[[/qb][/QUOTE]None of this is about our freedom, or even our safety. Hussein is a bad one, and the world will be better off when he is gone. But spouting BS about this being about our freedom just shows you've been reading the propaganda and not researching the facts. Hussein can't threaten our freedom.

I am confused here...
Isn't terrorism a threat to our freedom? Isn't the fact that he can, will, and most likely has sponsored terriorist acts, a direct threat to our freedom? Were you eager to jump on a commercial airliner after 911? Hussein would drop nerve gas at Disneyland if he could. Nobody can feel completely safe anywhere, anytime with people like that around. Admit it, you wondered if something was going to happen at the World Series, or the Superbowl didn't you... Our freedom has already been compromised because fear of terrorism is always with us. The man is evil. Time to take him out.

First off, where do you get off thinking you are the voice of Veterans on this board? Being a Veteran doesn't mean you pack your morals and ethics away and "just follow orders". If anything, I honor my friends and family in uniform by not wanting them to be put in harm's way without a very good reason. I hate seeing my friends off for *another* six months on the USS Abraham Lincoln, away from his wife and daughters. How can you justify your bloodthirsty attitude, Mr. Red Badge of Courage? Why are you so eager to put good men and women in harms way without taking a really good look at why?

Bleeding heart liberal indeed. Hmph.



As an aside, do you deny that Mr. Gore received more votes? Yes, yes, the electoral system, I understand. I also realize that the election of 2000 demonstrated the flaws of the electoral compromise and I think it is high time we as a nation revisited our presidential election methods. But I digress...

Here, I have to disagree. Mr. Bush has done a poor job, economically, diplomatically, and politically. Economically, tons of people are unemployed, the intial tax cut had no effect, and now with the HUGE spending increases, our national debt has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels. He spends *worse* than a Democrat, and is only different by not taxing to pay for it. He shows none of the classic fiscally conservative behavior, and we are worse for it.

Diplomatically, he is a disaster. Long time allies are turning their backs on us due to his policies, and he pours gasoline on the fire with such classics as his "Axis of Evil" speech. If anything, America needs to set the standard for modern democracy to keep the world's respect, and we haven't been doing that lately.

Look, I didn't particularly care for Clinton or Bush Sr., but I know when a job is being done poorly.
Congratulations on your use of the classic logical fallacy known as "The Strawman". You make blanket statements of what you feel I believe and then pummel and ridicule those beliefs to attempt to discredit and insult me.

Too bad it doesn't hold a drop of water.

You don't know what I believe. I never "bashed" this country. I don't have either an SUV or a sled, and I am certainly not an "ungrateful" Liberal.

You, on the other hand, seem happy to follow blindly under the guise of "patriotism." You may have been in the armed forces, sir, but your kind of attitude is anything but patriotic.
As a matter of fact, I have lost a friend to terrorism. He was a firefighter in New York, and he was much braver than all of the Keyboard Kourage you could ever muster.
I don't disrespect this country; I work to make it better.
I work to make it live up to the ideals for which many have died.
I stand with those who do not give up rights for temporary "security".
I stand with those who see what what we as a country are losing in our rush to implement draconian security measures.
I stand with those who believe that understanding and diplomacy is vital in our world, and that wishing it away doesn't change the fact that you DO have to deal with other countries.
I stand with those who would not waste American soldiers lives without a very good reason.

God Bless America indeed, and God protect us from the America we are slowly becoming.

I love politics... first, don't pull out the BIG OIL WAR argument unless you are willing to concede that the anti camp - France, China, and Russia, have very real oil interests of their own in Iraq. They aren't against war on humanitarian grounds, they are worried about THEIR oil interests. Please provide a solid piece of evidence that US interests are the same. We don't get Iraq oil currently and we are doing fine without it. Read some of the links I provided on the State of the Union thread.

Second, we have been attacked. It just wasn't an attack in the strict military sense. And I do believe there is an Iraq Bin Laden link. If you don't you're welcome to your opinion.

Finally, the electoral congress protects small states. Unless you'd rather have New York, California, and the other half dozen large states elect our presidents every four years. This is a nation of 50 states, not a nation of one state.

