Quoting:
Well, time's up. Now what?End Quote

The troops may begin "officially" attacking any minute.

Quoting:
When the war ends I dont know if it will necessarly make us any safer at first, but I think in the long run it will.
End Quote

I agree.



Regarding the timeline: The sun will be up in Iraq in just a couple hours, so unless it starts within that time, it looks like it will probably be tomorrow at the earliest.  Its just my guess, but who knows.

Quoting:
Evidently 4 of you still have more to say from the now locked thread that dealt with "Bush To Declare..." I started March 17.

As to why it was locked:

Moderators reserve the right to lock, delete, modify threads at their discretion. It is not practical to explain every action we take to ensure the smooth operation of these forums. We explain one, we have to explain them all.

I'm being very nice to start a continuation, despite the fact that I am not very happy about being accused of locking that one thread because I had nothing else to say. It is true everyone has a right to their opinion, but not if it is an accusatory, false assumption directly aimed at a person. I feel I deserve an apology. I won't hold my breath.  

Ok.

Take it away then.

End Quote

Hairspray

For what it's worth, I thought you were very nice to keep the other thread open as long as you did !

And no you shouldn't have to explain your every action.  As someone who was taking a keen interest in reading the thread every chance I got, I should have thought it was painfully obvious to everyone why it ended up being closed.

It's not like it wasn't obvious that would be the end result.  I do hope you get the apology you deserve from whomsoever the perpetrators were  :(

FB

Quoting:
Did I say something that offended you? :-/ If I did, I would like to appologize.
End Quote

It wasn't you, JH.

I thank you and Fuss for being so thoughtful.  :)

Quoting:
<gasping deeply for some fresh air>

OK, so I DID hold my breath, and it obviously was for nothing, as some people feel their opinions are more important than others, even if they offend them.  <slaps self>  Bad Hairspray, bad! How dare you think all of the people here are decent enough to admit when they're wrong!

End Quote

I don't think an apology is too much to ask for Hair, you have far more patience than I.....  ;)

Quoting:
I take a social science class that focuses on immigration.  My professor suggests that if we really wanted to be safe, we would take the money that's going towards the war effort and give it to the INS, so they can round up all the Al-Qaeda sleeper agents still in the country.  Food for thought.
End Quote

Interesting thought.

I did, however, hear that the INS is now defunct, what with the new Department of Homeland Security restructuring the bureaucracy as we know it.  

Also, politicians in both parties hate dealing with the illegal immigration issue...it might "alien"-ate potential voters ;)

Quoting:
but I think he's one of, if not the worst President America has ever had.  
End Quote

The shades of Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan and Ulysses Grant appreciate your observation  :D

Quoting:


The shades of Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan and Ulysses Grant appreciate your observation  :D
End Quote

;D ;D  Good one!

Quoting:
Speaking of 9/11, that attack has proven how unprepared the country is for an attack. It also proved that the attackers were already here...and there could be more.

End Quote

Recently, in my neighborhood watch newsletter, the police department reported that they had picked up 2 "foreigners who spoke little English" on the morning of 9-11 who were looking for our little airport.  They detained them until the FBI was able to pick them up for questioning.  Just a few days ago, these same 2 men were "detained" at the airport looking for information on the flight school there and asking questions on the free flights given to children ages 8-12.  The same officer was present on both occasions and recognized them as the ones he picked up before.  This time, however, they had different ID's.  It scares the crap out of me to think that these people are still here and still trying to access flights.  

I don't think we've seen the last of Osama and his followers.  And, although I think that Hussein needs to be dealt with, I don't know that this will solve the problem in Iraq.  I guess I'm just trying to say that I am afraid that with all the attention being given to Saddam and Iraq, and the possible threat to our county, the powers that be are overlooking (for lack of a better term) the threat that has been proven.

Godspeed and Good luck to all our troops in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Oh, and POP, Saddam does have look-alikes.  As far as the tape being legit, I don't know.

Quoting:
It also proved that the attackers were already here...and there could be more.
End Quote

No "could be" about it, Syncronos, there are more.  As I understand, we haven't arrested a lot of them because we're hoping they'll lead us to bigger fish.

Quoting:
I have heard a few different reports on the televised statement Saddam made early this morning.  Is it a fake?  Was it pre-recorded?  Could he possible have a "body double"?  I thought it looked real, although there are quite a few skeptics.  What do you think?
End Quote

one thing they mentioned last night is how he has never wore those glasses before, until last night.  Plus they showed a side-by-side shot of him at the Dan Blather interview and last night, and the one last night looked much more wrinkly.

Quoting:
People think we'll go over, slap Saddam around, and call it a day, End Quote

I don't think anyone really thinks that.  

However, on a side note, Saddams military is reported to be only around 75% the size and power it was in Desert Storm.  I've heard different estimates anywhere from 65%-75%, depending on who you listen to.

Quoting:


No "could be" about it, Syncronos, there are more.  As I understand, we haven't arrested a lot of them because we're hoping they'll lead us to bigger fish.
End Quote

Meanwhile, the bigger fish are plotting to do more and more damage. I agree that Saddam needs to be dealt with...HOWEVER, Bush just charging in like this is assinine. He KNOWS the population of this country- namely, US- isn't ready for the possible bio attacks we could be facing here. He does, and so do all the other idiots who have beef with the USA. Think about it, folks. One idiot with a couple of envelopes full of anthrax put the country into a panic. Just think of what happens when one of these sleeping 'big fish' detonates a bio-weapon here. Yeah, watching casualties in some country we've never heard of on CNN is one thing...but what about when those casualties are American citizens that died on American soil because of a foreign bio-attack? Not nameless people in some far off country, but people we might now in places that are literally close to home. Has Bush adequately prepared us for that? The answer: NO. Bush went hell-bent into this war, not even THINKING of what the consequences for the HOMELAND might be. That's my major beef with him- 'Homeland Security' is a joke; nothing with security has changed. We're still just as vulnerable as before. Are we prepared? Pssh...half the people in the US don't even know what saren gas is. The other half that knows is buying into all this 'duck and cover' hype. "Buy plastic and cover up your windows." Yeah...right. "Get close to the ground if you see a nuclear explosion, and put your hands over your head." Sure. Your hands shielding your head will protect you from the fallout. ::)

We're not ready. 9/11 proved that. And nothing has changed since then. We've now entered a war and are still very vulnerable. With enemies both known and unknown, it's only a matter of time before someone takes advantage of that weakness in our defense. And may God help us when that happens.

