNE @ Oct. 12 2004,16:20)]As far as supporting our troops, that is another issue entirely. You can protest against the governments action and still be loyal to our military fighting personnel. Dissent, Dissent and Dissent is what keeps our government on the straight and narrow.
Voicing an opinion is a very good thing, within limitations. How are you supporting our troops by sending the message that they are fighting a war for no reason? Is it support to say "you are doing a good job and we love you even though what you are doing is worthless and evil"? That is the message that is going out from the professional dissenters on a daily basis.
As Bill Clinton would put it, It all depends on your meaning of dissent.
Back in the late 60s and early 70s there was a lot of discussion on college campuses concerning this subject. It was thought that a body of organized dissent would force Johnson, and later, Nixon to see that Vietnam was not winable (at least the way they were fighting it) and bring the troops home.
There were peaceful marches, lots of op ed articles, Lots of TV and Radio time expended to those who were disenting against the war, and a slow process of changing the minds of the American people was beginning to take root.
The problem was that most of it became rather disoganized, and degenerated into splinter groups, some of which became rather violent #and resorted to blowing up ROTC centers and other military related targets,(and killing some people in the process) robbing banks to finance their form of terrorism against the government, taking over college administrative offices and, in some of the the most unjust actions of all (IMHO) literally spitting on the troops who were rotating back from Veitnam and labeling them as baby killers.
We found out later that dissent in the United States only encouraged the North Vietnamese to hang on with the hope that we would, one day soon, give up. As they hung on, gaining more confidence that the dissent in the US would ultimately assure them the victory, more people died.
You have every right to dissent, on any issue, but bear in mind that there could be consequences you never thought of.
I assume you are dissenting against John Kerry's war plans (almost identical to what Bush wants to do, and are supporting one of the other choices. It really does not make sense for you to do anything else.
73
George
K3UD
Dissent is perfectly okay. But as others mentioned, you should think about the consequences of your actions.
Apply it to candidate Kerry. He was perfectly with in his right to dissent back in the 70's. He was not within his right to lie to congress or to embellish the truth. Further, he was not within his right to go to Paris and meet with VC/NV officials on his "honeymoon". He was not authrorized to represent the USA in matters of foreign policy. He did far more than dissent.
K3STX
10-12-2004, 05:05 PM
CVO:
Are you saying that if someone feels that a war is unjust it is our patriotic duty to suck-it-up and shut up for fear of offending our soldiers? If our soldiers are indeed fighting a war for no reason don't you think it might be a good idea to actually stop the war and get them home? Only by speaking out can any change be realized.
I frankly do not understand the logic that equates someones support for soldiers with support for the politicians that decide when/when not to go to war. The soldiers are only following orders: is it not possible that the orders are ill-advised?
paul
K0RGR
10-12-2004, 05:22 PM
Quote[/b] (kb3cvo @ Oct. 12 2004,08:15)]Quote[/b] (K0YNE @ Oct. 12 2004,16:20)]As far as supporting our troops, that is another issue entirely. You can protest against the governments action and still be loyal to our military fighting personnel. Dissent, Dissent and Dissent is what keeps our government on the straight and narrow.
Voicing an opinion is a very good thing, within limitations. How are you supporting our troops by sending the message that they are fighting a war for no reason? Is it support to say "you are doing a good job and we love you even though what you are doing is worthless and evil"? That is the message that is going out from the professional dissenters on a daily basis.
No, that is the message President Bushlit is telling you Kerry is sending. Kerry agrees that the world is a better place without Saddam, and that we have no choice but to finish the job in Iraq. He quoted our Secretary of State in the first debate, who told Mr. Bush "If you break it, you bought it". We broke it, so now we have to fix it.
Here's an interesting dissent from a conservative voice:
Eisenhower (http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657)
Quote[/b] (K3STX @ Oct. 12 2004,10:05)]If our soldiers are indeed fighting a war for no reason don't you think it might be a good idea to actually stop the war and get them home?
Lunatic.
Quote[/b] (K0YNE @ Oct. 12 2004,07:20)]Dissent, Dissent and Dissent is what keeps our government on the straight and narrow.
