We're only as good as our rationale for war

[patrickl]

There is no place on earth where you can live without fear, and no one should ever trust their leaders.

Not as long as "your man" keeps winning elections no.

[Dartful Dodger]

Not as long as "your man" keeps winning elections no.

My point exactly, the people of Norway lived without fear, and they blindly trusted their leaders. 

Then Germany invaded and their leaders gave up with out a fight.

You can't reason with sheep.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You can't reason with sheep.

Which is how I believe Bush "won" the election.   

[mr.Curmudgeon]

no one should ever trust their leaders.

Yet, you seemingly blindly trust Bush. Go figure.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Lest we forget the price of this folly, here is a series of images of a soldier being wounded trying to save his (unbeknownst to him) dead buddy. These boys are being used to "draw fire" from the enemy in a land with no WMD, in a country that posed no direct threat to the U.S.

I think it's all too easy for the "101st Fighting Keyboarders" to forget what we're asking of our troops. They are not playing things to be used on a whim. They shouldn't have been deployed based on a "best guess". They should not have been asked to lay down there lives without fully knowing *exactly* why they were doing it. War, until Bush, was always a last resort.









mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

no one should ever trust their leaders.

Yet, you seemingly blindly trust Bush. Go figure.

When I said "no one should ever trust their leaders" I meant, no one should ever trust their leaders.

I could see how some people might mistake "no one should ever trust their leaders" as, I trust my leader blindly. 

But there are about 3 million more people that understand why that's not what I meant.

[fredster]

War is hell.

Making Peace with madmen is insane.

[Santoro]

<rant removed>
<provocative pictures removed>
mrC

Is this my cue to have a hissy fit about you exploiting the dead to forward your anti-war agenda?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Is this my cue to have a hissy fit about you exploiting the dead to forward your anti-war agenda? 

Bush is exploiting them, not me. Direct your hissy fit accordingly.

P.S. I understand it's hypocritical of me to post them after my objection to your 9/11 photos. However, couple of minor differences, my agenda is obvious and these are not civilians. Furthermore, those of you who supported this war *ASKED* our men/women to go there and be killed.....shouldn't you at least be subjected to the reality of the task?

We've all seen footage of and dealt with 9/11 in our own ways, these soldiers' plight will never make the 11 o'clock news and this occurs on a *daily* basis.

I wouldn't have posted them, if I felt the american media was doing it's job rathering than cow-towing to Bush's sycophantic agenda.

If it bothers you, write your congressmen and express your anger. Call on them to hold Bush accountable for sending troops to die for his intelligence failures.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

War is hell.

Making Peace with madmen is insane.

...and attempting to use war to create peace makes us all madmen.

[Mameotron]

This sorta mentality reminds me of what I dislike most about religion. It requires an absolute fatalistic view of the world. Their is a frickin' solution to the problem, it'll just take work and perseverance to figure it out. Babies are dying fer' cryin' out loud. Baby jesus hates that.

I'll agree with you, let's not turn this into a religous debate.

[DrewKaree]

I'm not sure if you think the above quote is from me, but I'll address your point anyhow.

No, I am crystal clear that Dexter was the originator of the quoted text.  The question addressed to you was only to see what your view was, as I believe you and I to think the same things of our country, that's why the question I asked.  When you say

I believe that, in America, we have a lot more freedoms than most other countries. I also believe that those freedoms are being taken for granted when we allow political obfuscation and fear-mongering to exist as a viable form of government. With these freedoms, comes an enormous responsibility for our citizenry. They are ours, not our governments. Our freedoms mean nothing if we continually live in fear and cannot trust our leaders.

We are largely in agreement on this, which was what I was pointing out when referring to Dexter, and not lumping you in with him on issues such as this.  I lump you in with him on policy, such as this

For as how much freedom you are lacking...I'd say you're free to hold your leaders accountable whenever you'd like, it just seems you don't want to when they are *clearly wrong* and are from your side.