Quoting:Bush went hell-bent into this war, not even THINKING of what the consequences for the HOMELAND might be. End Quote

I totally disagree.  

Even if Bush is the idiot moron some claim him to be, fact is that he isn't running this war.  Rumsfeld, Condy Rice, and the many other officials coordinating this war are not idiots.  I'm sure they didn't wake up one morning 8 months ago and say to themselve "hey I'm bored, lets attack Iraq".  After all, they've had over 8 months to coordinate and plan this war while they were put on hold by the UN.

Quoting:We're not ready. 9/11 proved that. And nothing has changed since then. End Quote

I beg to differ.  

I agree we are not 100% safe from terrorists.  We never will be, nor is anyone for that matter.  But to say "nothing has changed since then" is wrong.  You been to the airport lately?  Do you think we would have arrested Khalid Sheik Muhammad pre-9/11?  I could go on.  Its not perfect, and there is more that should be done, but to say "nothing has changed" is wrong.

Quoting:
My professor suggests that if we really wanted to be safe, we would take the money that's going towards the war effort and give it to the INS, so they can round up all the Al-Qaeda sleeper agents still in the country.  
End Quote

oooooh, just imagine the feeding frenzy and overtime this would create for the ACLU in cases of "racial profiling".

Quoting:

oooooh, just imagine the feeding frenzy and overtime this would create for the ACLU in cases of "racial profiling".
End Quote

It's funny you say this.  Just recently, in Illinois, a judge ruled that the police cannot notify the INS if they arrest an illegal immigrant, etc.

Quoting:
The video of Hussein, IMO and in Fox's opinion, looked pre-recorded. There were no signs of it being a live broadcast and he made no mention of the U.S.'s strike. :o

Odd.

Very odd.
End Quote

I hope that it isn't him, or it was pre recorded. I truly hope that we got him last night.  

On the other hand, if that was him on the video...man he has let himself go. ;)

Quoting:
it is being reported that Iraqi Scuds are being fired at Kuwait.


Hmmm, isn't it interesting that these are the same Scuds that Hussein and Hans Blix told the UN didn't exist?
End Quote

See, Iraq thought the UN said Scods. ;)

Quoting:
See, Iraq thought the UN said Scods. ;)
End Quote

oh ok.  Well thats ok then. :D

Seriously though, it will be interesting(and possibly tragic) to see what other weapons Iraq and the UN said they didn't have.

Quoting:
Give it to me straight. Why are we going to war?
End Quote

well John, as much as I would love to field this one, I just don't have the energy and patinece to explain everything to you right now.  I could tell you my opinions, I could tell you flat out facts, but no matter what it won't change your mindset on this issue.  So whats the point?

Quoting:
Give it to me straight. Why are we going to war? I'm trying to find one answer. What is our official reason for going to war with Iraq. At first it was because he wasn't destroying his weapons, then it was because he wasn't destroying them fast enough, then it was because he didn't destroy what we didn't know about. But then the toned changed again. We're going to war because Saddam's just bad and he's been bad for twelve years and we're tired of waiting.

End Quote

  That's part of the problem with threatening war. I'm saying set resolutions so that his only route for non-compliance is a direct act of hostility.  Set up the resolutions to effect some end other than punishing Saddam Hussein. Punishment will come in time as he becomes less and less relevant.

  It's real simple: If someone hits you, you sometimes have to hit them back. Make him take the swing. Hitting people because you're afraid of them and they might hit you is paranoid. If I applied that logic on the street, there would be a trail of bodies of people who looked at me wrong.

Quoting:
Tired of waiting? Impatient for resolution? Looking for the quick answer? Sounds like election '00 shennanigans all over again. So talk straight to me. What is the main reason for this war? Because I'm quite confused, the story keeps changing
End Quote

  Herein we find an excellent example of the problem I have understanding the war party.

  When did it become one or the other, right? It's not about not wanting to get rid of Saddam Hussein. It's about the method, it's about the players, it's about the potential aftermath, and it's about integrity.

  Saddam is his own issue; something must be done.

  But the method--an abandonment of a superpower's former dignity in pursuit of a pissant former ally--is what people find distasteful. Even Dubya likes to point out that war is a last resort, but his words would sound so much more sincere if we had, indeed, given serious consideration to other peaceful options.

  My clinical case is that war is war is war. On the other hand, look at the war party, who wishes to hold history against Saddam Hussein, China, France, and others, while dismissing American history as unimportant. I mean, if we isolate Saddam Hussein and his actions, isolate the protesting nations and their history, why should we not look at the cruelty, hypocrisy, and downright evil that pops up frequently in American history, especially when it has direct bearing on the present considerations?

  To say that "Saddam Hussein is in violation of UN resolutions and therefore invasion is required" is a bit inadequate. The resolutions were shaky from the get-go, and sought not progress for the Iraqi people but punishment for Saddam Hussein. Yet the plight of the Iraqi people is also partially the US's responsibility. Furthermore, there is the objective history of warfare: Warfare does not bring peace. It brings periods of no open fighting in certain geographical areas, but it does not bring peace. There is a lack of objectivity when considering warfare, and this is quite disturbing as is any lack of objectivity involving vital issues.


  Groove on. 8)
 

Quoting:


See, Iraq thought the UN said Scods. ;)
End Quote

So that explains it!  ;)

Quoting:


See, Iraq thought the UN said Scods. ;)
End Quote

  This reminds me of something I read once of Bush ordering the Russians wiped-out when what he really meant was "I need to wipe the Russian dressing off my tie..." :P

Quoting:
Evidently 4 of you still have more to say from the now locked thread that dealt with "Bush To Declare..." I started March 17.

As to why it was locked:

Moderators reserve the right to lock, delete, modify threads at their discretion. It is not practical to explain every action we take to ensure the smooth operation of these forums. We explain one, we have to explain them all.