I have come to the conclusion that a sizable percentage of our population can only count to 1.

I base that on the squirrel hunting technique where two hunters enter the woods and sit down. After a while one gets up and leaves. The squirrels. who cannot count beyond one, think that it is safe again and move.

I believe that far too many people believe that about political opinions. Either you believe in Bush and EVERYTHING he does is great, or you believe in Clinton or Gore. Nothing in between.

The other countries are fighting us on the Iraq war because it is better for their own countries. They see future ecomonic advantage in having a better relationship with other countries becasue they stood up to the agressive United States. To a lot of other countries it is the U.S. that has the weapons of mass destruction and is threatening a smaller nation.

I do believe we need to take out Sadam. I just think it is sad that Bush's constant talk of war for the past year allowed the other countries to take advantage of us. In the years past WW2, Japan had difficulty trading with it's neighbors in the pacific. The neighbors remembered WW2 and the war crimes. Now we are setting ourselves up to be viewed the same way in the middle east. I wish Bush had listen to Powell right from the start, we would not be fight the other countries now just to go to war.

Oop's. I guess that opinion is not Bush's opinion and I guess that makes me un-American, supporting Osama, and, gasp, might have even voted for a Democrate at some time.

Wait, I think the FBI it tapping into my computer now...

Mike, you're welcome to believe in an Iraq to Bin Laden link if you like, it's just not a belief that is supported by the evidence. Even in the speech yesterday, Powell backed off the Iraq Terrorism link. There are a lot of reasons for us to oppose Hussein, but his support of terrorist attacks against us isn't one of them. That is propaganda that has been whipped up to build popular support for action against Iraq.

Again, think about it. Terrorists can operate because they are hidden. They do what they do because they aren't targetable for retribution. Iraq isn't hidden. While Hussein hates us, he is neither stupid nor suicidal. He has very different motivations from Bin Laden, and they weren't buddies in the best of times.

Put yourself in Hussein's shoes right now. If he were to sponsor a terrorist act right now, what do you think his assessment of our likely response is? That's right, any overt act of violence on his part would immediately sway world opinion towards a relandscaping Baghdad with 2000 lb shovels.

It would be stupid for Hussein to make himself a target by cooperating with Al Qaeda. He's many things, but stupid doesn't strike me as one of them.

The Al Qaeda threat is separate from the Iraq issue. Al Qaeda is a genuine threat to our security. Bin Laden's boys are willing to die for him, whereas most of the Iraqis would rather not. Iraq is not a threat to us, it is a threat to the other countries in the region, all of whom are at best indifferent allies to the US. Yes, even Israel. And we care about that why? Because of oil prices is the only reason I can come up with. I'm fine with that - we need stable oil prices for the world economy to continue to recover.

Some people will protest, "No, we're against Iraq because he's an evil dictator and uses bad weapons against his own people and the good folks of Iran." Well, so what? Mexico keeps thousands of people in hell hole prisons, hundreds of whom die every year. Africa is littered with corrupt violent dictatorships. North Korea is producing and selling missiles for the third world. We ourselves have more prisoners per capita than any other country in the world. What is it, particularly, about Iraq that makes Hussein the dictator that needs to be taken out today? Answer - political stability in the major oil producing region of the world.

Which I'm fine with. I just don't delude myself that this has anything to do with freedom, security or high moral causes. You shouldn't either.

Loco that name fits!

And your signature like it is who would believe you!!


Yeti- Bush ruin the economy? hmmmm The economy was falling while your beloved Clinton was in office he rode the shirttails of Reganomics and took all the praise..Clinton was the absolute worst Presideant EVER!!
Let me ask this do you feel you could do all the illegal things he done and still be walking free? NO! Not only that but if you knew how our military lacked from our great idiot clinton its scary!
And yes when clinton was voted in office BY ELECTORIAL VOTES he was outvoted by the people..

No, you are mistaken, Mike. The Senate is protection for small states, not the electoral college. The electoral college was put in place to compensate for the slow speed of communication that existed at the time. Like the House of Representatives, it attempts to match representation based on population.

However, this is where it is breaking down. The votes of the electors no longer correlate correctly to a states population. A vote from a citizen of Wyoming has more value than the vote of three citizens of California!