The 'freedom' that you seem to enjoy is very different than that conceived by our forefathers.

The piece you quote speaks to freedoms I believe we strive to maintain.  The level of perfection at attaining these goals is what we all debate about.  Obviously your view of freedom as you put it depends on how well you feel we are meeting those goals.   You say it is a very different freedom, yet those who fight to give back monies not required by the government would point to "wise and frugal".  The level of wisdom or penny-pinching will be determined by each individual and their beliefs.  Restraining men from injuring one another?  Perhaps you live in a community where there is no police presence, but I do not, and those folks are the very definition of that spoken of.  If you believe they are referring to war against another country, I'm of the opinion that you are making one of those "reaches" I spoke earlier of.  Free to regulate their own pursuits and not punish labor.....again, depending on the side you are from, that freedom will take vastly different forms based on each individual's view of what "freedom" is.  In all these instances, America not only has people who believe they are free, but realize the freedom of their opposition to voice their ideas of what "freedom" should be, and the ability to fight to realize their idea of "freedom". 

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

-- Goethe

That's a nice sentiment.  Unfortunately, there is no place in this world where "freedom" won't "enslave" some person.  You're referring to "freedom" as something absolute.  That's a nice philosophical point, but even while putting that idea to paper, he didn't enjoy freedom himself...and yet he was free. 


FarenHype was sloppy seconds.  More of your "valid point of view" no doubt.  And further proof of my point.  Your assessment of the keyboard soldiers here assumes a lot, but at least your acknowledgement of what our soldiers are going through is yet one more thing we can agree about.  We disagree on what our solders should "exactly" know, but again, it's the policy we disagree on, and the main point where we agree.  Will you ever see my point, and I yours?  HIGHLY unlikely, as we have differing levls of trust based on who is making the decision, and our views will simply be based on what we want to believe.  I've got the freedom to believe we have/are/will do the right thing, and you have the freedom to crow from the highest mountain "You're wrong, you're headed down the road to destruction".

That's NOT freedom?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'll agree with you, let's not turn this into a religous debate.  Let me try and illustrate this a different way.

Agreed.

Everything you've said about the reality of the animosity in that region has been spot on. I've never claimed to have the answer. But I'm confident there is one other than, "Let's wait and hitch a ride with the four horsemen!"

I take issue with the misrepresentation of facts in the lead-up to the war in Iraq simply because the vast majority of people in the United States are *not* aware of these issues and we *not* informed as to how these issues would compound the hazards inherent in any military action in the region.

The American public were not trusted, by the Bush administration, to make their own informed decision, nor make one condusive to furthering the admins agenda, so they were spoonfed the WMD/imminent threat story.

I believe the american public, knowing the full, long-term costs, both financially and geopolitically, would *never* have supported a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. 

What does this mean going forward? Well, a couple of things:

1) We're stuck in it now. We can no longer ignore the larger, underlying problems causing strife in the middle east, we are direct players now. These issues are not going to solve themselves, nor be solved through military action.
2) Bush needs to be held accountable, so that future leaders heed the warning of history.  You'd think Vietnam would have taught us a lesson, but it's obviously going to take much more.


mrC

[Dexter]

I'm in agreement with Mr.C on this one. Its now a given that invasion of Iraq was on the table pre 9/11. Plus, the world aren't idiots. Saddam was contained, there were worse atrocities happening, and still happening worldwide, than Saddams treatment of his own people. The evidence, even though intelligence was hand picked to support the invasion rather than looking at the full picture, didn't persuade the UN.

If the Bush admin had been straight with the American people, this war wouldn't have happened. The idea that you can force a democracy on a country with the complicated religious and ethnic structure of Iraq by levelling it was typical of the right wing arrogance that dominates this administration- "We're gonna tell you what you want, give you liberty or give you death, whether you like it or not".

Anybody that thinks the Iraq invasion was about liberation has been brainwashed by the media bombardment of what they want you to see. Over 100,000 dead, blanket unemployment, infrastructure destroyed, their main natural resource and future source of income plundered. Give more warning of who you're liberating next time America, so they have ample time to leave while they still have all of their limbs.