I'm being very nice to start a continuation, despite the fact that I am not very happy about being accused of locking that one thread because I had nothing else to say. It is true everyone has a right to their opinion, but not if it is an accusatory, false assumption directly aimed at a person. I feel I deserve an apology. I won't hold my breath.  

Ok.

Take it away then.

End Quote

Dear HS
You can let go of your breath - which you weren't holding anyway.  If I have said anything here aimed at any individual that was in any way offensive, I apologize.  My intent is always to assertively express my views, but also to concider the views of others, no matter how much I disagree.  I think you were right in assessing that this thread was getting much too personal and too offensive.  But these are important issues that will naturally arouse passion.  I think we can all take it - at least most of us.  Thanks for your concern, and for your integrity.

D.C.

Quoting:
Firing missiles that they didn't have? How curious!  ???End Quote

Saddam Hussien lie?  Surely not.

And I thought the UN weapons "inspections" were effective. ::)

(I was being sarcastic, obviously)

Quoting:Hussein also was quoted as saying that they would never burn their oil fields or wells if attacked, Iraqis would not do that.....End Quote

...oh no, surely not.

Quoting:
Were Scuds one of the banned weapons?  I'm not so sure they were.   ???
End Quote

Honestly, I don't know if they were.

However, it was one of the weapons that Hussien, and eventully Hans Blix, told the UN Security Council Iraq did not have.  If he lied about this, one can't help but wonder what else he lied about.

Quoting:
Were Scuds one of the banned weapons?  I'm not so sure they were.   ???


End Quote

Actually, that is a good point. I am unsure if they were banned, but Hussein had assured the inspectors, and the world, that they scrapped them in the 1990s and didn't have any more scuds.  ::)

Gong gong gong gong it keeps going.....and going.....and going......  ;D ;)

Quoting:
Give it to me straight. Why are we going to war? I'm trying to find one answer. What is our official reason for going to war with Iraq. At first it was because he wasn't destroying his weapons, then it was because he wasn't destroying them fast enough, then it was because he didn't destroy what we didn't know about. But then the toned changed again. We're going to war because Saddam's just bad and he's been bad for twelve years and we're tired of waiting.

Tired of waiting? Impatient for resolution? Looking for the quick answer? Sounds like election '00 shennanigans all over again. So talk straight to me. What is the main reason for this war? Because I'm quite confused, the story keeps changing
End Quote

Hi John,
Look at the three lead articles in this week's Newsweek, and read David Brock's book, "Blinded By the Right".  Both discuss a report written by Wolfowitz, Olsin, and other far right extremists.  This is only partly about Iraq.  Mostly its about the global/imperial agenda of the far right, who want to repudiate  internationalism with isolationism, and create a "new imperialism".  These guys lay it all out.  So I don't have to, and can thus not be charges with being paraniod.  Check it out.

Quoting:
And it's officially a moot point.  Pulled this from http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/275256.html

The missiles launched by Iraq at targets in Kuwait on Thursday were not Scuds, as was originally believed, but FROG (Free Rocket Over Ground) missiles - or something similar - which have a maximum range of 70 kilometers.

According to Israeli defense officials, the short-range conventional missile attack on U.S. troops does not reflect a significant change in the Iraqi approach, and does not require Israel to change its state of readiness.

Apparently, three FROG missiles were fired at U.S. targets in Iraq, two in the morning and one in the afternoon, two of which were intercepted by U.S. Patriot missiles.

End Quote

Ribbit, ribbit ribbit

Quoting:
Wait just a doggone minute!  He is shooting FROGS!  sweet little frogs?  Go get him, troops!
End Quote

Shooting at the frogs ?  But the French were one of the few who didn't want an incursion !  :o  That's gratitude !  ;D

Quoting:
I wish I was clear-headed enough to decide on some sort of position for this war.

Isn't firing those bombs directly at Saddam illegal under U.S. law?

End Quote

Command and control headquarters are legitimate military targets.  

Quoting:
Wait just a doggone minute!  He is shooting FROGS!  sweet little frogs?  Go get him, troops!
End Quote

Next thing you know, it'll be Bambi :'(

Quoting:
Isn't firing those bombs directly at Saddam illegal under U.S. law?End Quote

its war, they fired at a building, and it just so happens Saddam and his boys were sleeping in it at the time.

Call it a friendly wake-up call, from the Coalition with love. :D

Quoting:Clinton also bombed the crap out of Iraq, for the same reasons, without UN approval, and no one protested then.End Quote

you are right.  And that is what is so hypicritical about so many of the anti-war protests.  They had no problem with Clinton bombing Kosovo, they had no problem with Clinton bombing Iraq(which solved nothing).  Quite the cunundrum indeed.

Quoting:There are so many people that should be on our side on this and are not.  We can't get Mexico on our side.  Freaking Mexico.  I thought we owned Mexico.  How badly does this administration suck at international diplomacy that we can't get Mexico to support us?End Quote

we have the 2nd largest coalition in history(largest being WWII).  If Mexico isn't part of that, oh well.

Quoting:


Shooting at the frogs ?  But the French were one of the few who didn't want an incursion !  :o  That's gratitude !  ;D
End Quote

LMAO!!!

Quoting:
I wish I was clear-headed enough to decide on some sort of position for this war.

Isn't firing those bombs directly at Saddam illegal under U.S. law?

How the f*** are we going to pay for all this?

I'm pretty sure Bush said during his election campaign that we were overextended in foreign countries and we shouldn't be involved in nation building.  But that's what we're (badly) doing in Afghanistan, and soon Iraq too.

Clinton also bombed the crap out of Iraq, for the same reasons, without UN approval, and no one protested then.

Most of the Al-Qaeda hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia is technically our ally, and getting them to clean up their act would take months, years of diplomacy.  Is a whole easier to just attack Iraq, is not?

There are so many people that should be on our side on this and are not.  We can't get Mexico on our side.  Freaking Mexico.  I thought we owned Mexico.  How badly does this administration suck at international diplomacy that we can't get Mexico to support us?