We do not disagree on what I have quoted. But as far as no one being arrested...
"Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Only 15 prosecutions under the act, eight were of prominent Jeffersonian editors who attacked President Adams. Far from inhibiting dissent, the laws stirred dissension among Adams' own supporters. It was America's first peacetime sedition law; none again until 1940."
http://www.comm.wayne.edu/images/wright/02_firstamend.html
Same site (different Sedition Act):
"In 1918, the Sedition Act, an amendment to the Espionage Act, made it a crime to use language intended to cause scorn to the government. About 2,000 were prosecuted under these laws, 900 convicted; most were aliens, radicals, publishers of foreign-language newspapers."
Interesting Web site.
Cortland
N7AAO
10-13-2004, 02:30 AM
I just have one question.
Was it wrong when Republicans were dissenting against Clinton sending troops into Bosnia and Haiti?
Dissent is the American way. We've done it since 1776. Problem is, there did not used to be global communications. Newspapers, then radio, then TV, now the Internet have made it impossible for us to do our thing in a relative vacuum. It all started to change with WWII. Remember the slogan "Loose lips sink ships"? #
Somewhere along the line, the notion of freedom got perverted. Freedom is not absolute. Some common sense must be applied too. (Maybe that's the root of the problem, since lawyers have turned that into a thing of the past.) In our zeal to overtake the political party that is in power, we have opened our kimonos and revealed a lot of stuff that we should not be broadcasting to the world. Other nations and terrorists have easy access to that information now for the first time in history and can use it as propaganda to keep their side from getting demoralized. Psychological warfare is a reality.
So how do we retain our right to dissent while still presenting a united front to the enemy? That's a tough one. How do you "support the troops" when you disagree with what they are being asked to do? If you disagree with the war, then every word out of your mouth implies that their sacrifices are in vain, thus demoralizing them and thus NOT supporting them. It used to be possible to keep this kind of dissent from them, but that's not possible anymore. Thus, I think the nation has to rally behind the commander-in-chief and support the decision, once made. Fight the war, win it, then make changes if you don't like the way it was handled. Another quote from WWII is apropos here: "Don't change horses in the middle of the stream." In other words, let George finish the job, for better or worse. By electing Kerry, you are trading known problems for a new set of unknowns. That's just not smart.
Another way of thinking about it is to put it on a personal level. Suppose you work at a company in which you disagree with a management decision. What do you do about it? If you are smart, you will shut up and obey it. It may really piss you off, but you do it for the good of the company. After all, you can't possibly know all the things that went into the decision. Your alternative is to make a scene and likely get fired (or at least reduced in rank), or quit and find a job where you agree with management more. You can't really quit the country, but you can try to trust that the administration is doing its best to address each problem that comes up.
Being a citizen involves far more than demostrating at a political rally,simply because you think you have the right.It requires all citizens stand together for the good of the Nation.
K6UEY
Just who decides what the "good of the nation" is?
Those in POWER, that's who, but I don't always or even often agree with those in power.
The "good of the nation," is not always a black and white issue that is self apparent to everyone.
In fact, I would venture that it rarely is so simple, notwithstanding the Republican side of the isle trying so hard to make it so - a black and white word in what is in reality a not so black and white world.
Even when there is substantial agreement among the citizenry regarding what the "good" is, the measures that should be taken to secure the "good" are likewise often a matter of belief and opinion.
In other words, the very definition of just what the "good" is and the means to secure it are by nature
political questions and this is why dissent is a protected right in any and all contexts - even open warfare with another state.
"When we are attacked and the country is in the state of WAR it is the RIGHT of every citizen to bond together to repel the common enemy in any way we as individuals can.It is NOT the time to offer dissent and to encourage our FOE and attempt to divide the country."
K6UEY
In the context of current affairs, it seems that you are making reference to the Iraqi war and those who dissent to it.
This is a prime example of that which I mentioned above.
YOU believe that the Iraqi War has something to do with 911 and terrorism I suppose but not everyone does - not to mention that the 911 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation regarding our "intelligence failures" has made it public that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and hence, never "attacked us" as you seem to imply.