[locash]

The 'freedom' that you seem to enjoy is very different than that conceived by our forefathers.

The piece you quote speaks to freedoms I believe we strive to maintain.  The level of perfection at attaining these goals is what we all debate about.  Obviously your view of freedom as you put it depends on how well you feel we are meeting those goals.   You say it is a very different freedom, yet those who fight to give back monies not required by the government would point to "wise and frugal".  The level of wisdom or penny-pinching will be determined by each individual and their beliefs.  Restraining men from injuring one another?  Perhaps you live in a community where there is no police presence, but I do not, and those folks are the very definition of that spoken of.  If you believe they are referring to war against another country, I'm of the opinion that you are making one of those "reaches" I spoke earlier of.  Free to regulate their own pursuits and not punish labor.....again, depending on the side you are from, that freedom will take vastly different forms based on each individual's view of what "freedom" is.  In all these instances, America not only has people who believe they are free, but realize the freedom of their opposition to voice their ideas of what "freedom" should be, and the ability to fight to realize their idea of "freedom". 

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

-- Goethe

That's a nice sentiment.  Unfortunately, there is no place in this world where "freedom" won't "enslave" some person.  You're referring to "freedom" as something absolute.  That's a nice philosophical point, but even while putting that idea to paper, he didn't enjoy freedom himself...and yet he was free.

I have to respond to your last comment first, because the notion that freedom somehow requires slavery is incomprehensible to me.  I believe that the only limits on freedom should be to prevent people from recklessly endangering others or encroaching on the freedoms of others.  Goethe's ability to put words on paper didn't make him free if he was lacking in freedom in other areas.

As far as the Jefferson quote, I offered it because it speaks to limiting government to protect freedom.  Our government has vastly exceeded the limits envisioned by our forefathers and has become a sort of surrogate parent for the people; eg. seatbelt/helmet laws, recreational drug prohibition, hemp, Plan B (morning after pill), gay marriage, and using income tax monies inappropriately(I can elaborate on what I mean by this, but I think we could all come up with examples).

My point is that we cannot claim to be a free nation just because as individuals we may be tolerable to the freedoms we do without.  We can only accurately claim to be a free nation if everyone is free.

[Dexter]

While we're doing the quote thing boys and girls..

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

[mr.Curmudgeon]

To top it all off, not only was there never any WMD stockpiles, or direct threat to the U.S... but Iraq has now become the *new* terrorist training ground. We're giving these scum live targets to shoot at and on-the-ground training so they can explore/refine tactics. George W. Bush = Aiding Terror Worldwide

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A7460-2005Jan13%20&notFound=true

"In a major new study, the CIA

[locash]

Here's a good one:

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom."

-- John Quincy Adams (1821)

[Dexter]

Nice quote. Pity we're not talking about a war here or it might in some perverse way be apt. We're talking about a pre-emptive invasion against a nation who has NEVER attacked the US. That was NO threat and had NO tactical significance on the supposed real objective, the war on terror. Thats the important thing to remember here.

There was no Iraq war. A handful of a third world countries indigineous people fighting back a superpower invader is not a war, its a massacare. And every supporter of the invasion has the blood of 10s of thousands of women and children on their hands.

[DrewKaree]

I have to respond to your last comment first, because the notion that freedom somehow requires slavery is incomprehensible to me.  I believe that the only limits on freedom should be to prevent people from recklessly endangering others or encroaching on the freedoms of others.  Goethe's ability to put words on paper didn't make him free if he was lacking in freedom in other areas.

Somewhere you read into my comments that freedom somehow requires slavery.  Poppycock.  Never said.  Your second sentence is in basic agreement with me.  That third sentence misses the point you made in your second sentence.  His words, freely spoken, speak to some level of freedom.  Perhaps a freedom you and I wouldn't wish for, but free.  I say again, a nice philosophical statement.