The UN had twelve damn years to do something about Iraq and has proven itself miserably useless in that regard.  How many countries in the UN would you be willing to listen to anyway?  Syria?  Zaire?  How many of these countries would YOU trust making decisions about your safety?

Ugh.  I'm going to bed.  Wake me in 2005.
End Quote

Kenny, those are all great questions to ask and to wonder why about.  Some of them can't be answered with any logical sense and other only with you own opinions.  
The Sadaam target was legit as already stated, if effective was also a brilliant move.
I do remember about nation building comments and the position was as you stated. 9-11 changed perspectives very quickly, mine included.
Mexico is part of the "silly hat wearing" club w/ France and Germany, the way I see it the sillier the hat, the more embarassing it is when it gets knocked off in a fight.  ;D  (I don't know what that really meant, but I thought it kinda funny.

Quoting:

Mexico is part of the "silly hat wearing" club w/ France and Germany, the way I see it the sillier the hat, the more embarassing it is when it gets knocked off in a fight.  ;D  (I don't know what that really meant, but I thought it kinda funny.
End Quote

I thought it was extremely funny!  ;D ;D ;)

Quoting:
This is, like, the energizer bunny of topics. It just keeps going and going and going. It reminds me of the boxing matches of old where the fight could go up to as many rounds as the fighters could withstand :) :D ;D These are some mighty penguins we have on this board. They just keep coming back for more 8)

Doo-bee-doo-bee-doo :) :D ;D 8)
End Quote

  Yeah...let's talk about something else...

William I was the first of our kings, not counting
Ethelred , Egbert and things.

And he had himself crowned, annointed and blessed, in 106? -
er , I needn't tell you the rest.

At BONG muber one, they all started to run, throwing hose
after tunic and cap after gun.

At BONG number six, they gave themselves kicks, tripping
over the rushes to snuff out their wicks.

And what happend at the other BONGS? :P :P ;D

Quoting:
Soooo... how about them Yankees ???
End Quote

... You're going to have to do better than that, Mr. Let's-Change-the-Subject... http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/cool/cool-smiley-031.gif

Quoting:
Bush, War & Stuff ;)
End Quote

How can you be so disrespectful of our "President"?  This is disgraceful!  ::)  ;)

Quoting:
Bush, War & Stuff ;)
End Quote

I support our effort in Iraq, but the first movie poster was Hilarious!

Quoting:
George W. has stated that Iraqi oil wells should not be destroyed because "They belong to the people of Iraq". In a communist system, the government would control it. In a capitalist system, an oil company would control it. But if the people themselves own it for the good of everyone, then it's socialism.

I never pictured W. as a socialist. Perhaps he was just lying to us.
End Quote

Actually, in a theoretical scense, with both socialism and communism, the oil well would belong to the people, and would be developed to suit their needs (not ours).  Might I suggest that before you make statements like the above you educate yourself on the THEORETICAL literature of the left, which is very clear on the difference between socialism and communism.  If you want to study a real-ife example of Socialism, look at Cuba.  So far, the Soviet Union and China not withstanding, there has never been a Communist society.  So far, that's just a dream, but one worth understanding more deeply.  I mean no disrespect, but I have read this material.  It is much more sophisticated than you might imagine, and raises many more questions than you (and I) might have raised about "the good life" and what it means to be truley human.  Unfortunately, most people never confront this material, but just accept what they are told about it, mostly by its critics.  READ FOR YOURSELF, then decide.  Then I will respect your decision.  I say this in all respect and humility.  I certainly don't have the answers to humanity's problems, just ideas.  

Quoting:
In a socialist society the means of production are owned by the workers rather than by a rich minority of capitalists or functionaries. Such a system of ownership is both collective and individual in nature.

It is collective because society can control production unlike the economic anarchy of capitalism and because production is for the common good rather than for individual profit.

At the same time it is individual because workers are no longer a 'collective' mob of alienated non-owners employed by a minority of owners. Work becomes a free and self-affirming activity for each worker and they receive the full fruits of their labor. The capitalists and their servants no longer control production nor grow rich from other's toil. Everybody is an owner. Socialism is genuine free enterprise.

The personally empowering and cooperative nature of socialist ownership underpins similar changes in other aspects of life. Socialism means far healthier individuals and human relationships. It means full participation by each individual in the intellectual, cultural and political life of society.

Socialism requires a revolution with three main stages: firstly the emergence of a workers' movement committed to socialist revolution, secondly the achievement of political power and the expropriation of the capitalists and thirdly a period during which workers learn how to be owners and rulers and cast off the psychological and ideological dross of the past.

Socialism will not be an utopia simply created in people's minds. It will be the product of economic and social development. In developed countries it is now possible for everyone to live a reasonably affluent life and be free of long hours of routine toil. This creates a better basis for cooperation and mutual regard. Historically, where equality would have meant shared poverty, it was inevitable that a minority would plunder, enslave and exploit the majority. At the same time rank and file workers are progressively acquiring through their experiences, the abilities to do without an elite. Their general level of education and training has advanced significantly over the last couple of generations. The work they do, while still totally oppressive, has an increasingly mental and conceptual content. And they now have extensive access to cultural and intellectual resources and the diverse experiences of living in a modern society. So while socialism was impossible in the past, these emerging conditions make it inevitable in the future.

That good enough?
End Quote

VERY well explained, J.H. Couldn't have said it better myself.  As a college professor I would rate your explanation an "A" even from a 2nd semester senior.  I do question your final assertions, about the increasing mental content of work though.  Admittedly, its been a long  time since I worked "on the line" but believe me, it S**ked the big one in terms of being mindless.  Might I recommend Harry Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capital (but don't pay for it with plastic unless you want an FBI file-no joke)?  

Quoting:
You'd give an "A" without verifying the authenticity of his work?  Shame on you.  It took me all of 25 seconds to find he'd plagiarized this description word for word.  Want the full thing?  Go here:

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/

Shame, JH as well.
End Quote

Ouch!