However, you also seem to imply that to be a good citizen loyal to my country, I MUST submit to YOUR interpretation of what is politically orthodox, i.e., that Iraq DID have something to do with 911 and that the Iraqi War was and is justified in light of the war on terrorism.
I am convicted that the above is simply false.
Our leaders decided, quite in error I believe, that the Iraqi war was good idea. They defined Iraq as a threat while at least implying that it had something to do with 911 and hence an enemy when my own conscience told me otherwise.
Now, even they admit that no threat at all existed from Iraq, that it had nothing to do with 911, despite Hussein's domestic treachery, yet they still maintain that the war was justified, even when their initial justifications for it have proven untrue.
Yet you demand that I believe...you imply that because I oppose the Iraqi war, I am not a good citizen - I MUST submit, like a damned SERF, to the dictates of those in power on this issue, or risk having my loyalty called into question.
Am I supposed to yell "Hail Caesar! too?
Who made you God, UEY, that you and those agreeing with you enjoy the right to define what is true, right, sublime, American, and patriotic?
TP
w5klb
10-13-2004, 05:41 AM
Quote[/b] (N8LXR @ Oct. 12 2004,20:30)]Our leaders decided, quite in error I believe, that the Iraqi war was good idea. #They defined Iraq as a threat while at least implying that it had something to do with 911 and hence an enemy when my own conscience told me otherwise.
Now, even they admit that no threat at all existed from Iraq, that it had nothing to do with 911, #despite Hussein's domestic treachery, yet they still maintain that the war was justified, even when their initial justifications for it have proven untrue.
What you are posting isn't exactly right. The reason why we went to Iraq was to stop "Bootlicker" from giving WMD to terrorist. Saddam's hatred for us had no bounds. The UN beleaved he had WMD and so did Klinton. So, yes I beleave it had a lot to do with 9/11.
Today I listened to a young Marine speak who has just returned from serving 8 mounths of duty in Iraq. He claims that the whole country was being used as a terrorist training ground. "No threat..."? Yeah, right.
One other thing...
I find it quite laughable when liberals say they support our troops but not The President. The Military has a Chain of Command which happens to include our current Commander in Chief George W. Bush. My point is that if you claim you support the troops than you have to support the President who is at the top of that Chain of Command.
Nice spin!
W5KLB states:
"The reason why we went to Iraq was to stop "Bootlicker" from giving WMD to terrorists."
Nope. Stop right there. I understood the reasons as being far more than "We are attacking because Hussein MIGHT do this or that."
I believe that the American public never would have supported the war for a "might."
THEY told us that Hussein had weapons and was a threat to United States, that the State of Iraq was a threat...there was no "He might do this or that...it was a solid, absolute HE DOES have weapons and IS threatening us (He did not and was not...but I digress) ....I do not recall, in the run up to the war, when the Bush Folk were busy banging the war drum amid stories of mushroom clouds and flying drones that could attack our homeland, all of which has turned out to be pure Hollywood balderdash, that they ever really tried to justify this war with a "might" statement.
They were absolute. They were firm. Iraq IS a threat and is threatening NOW. We MUST attack NOW BEFORE he gets us.
Of course, there was intelligence to challenge this claim....read sometime the story of a Republican intelligence officer named Karen Kwiatowski who worked in Dick Cheney's "Office of Special Plans" who resigned in disgust over the gross politicization of intelligence over the Iraq matter.
(You can find here story by just doing a search on the net for her name.)
Of course, true to form, our leaders now scramble to justify the damned war using creature conjecture.
Might have....
Could have....
Possibly........................
But if you know anything about the Judeo/Christian teaching regarding "just war," you must know that starting a war for "MIGHT, POSSIBLE, MAYBE" reasons does not satisfy the condition that a just war can ONLY be fought to ward off a true, immediate, and imminent threat or actual attack...of which this war falls well short of.