As far as the Jefferson quote, I offered it because it speaks to limiting government to protect freedom.  Our government has vastly exceeded the limits envisioned by our forefathers and has become a sort of surrogate parent for the people; eg. seatbelt/helmet laws, recreational drug prohibition, hemp, Plan B (morning after pill), gay marriage, and using income tax monies inappropriately(I can elaborate on what I mean by this, but I think we could all come up with examples).

My point is that we cannot claim to be a free nation just because as individuals we may be tolerable to the freedoms we do without.  We can only accurately claim to be a free nation if everyone is free.

There is no country in the world that can "accurately" claim to be a free nation, as in each and every case, SOMEONE will not be free.  As you say, we could all come up with examples.  The limits you speak of were put there by representatives elected for and by the people.  Those limits can be altered / removed by representatives elected for and by the people.  Of all the instances you refer to, the only one I can see that may not be changed is the seatbelt/helmet laws.  All the rest of your examples can be shown to be either in the works to alter / remove the law, or is currently coming up for discussion.  The one I wholeheartedly agree with you on is the use of income tax monies inappropriately.  However, the realization that the tax rate was too punitive and the subsequent refund of those monies makes one free based on the amounts they pay, or gives a larger AMOUNT of freedom based on the taxation comparable to another nation, in which case they are free to GO to those countries, or free to work FROM those countries in our nation. 


Thankfully, accoring to Dexter, I enjoy the freedom to be brainwashed in my country.  The difference between his views and mine are that he wishes to pin his rage on the man he disagrees with, whereas I am not free to do so, as "numerous" doesn't begin to describe the examples of belief in the same notion Dexter's rage target believed in, and I'm forced to see that I voted for the person who decided it's time to stop talking about potential problems, and deal with them.  It was where the rubber met the road.

locash, you and I are free to disagree (not the case in some other countries), free to investigate that which we disagree with (definitely not the case elsewhere), free to voice our opinion should we disagree with our representative government (I have a few places I'd like others to give that a whirl), and free to lead our households according to our beliefs in things (I had friends who would have told you of other places, sadly, now they cannot).  You may wish to state America is not a free nation, but it simply is not true.  Different from the founding fathers' ideas of it, sure.  But still free.

[DrewKaree]

We worked to remove that which needed to be removed, and in the process, our CIA, the people who gave "the false information the President used to justify this war", now say they've effectively concentrated them into this area. 

You say bad...bad things....now they'll take it all home with them.  I say good...good things.....now they're coming to us, instead of us having to use tens of thousands of troops to hunt down a few hundred in their native land where they have an advantage.  I say "Toh-may-toh", you say "Kwag-myre".

Dexter, your endless caterwauling is growing ever easier to stomach, yet viewing your words is growing ever harder to read when having to roll my eyes every other sentence.  Don't forget the blood of the innocent men.  I know it doesn't fit your purpose, but somehow, when it comes to accepting the "innocent killing of tens of thousands of innocent PEOPLE" you seem to wish to parse the "people".  It'd be more intellectually honest of you to speak of the people, but I understand your need to parse facts when making your points.  Oh, just wait, gang.  I can hear the reply already    "And when you parse blah blah from blah blah somehow blah blah BLAH blah blah BLAH". 

It's what makes you easier to read each day 

Your level of delusion requires special care in dealing with.....the pretty white coat that buckles up the back.....the needle full of "sleepy-time juice".....

*edited for additional rhetoric* 

[Sephroth57]

remind me never to argue against DrewKaree, he just pwned you





sorry i had to do that, anyway back to the politics

[Dexter]

remind me never to argue against DrewKaree, he just pwned you

sorry i had to do that, anyway back to the politics

Hmm, one person presents facts and debates them, the other responds with the usual personal comments. I love it when Drew does this, it speaks volumes. Lets have a debate..response - Bush won/we did the right thing/go USA/yeehaw/terrorism/get over it/your responses are ********' . Who's owning who really at the end of the day??? With all this intolerance for differences of opinion and debate you should consider running for persident on the republican ticket.