Is that right? What happened to "One person, one vote" that is at the core of democracy? That isn't protection, it is outright unfair! My vote shouldn't count less just because of what state I choose to live in. We now have the technology to make the Presidential election a popular vote as it should be. It is a reform that all parties, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise, should be interested in.

Timber,

I didn't vote for Clinton, but I think it's a stretch to say that Reaganomics had anything to do with the boom we enjoyed during Clinton's years. Lest we forget, the economy was in a significant recession when the 92 elections were on. You're going to tell us that policies from 5 years before Clinton took office caused that recession to go away?

Recessions happen, and a lot of economists think that they are largely outside of the ability for administrations to control. The best thing we can do is try to not make them worse.

First off the electoral system is nothing short of genius by our forefathers.Without it we might as well just appoint extreme left wingers. To be fair to Bush he inherited the bad economy and with out 9/11 i am sure the economy would be hummin right now. Are the anti-threat of war protesters really for peace or just anti-Bush.And any moron who can get past idealogue will realize that russia, france and germany are balking because of oil interest.One more thing , those protesters need to go to baghdad because the onus is on hussein not the u.n. or the us.

I unfortunately did not hear Colon Powel's message, but I consider Colon Powell to be a much more thoughtful man than George Bush will ever be. Colon Powell, in presence alone, adds credence to this cause of starting war with Iraq. Bush strikes me as the kind of man that skips over the details and goes with his gut and I am not at all confident or convinced that singling out Iraq is in the best interests of the United States. This war will cost a ton of money, that could be spent on NASA, new and improved weapon systems or fund the tax cuts that George has no idea how he's going to pay for.....All he knows is that he's going to do it no matter what! I think Bush's new campaign slogan should be the "Deficit Driving Republican."

I've heard that going to war without France is like going Deer Hunting without an Acordian Player.

Timber,

The decline of the military actually started in the mid 80's as a result of the Graham-Rudman act. That was the post-vietnam major downsizing. Many senior officials believe it has resulted in a hollow corps required to do more with less.

Additionally, although many have claimed that Clinton tried to fill the ranks with gays, quite the opposite is true. Since the adoption of his "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the number of discharges for homosexuality has risen approximately 300%.

Finally, my biggest pay raise came while Clinton was in office. Matter of fact, Bush was going to severely limit the military pay raise for 2004 until the Pentagon pressured him into adding a significant raise to the upper ranks (none for the lower enlisted) to the upcoming budget.

Racer,

I believe the majority of anti-war protestors are genuinely concerned with peace, and I don't think it has anything to do with whether they support Bush or not.

I guess we should send the spouses of all the deployed soldiers to Iraq? You can't convince me that they are not opposed to their loved ones going off to battle. Ergo, they are anti-war protestors.

It's pretty easy to sit in front of a monitor and be an "armchair general," but until you've had to bury a soldier that you've lived and trained with, save your saber rattling for someone else. Anti-war protestors are not simply left wing radicals. Many are people that have loved ones they don't want to die. Many are veterans that have seen the horrors of war and wouldn't wish it upon anyone.

We took an oath to "defend the Constitution, and protect the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic." As far as I'm concerned, the US is in no danger from Iraq.... yet. There's a reason why it's called the Department of Defense, not the Department of Offense.

Silver Hilton,

Precisely.

GUTZ-Good Lord, THAT has GOT to be the FUNNIEST thing I have EVER READ!!!

Elk,

No, terrorism is a threat to our safety. Our safety and comfort has been compromised, not our freedom. We're just as free as we were before 9/11. We are just more aware of the hatred that some people feel for us. It was already there, we were just ignorant of it. Now we know.

There is little evidence or logic that I can see that Hussein is interested in terrorism. The terrorists are groups like the PLO, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda, groups with passionate grievances, and no siginificant military might to use to fight against their targets. They also are few in number, and hidden, so that when they strike, they cannot easily be targeted in return.

As I said above, this doesn't describe either Iraq or, for that matter, North Korea (which I think is a bigger danger to us than Iraq, frankly).