K6UEY
10-13-2004, 07:00 AM
N8LXR,
My first thought was that your post was so assinine it did not deserve a reply,but just to clear up a point NO ONE appointed me GOD and I never claimed to be,so my question to you, who proclaimed you the un-informed a$$ that you are pretending to be? You can not be as ignorant as your post displays you to be. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
POST EDIT:
Why don't you tell Sadamn about starting wars,as you MUST know he started this war years ago,all we did was end it.And if wasn't for the paper tiger UN it would have been ended a long time ago. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Actually, Bush's argument is that "might" (as in "maybe") IS INDEED the reason for going to war. He says it over and over and it doesn't seem to sink in. The United States has changed its policy from one of reaction to one of action. We used to wait until we were attacked and then respond. When this was on foreign soil it may have been palatable, since it would represent the deaths of "only" a couple hundred soldiers. But when 3000 CIVILIANS are mercilessly slaughtered in our own country, and the message is that the attackers have declared a never-ending holy war against us, a change in the status quo is required.
Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya and others posed a threat to us in that their leaders were either plotting against us directly, working with terrorists to create WMDs, had a history of using WMDs or other nasty stuff. You can't negotiate with these dudes, you have no choice but to utterly and completely annihilate them. And no one else has the strength to do so. We have taken off the kid gloves. Kerry wants to put them back on, which will do nothing but strengthen those who wish to destroy us.
Is the threat of terrorism greater now than before the war? You bet! And that's a GOOD thing. Because we have rattled the hornet's nest, we have a chance of finding them. This is war, not pattycake. Let's win the damn thing for once. And putting antiwar protesters in office ain't the way to do that.
N7AAO
10-13-2004, 02:48 PM
Quote[/b] (w0dz @ Oct. 13 2004,07:45)]Actually, Bush's argument is that "might" (as in "maybe") IS INDEED the reason for going to war. He says it over and over and it doesn't seem to sink in. The United States has changed its policy from one of reaction to one of action. We used to wait until we were attacked and then respond. When this was on foreign soil it may have been palatable, since it would represent the deaths of "only" a couple hundred soldiers. But when 3000 CIVILIANS are mercilessly slaughtered in our own country, and the message is that the attackers have declared a never-ending holy war against us, a change in the status quo is required.
Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya and others posed a threat to us in that their leaders were either plotting against us directly, working with terrorists to create WMDs, had a history of using WMDs or other nasty stuff. You can't negotiate with these dudes, you have no choice but to utterly and completely annihilate them. And no one else has the strength to do so. We have taken off the kid gloves. Kerry wants to put them back on, which will do nothing but strengthen those who wish to destroy us.
Is the threat of terrorism greater now than before the war? You bet! And that's a GOOD thing. Because we have rattled the hornet's nest, we have a chance of finding them. This is war, not pattycake. Let's win the damn thing for once. And putting antiwar protesters in office ain't the way to do that.
If memory serves (and I don't have time to look it up), didn't Bush's State of the Union speech prior to heading into Iraq state very clearly that the threat was/is not imminent, but that we cannot wait for it to become imminent?
I guess the liberals would rather we waited until Saddam unleashed his bio-weapons on a US city before taking care of the problem... that would have been an imminent threat, after all... as in "Americans have died."
KB9YCO
10-13-2004, 03:14 PM
Quote[/b] (N8LXR @ Oct. 12 2004,22:30)]Who made you God, UEY, that you and those agreeing with you enjoy the right to define what is true, right, sublime, American, and patriotic?
That seems to be the popular thing to do amongst the extremist right wing; that's extremist, as in extreme and not representing the mainstream majority.
Orv always does a wonderful job of representing the extremist right wing religious faction that sees nothing beyond their version of the world. Of course he'd see your post as assinine because it dares to question that rigid vision of the life that he has been spoonfed to believe all his life. No need to think when all the answers are written for you (sounds like the presidential debates.)
And again, we were not attacked by Iraq, we were distracted by Iraq, at least our current administration was, and to not point that out or to simply assume that we blindly support a misled administration just because we are at war is truly assinine and as un-American as possible.
AAO:
You seem to miss the point...
There were NO bio weapons...
There were NO WMD...
There could be NO immenent threat...