In response: 'Consider yourself served' and all that street talk shite that belongs in the playground alongside 'whassuppppp' etc.

Dexter

[locash]

You said this:

Unfortunately, there is no place in this world where "freedom" won't "enslave" some person.

I am not sure that this is significantly different than what I paraphrased, but at its heart this phrase seems to say that freedom cannot exist without slavery.  I am not suggesting that you think their link is desireable, but nonetheless you're claiming a link.

As far as the U.S. being free, is it:

There is no country in the world that can "accurately" claim to be a free nation, as in each and every case, SOMEONE will not be free.

OR

You may wish to state America is not a free nation, but it simply is not true.  Different from the founding fathers' ideas of it, sure.  But still free.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

We have certain freedoms, but we lack considerable others that our government had no business taking away from us.   

We worked to remove that which needed to be removed.

Who gave us this right?  God?  Are we the chosen people here to spread righteous goodness around the globe?  Most Americans are so convinced of our superiority they never think to ask this question, but who put us in charge?  Might does not make right.

[Dartful Dodger]

I love it when Drew does this, it speaks volumes. Lets have a debate..response - Bush won/we did the right thing/go USA/yeehaw/terrorism/get over it/your responses are ********' .

Those look like my responses. Except Bush won is written like this:

BUSH WON!!!

They may not be as long winded as your responses, but I put just as much thought in them.
And my responses make more sense.

Thank you for giving me the oportunity to type BUSH WON!!!

[locash]

I just found this article that discusses the current buzz in D.C., regarding bailing out of this war.  Some of the more telling statements come from Stratfor (a pro-war intelligence analyst group).  These include:

When discussing why they were for the war in the first place, they recall its purpose:

"[reshape] the behavior of surrounding regimes, particularly of the Saudis."

when discussing the current goals they state:

"[t]he internal governance

[DrewKaree]

Hmm, one person presents facts and debates them

See, stuff like that, that's what I'm talking about.  The gospel truth is all that ever passes your lips (or fingers, in this case) which you gain from all you wish to look at, while my views are always wrong.  Didn't you say something about intolerance?  Kettle, thy name is black.

Who's owning who really at the end of the day??? With all this intolerance for differences of opinion and debate you should consider running for persident on the republican ticket.

I could care less who is "owning" who, as it's strictly in the eye of the beholder.  As for intolerance for differences of opinion, I'll have to ask you to point out for everyone what you view as "intolerance", as I'm fairly certain you have a feeble grasp of what the word means.

alongside 'whassuppppp' etc.

whassuuuuuuppp is the height of advertising excellence.  You sir, are off your rocker

[Mameotron]

locash,

It's all well and good that you can quote Jefferson, Adams, et al and use that to show us how we are not running our country as the founding forefathers intended.

[DrewKaree]

Thank you for giving me the oportunity to type BUSH WON!!!

TWICE! 

[Howard_Casto]

I'll end this argument right here by just laying out the plain and utter truth. 

Bush lied... he lied about the wmd, he lied about the links to osama and he basically made up and excuse to go to war.

Guess what though...ALL politicians lie, even the good ones.  They lie through their teeth.  So the fact that he lied isn't disturbing at all as it is expected of him.  What is disturbing is why he lied. 

He didn't lie to cover his own butt, he didn't lie for the "greater good" as some republican lap-dogs claimed, he lied:

1.  Because he screwed up by saying on national tv shortly after 9/11 that he would find those responsible and kill them.  Unfortunately he forgot how laxed and incompetant the military has gotten over the past years or so and how there's no way they could actually track an enemy without their fancy 2 billion dollar do-dads.  (Osama doesn't use electronic devices, so soldiers have to rely on actual tracking talent... thus why he's still at large.)