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, similar to Hezollah, are using terror attacks to make it politically expensive for their targets to continue policies that the terrorists dislike. In the case of Al Qaeda, they want us to quit supporting the current Saudi government, which they view, correctly, as oppressive and corrupt. They also want us to exert pressure on Israel to settle the palestinian issue in a way that favors palestinians.

Hussein on the other hand, doesn't care about these issues, except as propaganda points to win support for his side. He has visions of an empire than stretches from Turkey to the Persian gulf. He cares about power, influence, prestige, and his personal safety. In sharp contrast to the terrorists, he is not willing to die for any cause, and is not religiously motivated.

Because he's not interested in dying for his cause, it makes no sense for him to bomb Disneyland, because he is targetable, and knows it.

That is, it makes no sense for him to launch an attack on us, unless, and until we are taking him down, and he has nothing to lose.

I agree that he should go. But let's not kid ourselves and think it's a simple walk in the park.

The biggest threat to our freedom right now is a misguided effort to relax the constitutional protections that we enjoy in the pursuit of safety. We are facing a choice - continue to maintain the protections maintained in the bill of rights, at the risk that it makes finding a terrorist harder, or repealing the bill of rights in exchange for a perception of greater safety.

If we let that happen, in my opinion, the terrorists will have won.

While I did not generally support Clinton, he did do one thing right: reduce the deficit. I honestly cannot comprehend how you can call yourself conservative if you do not believe in conservative fiscal policies. In that respect, Bush is a rampant liberal sans the taxation. He spends money we don't have.

As for the worst American President, I believe that honor goes to Andrew Johnson, not William J. Clinton.

Okay, I have to draw the line here. If you are going to argue with me, at least be *somewhat* intelligent and be accurate with your facts. Clinton was NOT outvoted by the people.

http://www.multied.com/elections/1992pop.html

1992 POPULAR VOTE
Perot: 19.0%
Bush: 37.7%
Clinton: 43.3%

If you would pull yourself away from Rush for more than a minute, you would know that.

So let's see Yeti said "One person, one vote" … Are you willing to verify that you are a Legal United States Citizen? That would reduce the number of votes that Gore received from several states California and New York being just two… How about a verification of “Alive” status? That would reduce of votes that Gore and Demo's received in the States of Illinois (especially in Chicago) and Missouri… And, I guess all those legally registered homeless voters would know where to pickup their free packs of cigarettes from the Demo's in several states to assure that they vote for the “right” candidate… And, let's not forget all of those nice convicted felons that are restricted from voting that seem to vote in every election…

We are along way from “One person, one vote” … You also said “…We now have the technology… “ yes we have the ability to let everyone vote BUT, we still do not have a 100% secure technology to do this! To date there has not been an electronic system developed and implemented that has not been hacked into or had a virus attack!

Ok… Silver Hilton you said…
------------------------------------
”None of this is about our freedom, or even our safety. Hussein is a bad one, and the world will be better off when he is gone. But spouting BS about this being about our freedom just shows you've been reading the propaganda and not researching the facts. Hussein can't threaten our freedom. He can't possibly militarily threaten us. We can and will crush him like a bug. There is simply no scenario where he would invade the US or any of our territories. So it is simply absurd to talk about this being about our freedom. Freedom is about somebody limiting your actions - he can't do that.”
-----------------------------------
So, I have a question… After 9-11 did you change anything in the way that you live your day-to-day life? If you didn't change something you are in the minority in America and the world! Ya,Ya, I know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 but, it does put your comment “…Hussein can't threaten our freedom… Freedom is about somebody limiting your actions - he can't do that.” into a different light! Any walking/breathing piece of feces that can sneak into our country, can do damage. And the world knows and sees that the target of the terrorists is not just military or governmental!!

We could probably agree that nobody wants war for war's sake. But to believe that no one wants to harm us or the US is just being an Ostrich! There are individuals that are just evil or mean no matter what even if you do nothing to them.