It was all a figment of Bush's and PNAC's imagination...
These people [Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al] must go before they cause more damage to this country and it's reputation...
NEVER, EVER, should this country invade another without first being invaded or without a declaration of war from the other country...
I am horribly ashamed of our actions towards Iraq...
Afghanistan asked for it... Iraq was contained...
What is more important is I am ashamed of our government wasting good young American lives for no damned reason...
I humbly appologize to all those families who have lost loved ones in this travisty... I wish I had some way to make it up to them...
This whole Iraq thing saddens me so...
K6UEY
10-13-2004, 10:36 PM
NØPU,
NO Harry you seem to miss the point. If we are to wait until the threat is carried out it is too late. How many US citizens have to be killed to make the attack justified??
Maybe your Senator Kerry can introduce a bill to Congress giving the US body count that is to be attained before we defend ourselves.
Sadam had used WMD on his own people,even a socialist can not deny that,so he had the capability and we now know he had the intent to generate more,a procedure that could take from 2 weeks to 2 months. We now know that he was close to having Nuclear Weapons,he was systematically buying off the United Nations with his OIL kick backs,buttering up them to lift the sanctions.Which was simply a matter of time. We now know he had the intent to start up his Nuclear program as soon as the sanctions were lifted. ALL the intelligence sources in the Western Free World were convinced he already had added Nuclear weapons to his arsenal. We know he would have used it or at the least sold a few to Bin Laden,who by the way we now know used Iraq as one of his training grounds. If Bush had not acted you would be one of the first to challenge why he was not protecting our country. What would you have him do, wait and see how big the mushroom cloud is before acting ? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
It is quite risk free to judge by hindsight and usually 100% accurate,but to take action when it is required takes some one who has the knowledge and the Guts to act. Two qualities Senator Kerry does not posses.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
KB9YCO
10-13-2004, 10:40 PM
If that were truly the point, then what about Iran, North Korea, etc.? What about countries that have already admitted they are producing nuclear weapons and programs?
Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ Oct. 13 2004,17:36)]NØPU,
NO Harry you seem to miss the point. If we are to wait until the threat is carried out it is too late. How many US citizens have to be killed to make the attack justified??
The REAL point is Saddam didn't do it to US...
and we have no business in another country without an invite... and we didn't get one from Iraq...
And you can tell the same lies Bush told over and over and over again and they will never ever be true..
K6UEY
10-13-2004, 11:40 PM
NØPU,
Harry actually he did invite us in. Under the conditions of the cease fire after his attack on Kuwait,he was required to meet conditions which he failed,he also attacked and fired missles at patrol aircraft in the NO FLY ZONE, there fore under the United Nations resolutions he was at fault.
He threatend our President,even conspired to have him murdered,a plan that was fortunately foiled,he had declared vengance against us and if the intelligence of the FREE WORLD had been correct about his Nuclear Program we were at imminent threat.We only by the grace of GOD lucked out on his Nuclear Program, mostly because his scientist's did not like what he was up to and drug their feet in his first attempt.
However he had planned to reinstate the program as soon as the UN sanctions were lifted.Several major votes on the UN Security Council were having their palms greased by him on the OIL for food kick back program, in an effort to buy their vote to lift the sanctions.
Some specialized equipment was needed and the sanctions kept him from buying it,of course in time he would have probably found what he needed in France or N.Korea or Pakistan.
As I'm sure you are well aware the making of the bomb is nothing that a NCT could not do, but the processing of the fuel is the hard part,and they were well into the solution. All he had to do was build one and sell or give it to Bin Laden and the story would have a drastic ending.
As to N.Korea,those talks have been underway bi-laterally with China for some time and only the uninformed would not be aware of that.In fact Kerry wants to screw up those talks,by excluding China and making it a Unilateral discussion or taking it before the World Summit he wants to convene,that would torpedo all chances of getting a satifactory solution.
In the case of Iran,the invasion of Iraq played a key role,in providing stability to the region. Presently The Soviets are building #Breeder Reactors all over Iran,again the problem of processing the fuel required for the bombs.