2.  Bush has a vested interest in the oil industry as does half of his cabinet and most of the people that funded his campain.  Having foreign oil under american control was best for all partys involved. So as usual, it was a war about money.  Look in your history books.... again, like the lying, this is expected and shouldn't shock or offend anyone.  It's a capitalist world, deal with it. 

3.  Bush is a little on the slow side.  Saddam was his daddy's enemy and several attempted assasination attempts by him directed at his father has made the young son develop a personal grudge.  This is human nature and we shouldn't be angry towards him, however this is why he should be ineligable to run for any office.   A president should never be elected because one of his relatives was a popular president.  Unfortunately, people are stupid and still have that "senior prom king and queen" popularity contest mentality when they walk into the voting booth.  No better example could be made than ronald regan.  Mind you he was a decent president, but the poor guy was half crazy and had one foot in the grave  before he evne ran.  But he was an old-time movie star, so all the old people got out and voted for him.  Did I mention old people shouldn't be allowed to vote?  I mean what's the point?  They'll be dead before any of thier choice's effect the nation long-term anyway.


With all of that being said.  The results of the war are a different matter.  Getting rid of a dictator is always a good thing and giving a poor besmirched nation a change at a fair goverment is always a good idea.  Also this b.s. about Irak being better off before we got there is just that, b.s. Mind you it's still screwed up, and we haven't made any real progress, but at least the people dying now are dying for a cause, instead of just dying because they had a dick for a leader.  The groundwork is there and any idiot should be able to eventually aid those people towards a stable, free goverment.  But then again this is Bush we are talking about, so only time will tell. 

And one other thing... this may sound harsh, but American soldiers dying... get over it.  They are soldiers, they knew what they were getting into when they signed up.  Civilians dying is a tragedy, soldiers dying is the norm.  Of course if the armed forces weren't portrayed as some romantic adventure that'll help you pay for college and never, ever mention the obvious fact that you may die, people wouldn't be so shocked when it actually happens.  But that involves how all militarys are inheriantly evil, the command structure is abusive and strips proud heroes of their individuality and capacity to be a free thinker, leaving them as souless killing machines ready to run to the slaughter.  Simply put... my hands would fall off typing about how wrong war and lethal violence is regardless of the reason. 

It also fascinates me how "good christians" who are supposed to turn the other cheek, not judge people, and leave punishment for crimes toward god up to god so openly and visciously support a president that goes against all of those principals. 

I mean he went after Osama and Saddam for revenge.  You aren't supposed to do that if you are a good christain, god will take care of that.  The bible says to be tolerant of other religions and life styles and again, yet god sort it out and yet a good deal of people re-elected bush simply because they were afraid of two dudes living together.  I mean come on people....  people are dying, we were tricked into going into war for the wrong reasons and the economy has been totally ruined... I think Bob and Stefen living together and having a piece fo paper to prove it should be a bit lower on our priority list.  Oh and on a final note I'm pretty sure that the bible says to obey the law of the land, for those of you who aren't to bright that means that the "law of the land" is not god's law, wasn't god's law and never will be god's law.  That's basically the bible saying to be respectful of your goverment and t let it do it's job.  Again, this stuff is all about being a "good christian"  I wouldn't quote it if 90% of the bush supporters didn't say that his good moral values were their reason for electing him. 

Did I mention that it should be illegal for a candiate for office to ever mention their religious offiliation or use it as leverage in their campaigning?  We are the only democracy in the world that is still too stupid to realize that religion and goverment don't mix.  I happen to believe that religon is a healthy and necessary thing, however, I'm not stupid enough to ever want to pass a law based on scripture.  Why?  Because simply put, white christians aren't the only people living in America, and I believe in liberty and justice for all, not liberty and justice for all good, white, christian, males.  And besides, take a lesson from my favorite long-haired, hippy tree hugger.  He broke laws left and right even god's law because he realized that there are always exceptions.  Maybe you guys have heard of him, his name was Jesus.  He who is wihout sin can cast the first stone.  With that being said I'm sure as hell not going to run around throwing stones and the poor gay people or anyone who doesn't have a velvet painting of the crucifixion hanging in their living room. 

When you vote a person in office you should only consider two things. 

1.  Can this person help the economy. (For everyone, not just your particular income bracket.)

2. Can this person keep us out of war and cooperate with other nations working towards a unified, diverse, peaceful, global, nation.

And here's a hint for you guys... morality, religion, popularity... none of these things have ANYTHING to do with these two points.  What you do is you get out records and see hwo well said politician has ran his or her offices in the past.  "I don't care if your an ---uvula---, as long as you do your job"  It's good advice for a general business, and like it or not, running the usa is just like running any other business.  We don't need a saint, we need a good businessman. 

The sooner the American people figure this out and flat out ignore any other issues, the sooner this great nation can get back on it's feet and do what it does best, set a proud example for all free lands. 

So in closing... dont' blame me, I voted for Kerry. 

sincerely,

the most conservative "liberal" you'll ever meet

(p.s.  some of my comments are intentional jokes... if you don't get em, don't blame me)

[DrewKaree]

I'll end this argument right here by just laying out the plain and utter truth.

Thank goodness we have you around Howard.  I think I speak for everyone else here when I say "thank GOODNESS Mr Casto is here to set us straight.  Why....why.....he's a legend in his own mind....er...time".

I haven't even read your post, so I don't know if I agree with you or not, but NONE of us here are so far gone as to think "I'm gonna end this argument by laying out (my) truth."  It may work for other more static debates you enter into, but to presuppose you're somehow the be all, end all.....makes me (and probably a few others here) wonder if you have to have all of your hats custom made.   

If, after reading your post, I find that I agree with you, please do me a favor and don't pretend to speak for me.  EVER.

 If, on the other hand, I disagree with you, thank you EVER so much for deigning to talk down to us....it always helps shape and change opinions by being condescending, and I'm learning SO much from you that Dexter is sure to come to love me so we can skip arm in arm down the street whistling a happy tune due to our newfound mutual agreements 

Careful you don't break your ankle when dismounting 

_{that outta cover all my bases}

[Dexter]

I'm learning SO much from you that Dexter is sure to come to love me so we can skip arm in arm down the street whistling a happy tune due to our newfound mutual agreements

[DrewKaree]

It also fascinates me how "good christians" who are supposed to turn the other cheek, not judge people, and leave punishment for crimes toward god up to god so openly and visciously support a president that goes against all of those principals. 

I mean he went after Osama and Saddam for revenge.  You aren't supposed to do that if you are a good christain, god will take care of that.  The bible says to be tolerant of other religions and life styles and again, yet god sort it out and yet a good deal of people re-elected bush simply because they were afraid of two dudes living together.

As you speak of "not judging people", it's funny that you do just that in labeling people "good christians".  My wife has this problem too.  You and I have absolutely no idea if someone is a "good christian" or not, the difference is that you'd prolly wanna label ME a "good christian", while I have no such preconcieved notions of christians. 

As for the Bible saying to be tolerant of other religions of life styles, I'm quite sure you're not reading from the "good christians" bible format.  I'm sure Jesus only "tripped and fell" in his haste to speak of his acceptance of the "life style" the money-changers in the temple chose.  I'm sure God was merely "redecorating" Sodom & Gomorrah in "a more refreshing salt-white theme that goes with the landscape".  You're confusing love for your fellow man with tolerance (formerly known as acceptance).  The two are capable of co-existing, but they're like oil and water - they just don't mix.

Also, this is one "good christian" whose vote for Bush had absolutely NOTHING to do with gay marriage, and I find it a bit myopic to assume that "a good number" of us thought this was the deciding factor in casting our vote thusly.  If it helps you rest easier, fine, but branding "a good number" of voters like this is why there is a growing divide amongst us.  (go ahead, MrC, give us the tired "Bush is dividing the country, not us" spiel  )

Oh and on a final note I'm pretty sure that the bible says to obey the law of the land, for those of you who aren't to bright that means that the "law of the land" is not god's law, wasn't god's law and never will be god's law.  That's basically the bible saying to be respectful of your goverment and t let it do it's job.  Again, this stuff is all about being a "good christian"  I wouldn't quote it if 90% of the bush supporters didn't say that his good moral values were their reason for electing him.

"Pretty sure" is a pretty good CYA tactic.  It may help you to read a book and understand it before making blanket statements that demonstrate you --haven't-- done so.

When you vote a person in office you should only consider two things. 

1.  Can this person help the economy. (For everyone, not just your particular income bracket.)

Sure can, and thank goodness I voted correctly

2. Can this person keep us out of war and cooperate with other nations working towards a unified, diverse, peaceful, global, nation.

Thank goodness you'll never become President.  Simplistic sentiment put forth to form a ridiculous statement.  Well done. 

(p.s.  some of my comments are intentional jokes... if you don't get em, don't blame me)

Well, at least you always have THAT to fall back on 

[DrewKaree]

I'm learning SO much from you that Dexter is sure to come to love me so we can skip arm in arm down the street whistling a happy tune due to our newfound mutual agreements 

Sounds great Drew, we'll meet at the inauguration and we can sing 'I get by with a little help from my friends...........diebold' to Junior 

I've got a better one....we can do the Hippy Hippy Shake 

I look forward to it 

[TOK]

And one other thing... this may sound harsh, but American soldiers dying... get over it.  They are soldiers, they knew what they were getting into when they signed up.  Civilians dying is a tragedy, soldiers dying is the norm.  Of course if the armed forces weren't portrayed as some romantic adventure that'll help you pay for college and never, ever mention the obvious fact that you may die, people wouldn't be so shocked when it actually happens.  But that involves how all militarys are inheriantly evil, the command structure is abusive and strips proud heroes of their individuality and capacity to be a free thinker, leaving them as souless killing machines ready to run to the slaughter.  Simply put... my hands would fall off typing about how wrong war and lethal violence is regardless of the reason. 

This is an odd (trying my best to take the high road here) comment, maybe a bit less jarring because we have an enlisted army. What is your take on drafted soldiers dying in Viet Nam?

[Dexter]

I've got a better one....we can do the Hippy Hippy Shake

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You say bad...bad things....now they'll take it all home with them.  I say good...good things.....now they're coming to us, instead of us having to use tens of thousands of troops to hunt down a few hundred in their native land where they have an advantage.

How easily you forget that 19 civilians armed w/ box cutters killed 3000 people, destroyed two of the largest buildings in New York, attacked U.S. military headquarters, crippled the airline industry, and cost this nation billions of dollars. "Good things" indeed, if you're a terrorist sympathizer like Bush.

You're smug belief that bringing more of this on somehow gives us an "advantage" is truly priceless. What will you say after the next devastating attack?

Even your Dear Leader Bush has recently stated he was an idiot for saying "Bring it on!"...Seriously you don't think you're smarter than HIM, do you??? Not Dear Leader?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Just the other day, Bush explained why we're unable to find Bin Laden:

    "Because he's hiding."

DD, Drew, Bush Supporters: This is *your* man...have you no shame?


Edit: Don't answer...it's a rhetorical question.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

They may not be as long winded as your responses, but I put just as much thought in them.
And my responses make more sense.

President Bush says there is no need to hold anyone in his administration accountable for what has happened in Iraq because the voters have already spoken.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post for Sunday's editions. "

In effect he's saying, "I WON!!" so who cares.

How sad and sick is it when Dartful's lame defense of the president is actually used by the lame president himself to *totally* shirk responsibility for the countless deaths caused by his misguided war?

Call me crazy, but doesn't "winning" an election actually make him *more* responsible for the decisions he made? It's not like Iraq attacked *us*.

There is a special place in hell for this weasel and history will judge him accordingly.

[DrewKaree]

Edit: Don't answer...it's a rhetorical question.

What's that?

Edit: Don't answer....it's a comical question.