Anyway my $0.02

SH,
Don't worry, I'm not deluded. But we have a difference of opinion on the terrorist connection as presented by Mr. Powell. That's OK, it's what democracy is all about.
I don't have too many delusions about going to Iraq to free the masses. It's not our business, frankly, although it always shows a lack of moral fiber to sit by while innocents die by the hundreds of thousands. But nations don't behave like individuals.
What I am honestly having a hard time understanding is why the anti-war crowd thinks Iraq is not a threat to us? You seriously believe that the chemical and biological weapons are going to stay safe and sound in their hiding places and not be leaked to terrorist cells for shipment to the US? You truly believe Saddam is just stockpiling this stuff to satisfy his ego or something? That he just wants to have an atomic weapon so he can feel safe and never use it to threaten Kuwait or Saudia Arabia? SH, can you really type these words - "I don't believe Saddam is a threat to the US and I don't think he will leak his weapons out to terrorists." Because if you can type those words, you're a braver man than me, Gunga Din.

Yeti - Social security fund! does that ring a bell?


As far as starting to call names don't do that behind a computter screen you chicken $hit.. I'm on lots of rivers meet me at one and say it to my face!!! Bet you don't have the balls!!!

Yes, I know of Social Security. What is the point you are trying to make.

I haven't called you names. I wasn't the one making strawman arguements such as saying "your beloved Clinton" and I certainly didn't make inaccurate claims without so much as checking my facts before posting. I did prove you wrong and urged you to be more intellegent about getting your facts straight.

However, your implied threat of violence in the face of rational debate says much about you, and I stand defiant against such bullying attempts. On the river, to your face, wherever you like; you are wrong, and I am unafraid to tell you so.

How unafraid am I?

My name is Ryan Ositis. I live at 1333 N. 180th St. in Shoreline. If you really need someone to tell you that you are wrong in person, that is where I am.

MIke,

No, I don't doubt that he's making the stuff to use it. The question is on who, and why. I think we're at risk of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - I think we're both of the opinion that he's past his expiration date. He has chemical weapons and has used them because they're efficient ways to fight wars. He didn't use them on us in the Gulf War, which demonstrates that he can be deterred by threats of superior force. I don't think it's great that he has them, and I don't think it would be great if he had nukes, either. However, I must point out that Pakistan, India, North Korea, South Africa, and all of the states of the former soviet union have nukes. We don't want Hussein to get them, but lets not kid ourselves that he's the only quick stop weapons shop in the mid-east.

There are already too many nukes in unfriendly or unstable hands. If you want to have a nightmare, think about revolution in Pakistan, with the winner being buddies with Bin Laden. There is already significant instability in Pakistan, and Mushareff (sp) is only hanging on by the skin of his teeth.

I believe Hussein mainly wants nukes because Israel has nukes. If he had a nuke, it would dramatically change the balance of power between Iraq and Israel. Him getting a few nukes would not change the balance of power between Iraq and the US, it would only affect the balance between him and the other states in the region. He doesn't need them to sell them for the money - he's got oil.


Wabowhunter,

re: 9/11, the point is, Iraq had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the world trade center bombing. If it had, and we had even a shred of evidence, the Marines would be toasting weiners in Baghdad already. So tying these two events together is sloppy logic at best. But, as I have said elsewhere, Hussein did not and does not have the motivation for these types of acts.

You may be missing my point. I don't mean to downplay the significance or horror of 9/11. My point is just that there's a lot of flag waving going on as we are trying to figure out what we are doing. There's a lot of talk about freedom. This is an emotionally charged word, and it moves people to take action. I merely observe that our freedom is not at risk, has not been put at risk, and is not likely to be put at risk by these events.

Our safety is at risk. Our economy has been damaged. We feel less secure. But we are still free to flame at each other on our keyboards. We are still free to walk down the street. We can still buy firearms, and criticize our government. We can still buy and burn Brittany Spears cds. I don't think anyone would argue that these aspects of our society, which make us a great place to live, have been changed.

So, yeah, even though I worry about a mushroom cloud appearing the freight docks in downtown Seattle, I don't think it's correct to say that our freedom has been reduced or threatened.

The only reason that I am picking this nit is that I don't respect the way the Bush administration has been propagandizing us. It annoys me, because I actually agree with GW that we need to take Saddam out. But I bitterly object to Bush trying to manipulate the American people and the world into seeing it his way and only his way. The simple facts and truth ought to be good enough. If they are not, well, then maybe our position isn't correct.