Quoting:
You'd give an "A" without verifying the authenticity of his work?  Shame on you.  It took me all of 25 seconds to find he'd plagiarized this description word for word.  Want the full thing?  Go here:

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/

Shame, JH as well.
End Quote

IF this was submitted for a college course without citations I would be VERY suspisious, but this isn't an academic site, and his post was not the opening of a serious paper. ;D  A student once wrote, on an evaluation of my course, that I "quote from other books" - presumably beyong the text.  Where do you think knowledge comes from?  ??? We KEEP IT IN BOOKS, and on some web sites etc.  Lots of what I say (see my latest on "United Statesman" thread) is undocumented.  This is an informal site, so LIGHTEN UP dude, the guy is smart.  Just to find that concise and non-judgmental description should be a feather in his cap. ;)

Quoting:
Plagiarism is sort of like Socialism. One person does the work and others can take it as theirs and reap the overall benefits that go with it 8) Schweeet ;D No wonder it failed in Chile!
End Quote

lol..I don't think this is the exact definition of socialism!
That's how it goes down in a 'greedy' society but then that happens with capitalism too!

Quoting:


IF this was submitted for a college course without citations I would be VERY suspisious, but this isn't an academic site, and his post was not the opening of a serious paper. ;D  A student once wrote, on an evaluation of my course, that I "quote from other books" - presumably beyong the text.  Where do you think knowledge comes from?  ??? We KEEP IT IN BOOKS, and on some web sites etc.  Lots of what I say (see my latest on "United Statesman" thread) is undocumented.  This is an informal site, so LIGHTEN UP dude, the guy is smart.  Just to find that concise and non-judgmental description should be a feather in his cap. ;)
End Quote

Oh, I'm sorry.  I thought this indicated you were taking it seriously as his thoughts and words:

Quoting:VERY well explained, J.H. Couldn't have said it better myself.  As a college professor I would rate your explanation an "A" even from a 2nd semester senior.  I do question your final assertions, about the increasing mental content of work though.End Quote

Was I mistaken in that regard?  I don't believe so.  And look at the responses from PoP and Mordred.  They also feel what J.H. did was wrong, and yet now you stand here and condone it.  if knowledge comes from books, and even from websites, credit for that knowledge is due the authors.   Informal site or not, plagiarism is still plagiarism.  Nothing to lighten up about.

If you, as a college professor, quote from other books or use their text in your work, and you're not giving credit to the original sources, you are also guilty of this.  And it makes me wonder, is this also how you obtained your degree?  With such a lackadaisical attitude I am inclined to believe it may be so.

This does not prove JH is smart (not saying he isn't).  What it proves is he can use Google.  Like I said, I found that same description myself in less than 30 seconds.  That isn't an indicator of intelligence.  And it would certainly NOT merit a feather in his cap.  A feather might have been earned had he credited his source.

Quoting:


Oh, I'm sorry.  I thought this indicated you were taking it seriously as his thoughts and words:
Was I mistaken in that regard?  I don't believe so.  And look at the responses from PoP and Mordred.  They also feel what J.H. did was wrong, and yet now you stand here and condone it.  if knowledge comes from books, and even from websites, credit for that knowledge is due the authors.   Informal site or not, plagiarism is still plagiarism.  Nothing to lighten up about.

If you, as a college professor, quote from other books or use their text in your work, and you're not giving credit to the original sources, you are also guilty of this.  And it makes me wonder, is this also how you obtained your degree?  With such a lackadaisical attitude I am inclined to believe it may be so.

This does not prove JH is smart (not saying he isn't).  What it proves is he can use Google.  Like I said, I found that same description myself in less than 30 seconds.  That isn't an indicator of intelligence.  And it would certainly NOT merit a feather in his cap.  A feather might have been earned had he credited his source.
End Quote

So, pedant, you have thrown down the gauntlet on two counts.  First, I'll be watching that YOU provide complete documentation for every assertion of fact that you make in every post that you make on the threads that I follow, and I'll challenge every undocumented one of them.

Second, you suggest that I might be guilty of plaigerism.  So where's your proof?  If you want to read my work, I'll send you a reading list so you can track down every citation.  In the mean time, my second will call upon you - choice of weopons is, of course, yours, even though I am the offended party, but I suggest keyboards at 40 paces.  Your comment was personal and offensive.  Nuff said >:(  >:(  >:(

Quoting:
In the mean time, my second will call upon you - choice of weopons is...End Quote

Alright....

That's enough DC.

This isn't a duel, Mmmkay....

Quoting:
Maybe I am wrong,but in a duel, doesn't the challenged get to choose the weapons?  ;D
End Quote

Correct!

I am having fun watching the drama unfold.  8)

Quoting:


Correct!

I am having fun watching the drama unfold.  8)
End Quote

This is exciting times we're living in! :D

Quoting:
From now on, your posts are something most of us will skip because they read like Pravda on a bad day :-*
End Quote

I hope this is the case. This dude likes to hear himself talk...

....or see himself type.

DC,

You are simply a radical, an extremist. You have proven that.

However, I do not believe you are a professor or educator of any kind. Nothing you say will convince me otherwise, nor do I expect you to care about what I think.

It's all good.

In on-line forums, no one knows who anyone really is or what they truly do in their everyday lives in the real world. One can pretend to be what what they wish. Whatever floats your boat. Just do not expect to gain an allegiance of some sort here with your false propaganda.

Your inflated posts are quite tiresome. As a moderator, I am responsible for reading the tripe whether I like it or not because I take great care in assuring these forums run as smoothly as possible. Everyone has limits. I'm reaching mine.

Stop with the continual bashing and propaganda. I'm begining to believe your sole purpose here in these forums is to inflame issues and members. I'm begining to suspect you are a Flame Warrior.

By the way...

Your grammar is poor, as is your spelling.

Sorry, man. Somebody had to tell ya'.

Peace. ;)

Edited to add: I did respect your opinion once upon a time. I'm not targeting you because I disagree with your politics, with which I do disagree. I'm directing this post to you because you're managing to turn this particular forum into an inferno. :o

Quoting:
Geez, I don't think he's that bad.End Quote

You are such a good guy.  :)

Quoting:


So, pedant, you have thrown down the gauntlet on two counts.  First, I'll be watching that YOU provide complete documentation for every assertion of fact that you make in every post that you make on the threads that I follow, and I'll challenge every undocumented one of them.

Second, you suggest that I might be guilty of plaigerism.  So where's your proof?  If you want to read my work, I'll send you a reading list so you can track down every citation.  In the mean time, my second will call upon you - choice of weopons is, of course, yours, even though I am the offended party, but I suggest keyboards at 40 paces.  Your comment was personal and offensive.  Nuff said >:(  >:(  >:(
End Quote

Well, you may feel free on the first.  Whether it be debunking a circulating rumour via snopes.com, or giving info from the news to the group, I am known for not only saying where the info is from, but bracketing it in a quote box.  Have a field day.

On to your second issue, proof is not required.  I said that with such a lackadaisical attitude towards plagiarism, I believe that if you are indeed such a learned individual, as you claim to be, that you may have engaged in it yourself.  Go back and read that again.  I believe.  That does not require proof.  Your comments alone are enough to instill that belief in me.  By your comments alone, I made a "suggestion."  That also does not require proof.  Bite me.

And as for your so-called challenge?  How about you explain to me just why I would bother to engage in any sort of battle with you, when anytime I bring up points to your comments, you refuse to answer them?  It's like sword-fighting with a no-armed man.

Example:
You stated:

Quoting:In the international context of today, and historically, we preserved the peace for how many years with containment of the Soviet Union (and they could have anhialated all of us)?End Quote

And I replied

Quoting:As for the Soviet Union?  In our lifetimes the Soviet Union wasn't run by a madman.  But what about during Stalin's reign?  What about all the time's the Soviet Union DID invade a foreign nation, and set up a communist regime?  You protested in the 60's, did you decry the invasion of Czechoslovakia?  Did you decry the invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's?  How was that containment?  We outlasted them with a superior economy and defense.  They didn't annhilate becasue we could have annhilated them.  Had the opportunity presented itself to give the Soviets the upper hand, do you honestly think they wouldn't have taken it?  If you answer yes, then you are far more deluded than I could have possibly imagined.  This is the same Soviet Empire that said "We will bury you."  The only thing that kept things in balance was the knowledge that our destruction would mean their destruction.End Quote

You never replied to that.

Or how about this:
I said

Quoting:As far as you seem to be concerned, you seem to think war is never necessary.  You act like you are in possession of all of the facts here, and I'm quite sure you are not.  But I liken your position to this:
Say I walk up to you, and I hit you.  You will get up, brush off, and stand there while I hit you again.  And again.  And again.  And again.

Now, are you going to let that pattern continue, or are you going to fight back at some point?

Now, to make it more comparative to this situation, let's say you are a bully.  You have been known to hit others at will already.  I get reliable information that you are planning to hit me, or that you're making a weapon to use against me or some of my friends.  You're not at that point yet, though.  What should I do?  Should I knock you down now, or wait until you have finished your plans and put them into effect, hitting me and my friends?  And if I wait, am I not responsible for not acting when I knew what was going to happen?End Quote

And THIS was your response

Quoting:Do I take action to protect myself - and what action?- before I am attacked, or do I trust in my ability to respond?  In my own life I have been faces with this dilemma.  My  response as a teen first, to prepare myself for an attack, and on one occasion to attack first.  The other guy got a bloody nose - five minutes of pain - I got suspended from school and my dad busted my butt with extra chores, no allowance etc.  But when I was attacked first, and defended myself - one wrestling team member had back pains for 3 weeks, the other had groin pain for some time - I got off scott free because several people testified that the two of them ganged up on my.  I was attacked, I fought back, I "won".  Dad was proud. I lost, because violence isn't the answer.End Quote

You related incidents of your childhood, but did NOT answer the questions posed to you.  In the first instance, had you been THINKING, the case is simple.  I'm hitting you (terrorists hitting U.S. and U.S. interests, embassies, citizens, etc).  You get back up, and get hit again.  Do you fight back?  It has NOTHING to do with anything but answering that question.  Do you take it over and over, or do you eventually fight back.

In the second instance, you not only related an incident of being attacked first, you did NOT answer the question of what is the responsibility of not acting when you had the foreknowledge of the coming attack.  You just go back to "I lost because violence isn't the answer."  And I'm here to tell you that history has shown us otherwise.  We can have the most peaceful intentions in the universe, but to sit back and take whatever is dished at you can only spell disaster.  Sometimes you HAVE to fight for yourself, and for those who can't protect themselves.

You don't seem to have a grasp of this concept.  Instead you have the opinion that nothing in this nation is, or ever will be right.  You are clearly not happy with our government, or with its citizens.  You have no respect for anyone here, their opinions, or their feelings.  You feel its OK to spout your political rhetoric off in any thread you choose, no matter what its purpose.  You have no respect for the youth of this country, you find them to be stupid to the point of having no idea of political/geopolitical issues, or geography in general.  You have no respect for the members of our military, calling them "grunts," "sob grunts," and making it clear they only joined the military for a job and paycheck, not giving them any credit that they might actually know what they're doing.

In short, you have done nothing but offend the people of this board non-stop with your incessant, communistic/socialistic politco-babble.  If you truly are a former 60's protester, you failed to grow up.  If you truly are a college professor, you are a poor one, and I pity the students in your classes.  They';re paying for an education from someone who has a clue about TODAY, not the 60's, with conspiracies abounding in their head.  

Your challenge is refused.  You aren't worthy of more of my time.

Quoting:
  This crowd is waaay too tough for me *shudders*...I'm just going to stick to posting about New Wave music and Gummy Bears... ;)
End Quote

Dig it!! My sentiments exactly!! All these other wordsmiths are pretenders, Dave, YOU Da Man!! ;)

Quoting:

But I liken your position to this:
Say I walk up to you, and I hit you.  You will get up, brush off, and stand there while I hit you again.  And again.  And again.  And again.

End Quote

Well Vamp, that is a poor metaphor for what the situation in Iraq is. The situation is more like this: You go up to a man. You accuse him of carrying illeagal weapons. You have the police search him and his house. They find nothing. You insist that he has the weapons, the police keep searching. After months of searching and finding nothing, you get impatient and change your accusation. You accuse him of being an abusive father, which you know to be true. To deal with him, you bring a tank to his house and blow it to smithereens, killing him and several of his children.

What we should have done was have the police arrest the man and put his kids in foster care until a good family can adopt them.

Quoting:


Well Vamp, that is a poor metaphor for what the situation in Iraq is. The situation is more like this: You go up to a man. You accuse him of carrying illeagal weapons. You have the police search him and his house. They find nothing. You insist that he has the weapons, the police keep searching. After months of searching and finding nothing, you get impatient and change your accusation. You accuse him of being an abusive father, which you know to be true. To deal with him, you bring a tank to his house and blow it to smithereens, killing him and several of his children.

What we should have done was have the police arrest the man and put his kids in foster care until a good family can adopt them.
End Quote

Okay, supposing Saddam is the man, he refused (in the 90's) to allow the inspectors to search when they got too close.  Who's to say he wouldn't have done the same thing this time?  

And, using the same supposition, who do you expect to arrest him?  How long are we supposed to let him hide his weapons and (using your metaphor) "abuse his children"?  It has already been shown that he cares nothing about the Iraqi people or what the UN says.  And, the last time I checked, "child abuse" was still against the law.

Quoting:
Do you know which Flame Warrior you are?

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html
End Quote

There are so many :D ! Jerk, Grammarian, L'Enfant Povocateur, and so on. I like Swarm replies and Howlers :)

Quoting:


Well Vamp, that is a poor metaphor for what the situation in Iraq is. The situation is more like this: You go up to a man. You accuse him of carrying illeagal weapons. You have the police search him and his house. They find nothing. You insist that he has the weapons, the police keep searching. After months of searching and finding nothing, you get impatient and change your accusation. You accuse him of being an abusive father, which you know to be true. To deal with him, you bring a tank to his house and blow it to smithereens, killing him and several of his children.

What we should have done was have the police arrest the man and put his kids in foster care until a good family can adopt them.
End Quote

Read again, JH.

Quoting:Now, to make it more comparative to this situation, let's say you are a bully.  You have been known to hit others at will already.  I get reliable information that you are planning to hit me, or that you're making a weapon to use against me or some of my friends.  You're not at that point yet, though.  What should I do?  Should I knock you down now, or wait until you have finished your plans and put them into effect, hitting me and my friends?  And if I wait, am I not responsible for not acting when I knew what was going to happen?End Quote

Saddam has been playing the UN like a fine instrument.  "The UN is going to this location, move the weapons!"  How hard is it?  Now, are you REALLY going to sit there and tell me you have more information regarding what Washington and our allies knows about Saddam and his weapons program than any of us?  Are you privy to the top level meetings that have taken place?  Have you seen any of the top-secret satellite images the U.S. takes on a daily basis?  The intellignece information that flows in non-stop?  I dare say our government probably has a much bigger clue than you do.

I listed two VERY simplified (for ease of understanding.  Guess I should have been even simpler) examples to relate to the current situations the U.S. is facing.

And you profess to be so concerned with the Iraqi citizens who will be afftected by this war.  Let me put it to you in simple terms, and I'll try to keep them as simple as possible, to make sure you get it:

You have a neighbor who has a large family.  This neigbor is beating his family, and killing some of them at will.  You know this is happening, the police know this is happening but no one is doing anything to stop it.  Using force to stop this neighbor will probably result in some more members of the family dying, but fewer will die if you take action than if you don't.  What do you do?

THAT'S what Saddam is doing.  He kills these Iraqi's you claim we're murdering, and you say NOTHING about that.  That's OK in your eyes?  You've NEVER responded to this line of questioning whenever it's been asked of you.  But God forbid we kill some Iraqi's trying to get the guy who's brutally murdering them himself out of there.  Innocents die in war.  It's a fact of life.  Fewer will die as a result of our removing Saddam from power than will die as a result of leaving him there.  I suggest you read some more of what's going on over there.  There's open rebellion against Saddam forming now.  Whole units have surrendered without a fight. What does that say?  These are some of the same people who prematurely celebrated the end of Saddam's regime back in '91, and were slaughtered for it.  They wanted it then.  They want it now.

Quoting:

What we should have done was have the police arrest the man and put his kids in foster care until a good family can adopt them.
End Quote

Doesn't work JH.

1) who are the police that are going to "arrest" this abusive father?

2) Who is going to "adopt" these people, or foster them, for that matter?

Using your scenario, how long are you going to wait for the "police" to come and arrest this guy, when you see him putting his children in shredders, raping them, starving them? How long?

Also, since we are going with this scenario, how long are you going to put up with this guy not only abusing his own children, but paying a rotten neighbor to attack yours too?

What if your other neighbors stood around and said, "Ah well, there has to be a diplomatic way to deal with this. Let's just keep trying to reason with the guy. Let's just keep trying to find some evidence (that he keeps hiding in different places), let's just let the authorities deal with him. After all, he isn't attacking us, he is just attacking you and his own children.

Do you like that scenario?  >:(

Quoting:
The situation is more like this: You go up to a man. You accuse him of carrying illeagal weapons. You have the police search him and his house. They find nothing. You insist that he has the weapons, the police keep searching. After months of searching and finding nothing, you get impatient and change your accusation. You accuse him of being an abusive father, which you know to be true. To deal with him, you bring a tank to his house and blow it to smithereens, killing him and several of his children.

What we should have done was have the police arrest the man and put his kids in foster care until a good family can adopt them.
End Quote

::)

John, if only it were that simple...

That metaphor, if you want to call it that, might work if spouted on stage at an anti-war rally, but not here.

Quoting:
It's more like, you know in your gut that this abusive father is dangerous, he's too dangerous to keep around, but the guy jerks the police around constantly, because the police aren't really willing to go in there and do what has to be done, and the guy gives them nothing or close to it, and eventually you get fed up and make it known that he has to move out of the neighborhood or you'll kill him yourself, which you are quite able to do because you're the richest and most powerful guy in the community, but your neighbors don't like the idea and they won't help you break into this guy's house and the police won't cooperate with you even though they can't technically stop you, and the neighbors are your friends and all, but they don't like the idea of you going in and doing whatever the heck you feel like, and they're starting to get pissed off at you, and in the meantime the guy knows you're coming and is willing to try and do whatever damage he can to you even though he can't really take you in a fight, and you're going to cause tons of damage to the property and whoever's inside either way, and you know all this but you feel it's what you got to do because you won't feel safe any other way.
End Quote

You left out a crucial detail:

You forgot to mention that the "children" of this "father" have told us first-hand that he is severly abusing them and that they want us to liberate,...er, "adopt" them.  

Quoting:
Police: The U.N.End Quote

Who he has already refused to cooperate with, but if force had been chosen by the UN, who do you think would be the most productive (for lack of a better term) of the forces?  The US, of course.

Quoting:
Foster parents: Whatever interim government the U.N. comes up with.End Quote

The French maybe?

Quoting:
Adopted parents: The leadership that takes over after the interim government fufills its duty and the people are prepared to adopt Democracy.End Quote

Well, that would be the Iraqi people, wouldn't it?  Seems to me that most of them ARE ready, just too afraid to do it as Saddam has already shown that he will kill anyone who defies him.

Quoting:
My point is we could have forced him out of power using the inspectors and political pressure to get him out of power. I still think that there were alternatives to war.

We could have got rid of Saddam without getting innocent blood on our hands.
End Quote

Sorry, the UN has been trying since 91 and have failed.  He simply doesn't care what other people think or say.  I see no other choice but to do it by force.

As for the innocent blood on our hands, I can tell you, it's nowhere near the amount of innocent blood on his hands.

Quoting:

As for the innocent blood on our hands, I can tell you, it's nowhere near the amount of innocent blood on his hands.
End Quote

Does that really justify our actions?

Quoting:
As for the innocent blood on our hands, I can tell you, it's nowhere near the amount of innocent blood on his hands.
End Quote

Are you quite sure about that?
I'd hate to start adding up the death toll from American actions....

Quoting:

Are you quite sure about that?
I'd hate to start adding up the death toll from American actions....
End Quote

Or British actions...or French actions...or German actions (oooh, that's a big one there, MMMhmmm)...or Russian actions...or Chinese actions...

MAW!  Git muh calcoolator!

Quoting:


You have the police search him and his house. They find nothing. You insist that he has the weapons, the police keep searching. After months of searching and finding nothing, you get impatient and change your accusation.
End Quote

The problem with this scenario, John, is that they did find missles that he didn't list in his weapons report.  And, just this weekend, they found a hidden building thought to be a chemical plant.  Things were found...

Quoting:
First of all, they found no chemical weapons. Second, we're not sure what the chemical plant made. And even if we do discover that this is a chemical weapons plant, why didn't we have the patience to let the inspectors find it?
End Quote

What about the missles the inspectors did find...the ones that Saddam forgot to include?

We had patience...over 8 months ago the UN told Saddam to disarm or else...he didn't listen.  I think that is enough patience.  We can't keep backing off.  Then he gets away with murder both literally and figuratively.

Quoting:
The problem with this scenario, John, is that they did find missles that he didn't list in his weapons report.  And, just this weekend, they found a hidden building thought to be a chemical plant.  Things were found...
End Quote

it will be interesting to see what this chemical plant turns out to be.

In addition:  Today on ABC radio news they were reporting that recently-manufactured scud missile noses and other parts were being stored in this illusive chemical plant.

Like I said here before, Saddam and the so-called UN "inspectors" both said there were no scuds in Iraq, who knows what else they missed.

Quoting:
First of all, they found no chemical weapons. Second, we're not sure what the chemical plant made. And even if we do discover that this is a chemical weapons plant, why didn't we have the patience to let the inspectors find it?
End Quote

OH COME ON! Child, child, child, how many more times are you going to DEFEND this dictator who grinds people up like lunchmeat when they don't agree with him?  Can you really justify any of his actions??????

Quoting:
First of all, they found no chemical weapons. Second, we're not sure what the chemical plant made. And even if we do discover that this is a chemical weapons plant, why didn't we have the patience to let the inspectors find it?
End Quote

Inspectors weren't supposed to "find" anything.  Saddam was supposed to produce the weapons and sites along with paperwork to track what had become of them.  

Quoting:
You: He's killing his people.

Me: So are we. Can't we come to a solution where Saddam is ousted without us going to war?
End Quote

So how many have we killed?  You have no idea.  Heck, even the propoganda machine at Saddam's Iraqi TV isn't even talking about it like they did in the first Gulf War.

I would be willing to bet that, if any, it is very very minimal.  And I guarantee it is much much less than the amount Saddam would have ground up so far this month.

Quoting:


Or British actions...or French actions...or German actions (oooh, that's a big one there, MMMhmmm)...or Russian actions...or Chinese actions...

MAW!  Git muh calcoolator!
End Quote

Whatsa calcoolator Paw? I can jes do the cypherin' with mah pencil and paper.  ;D

Yes, the list goes on and on and on and on......and please let's remember, folks, the US of A ain't the only one's involved in this here war......it takes at least two parties for there to be a war. Insane should have stepped out of the picture while he had the offer of a new home on the table.

Quoting:
You: Iraq has longer ranged missles that they didn't tell us about.

My response: 20km range increase isn't worth going to war over.

You: He's killing his people.

Me: So are we. Can't we come to a solution where Saddam is ousted without us going to war?

What is comes down to is you think that the best way to get rid of Saddam with the least life lost is through war. I don't think that. I think we could have at the very least waited until the world grew as impatient as us to avoid an anti-US backlash.
End Quote

John, you never answered my question...I will post it here, too so you don't have to search:

Quoting:One more thing, John.  How do you think the inspectors would have found it?  They were visiting know warehouses and plants.  This place was hidden in the sand so that satellites couldn't find it.  Do you think Saddam was going to point it out to them?  Iraq is a big place (like the size of California) for 200 inspectors.  Especially since so much of it is desert.  They wouldn't have found it if they weren't told about it.End Quote

Quoting:
The same way our army did, stumble on it.
End Quote

I don't think that was possible.  It is in the desert and heavily guarded.  There is no way they couldn have just stumbled on it.