I am amazed at how the American public can be so IGNORANT as to what is going on in the world, yet from that position of ignorance be so vocal as to what should take place. #
Some times reality can be stranger than fiction........ http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
ai4ep
10-13-2004, 11:49 PM
so, based on what it APPEARS that some one might be saying in posts above this one ( even on previous pages )
If we are attacked, and AMERICAN civilians ( possibly your neighbors, co - workers, relatives, friends ) are killed....
that YOU are saying that we
might / could / may be some day think of striking back / if we ever do / unless those who attack us ask for forgiveness /
HEY, since you have so much compassion for the terrorists...go live with them.
NO ONE here will miss you.
w5klb
10-13-2004, 11:50 PM
LXR,
Might... could have... ect. By your own words the threat was there. In your last post to me you referr to "they". In that you are giving the half truth that it was ONLY the Bush Administration. "They" also includes the Unitied Nations. By the intellegance that the UN (you do remember them don't you?) had been recieving, the THE WHOLE WORD, not just this country, thought that "Bootlicker" had weapons. So when you referr to "they" include the United Nations on this next time. In the interest of fairness to your side of the debate, we have found out that the intellegance recieved was faulty. If you will recall, George Tennant, then head of our intellegance resigned over this.
The plain truth of the matter is that the WHOLE WORD is better off without "Bootlicker". This tyrant dictator is, IMHO, a WMD himself! Just look at the number of people he has killed in his own country.
It is in the WHOLE WORD'S best interest to compleat the job that we have started. Senator Kerry in his last debate also admits to this. The people of Iraq want to be free. The the majority of the media would like us to beleave otherwise. They flat refuse to show the all the good that we are doing over there and are too busy making up lies to defame the current administration.
The theat was there. Why do we need a "permission slip" from the UN to defend ourselves? How many resolutions did they fail to enforce? It was obvious that they were going to do NOTHING. They are STILL doing nothing. They have seem to become another "League of Nations".
If left up to your thinking, instead of planes being flown into a tower, it could of been far worst. The people of New York City would have "glowing in the dark".
I do not want to see another event like what happen to the good people of New York. I would much rather see us hunt down the terriorist and tyrants where they are hiding insted of us allowing them to try something far worse on our shores. And I am truly concerned that if we elect Kerry, that is just what's going to happen again... and again... and again...
w5klb
10-14-2004, 12:09 AM
Quote[/b] (N0PU @ Oct. 13 2004,15:55)]Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ Oct. 13 2004,17:36)]NØPU,
NO Harry you seem to miss the point. If we are to wait until the threat is carried out it is too late. How many US citizens have to be killed to make the attack justified??
The REAL point is Saddam didn't do it to US...
and we have no business in another country without an invite... and we didn't get one from Iraq...
And you can tell the same lies Bush told over and over and over again and they will never ever be true..
Harry, Mr. PU Himself! Glad to see that you are recovering well from your illness!
I gotta RESPECFULLY disagree. If Bush was telling "a lie" then the so was the UN including a former President.
Once again, Saddam's hatred for this country had no bounds. If left to his own devices, I strongly beleave he would have used any means availible to bring us down including the use of terriorist with nuclear weapons. He had the knowledge. It was a well known fact he had the will. What do you think that the "Oil for Food" scandel was all about? Skirting UN sanctions so that Saddam could build up his weapons program.
I may dissagree with you Harry, but I am truly glad to see you posting again. I wish you continued good health and a long life shipmate.
N7AAO
10-14-2004, 12:30 AM
PU...
I, personally, don't want to wait for Saddam or some other nut-case to attack us before we begin to take action.
We lost 3,000 people on a sunny September morning 3 years ago because the threat wasn't considered "imminent" enough to do anything about.
September 11 changed everything except Kerry's mind (he even said so in his NYT Magazine piece). We must eliminate threats before they become imminent.
The ISG report clearly shows that Saddam was working to rebuild his WMD programs. At what point is the threat big enough to act? When someone dumps bio-weapons into the water supply of, say, St. Louis? I dunno about you, but I'd rather not wait that long.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif