Call the President about war with Iraq : LUSENET : Beyond the Sidewalks : One Thread

I got this message from one of my subscribed email lists. Please note that the woman who sent it has made the call herself, so it's not just a "pass it on" that's out of date, nor apparently a hoax.

She wrote "Whatever your opinion on it, take the 3 minutes to give the Pres a call and let him know what it is - this is too important to not add your voice to and not know where you stand."

And here is the copied text that she was forwarding:

"Please phone the White House (the president's personal opinion poll) to vote against the war at 202-456-1111. It was easy and took me less than 3 minutes, after a few tries with redial to get past the busy signal (hours are 9:00am to 5:00pm EST). A machine will detain you for only a moment and then a pleasant live operator will thank you for calling, ask what state you are calling from and give you an opportunity to say "I oppose" (or "I approve of") the proposed war against Iraq. They don't ask any more details than that. Please call - whether or not they take these opinions to heart is debatable, but worth a try, and time is running out. Then, if you can, please forward this e-mail to at least five people right away."


It's too late today to call, but I will be calling tomorrow.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2002


Do ya really think that it will do any good, Joy?? I doubt it...BUT I will be calling first thing tomorrow morning. At least I can say that I tried :-)!! I can't believe that you can talk to a "live" person!!! Thanks for the tip.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2002

Thanks Joy; will call in the morning too.......and don't forget everyone, to sign the petition sherri linked us to (not in our name). Remember, "your silence will not protect you."


-- Anonymous, September 25, 2002

All calling does is get you on a shit list and with the current situation, that is not a nice place to be :>)

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2002

If you don't have to give your do they know who to put on a "shit" list?? Anyways, Harry and I have been on shit lists of better people than those in D.C. :-)!!

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2002

Some opinion I've heard is that the pres knows something that he's not saying. That is scary.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2002

If I wasn't already on all kindsa 'lists' by now, I'd sure as heck consider myself a failure as a citizen.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2002

I for one am looking forward to it finally getting under way. At this point more harm will occur if the country doesn't take action. But ya'll keep your opposition going, its an important factor for success. Diversions are always important in any govermental strategy.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

Okay, Jay, let's talk. Unless of course you just wanna make provocative statements and then leave the discussion, which I sincerly hope is not the case.

In simple, easily understood language, just what "harm will occur if the country doesn't take action"?

And by "action" are you specifically referring to militarily attacking Iraq, and forcing Iraq to undergo a regime change, replacing him with someone of our government's choosing, as is Georgie's wish?

"But ya'll keep your opposition going, its an important factor in success," sounds incredibly patronizing, unless I am totally misunderstanding the statement, which is entirely possible, cuz I frequently am clueless about things you say.

Would you be so kind as to enlighten this poor blonde as to what exactly that means? An important factor to whom and why/how?

"Diversions are always important in any govermental strategy." Diversions by whom, and from what? Do you think this is some kind of game played by bored housewives? Or are you of the mindset that the government is actually happy about the growing anti-war movement, for some reason that escapes us?

I wait with bated breath for a continued discussion on this critical issue.


-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

I called this morning and it is just as easy as the email said. I did have to dial a few times to get past the busy signal, and once I got thru I was put on hold for about a minute. The operator just asks what state you're calling from and what your comment is.

I'm not worried about getting on some mysterious list. I feel it's part of my duty as a citizen to speak up and let my opinion be heard. I just don't buy into the whole Ashcroft BS that anyone who speaks out against current governmental policy is no better than a terrorist.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

I hope its a good sign that I havent been able to get through! Dialed for 10 minutes this morning, and now (12:30), been re-dialing for 15! I'll try later.....have errands to run...

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

Well, Marcia, I don't know if it will do any good at all. One would hope that if they set up an opinion poll, they'd want to know the results! I haven't been able to get through yet -- constant busy signal. I hope it is just a high volume of callers expressing their own true opinion, whichever position they hold, and not some group holding the line hostage by constantly redialling and jamming the line. Unfortunately, this kind of behavior is all too common. Grrrr!

Yes, Jay, please do address EM's comments, I would be interested in your answers as well!

Sherri, why are you surprised that Chuck deletes things that he disagrees with? He's been doing that from the beginning! Anyone who participates there should do so knowing that, any disclaimers from him aside, it IS his board, and he'll do whatever he pleases. How he squares that with his conscience, I have no idea.

Wow! I just got through to their automated answering system and am currently on hold to leave my comment. Hope it doesn't fall apart at this point!

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

Bleah. I waited awhile, but after the second time they gave me the option to leave a recorded message, I took that. I hope it did some good!

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

EM, I am a supporter of war machines. I work in the defense contract industry to provide better ways of war and we need a target. Saddam is as good as any other. I need the activity to enhance my lifestyle. Just personal choice as your choice is the hippie culture. You want peace for you to enjoy yourself, I want war to enjoy myself. I am just your oppisite number.Without opposition, there is no cause,only boredom. But the more you folks complain, the more determined the powers to be will proceed ahead, The more we continue ahead, the more active you will protest. Our positions fuel each other. While you embrace the world, I like to see the boot on the throat to establish political superiority. I don't expect to ever change your views and know you will never alter mine. I do however support your right to protest it and appreciate the fact that you are adding fuel to the flames. Look on the bright side, the stimulated economy will fund our domestic problems. Take care and enjoy all to come.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

Well, Jay, THAT response surprised me! I thought you always claimed to be a "live and let live" kind of guy -- did I get that wrong? And if I didn't, how do you reconcile "live and let live" with the boot on the throat? Maybe I should go root around for that hodge-podge thread we had way back when, 'cause I think that's where I got that impression of you.

Now as far as the boot on the throat, I would argue that the USSA HAS had it's boot on the throat of just about every other country in the world for quite some time now. It matters not that the boot sometimes is covered by a velvet slipper, it still can crush. Ugh! Such ugly metaphors!

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

Meant to add, by diversion, I meant that it keeps you occupied and out of their way. While all the activists are calling or trying to call, they're only bending the ears of switchboard personnel, while the varsity is going into the game. EM: And you are not a "dumb blonde", just one with views other than mine. You and I help keep this place perking. I will defend to the death your right to be you.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

Well...I really wouldn't know what to say to all that, except that I don't understand how someone could enjoy themselves with a war going on! But I've never been very good at expressing myself and debating. So I guess I'll just shut up and keep on pushing redial til I get through!! Been trying off and on all day and in a few minutes we have to go pull our lobster traps. Sure wish I could call after 5 p.m.!!!!! I WILL be trying again tomorrow..and the day after..etc.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

Jay your response reminds me of my ex-husband, he was a civilian defense contractor during Gulf War I. I can see how a war would enrich your personal pockets but I don't agree that it's going to help the economy as a whole. The 'war is good for the economy' may have been the case in traditional wars like WWII but it certainly hasn't held true for nonconventional wars like Vietnam or the Gulf War. In fact it was the tanking of our economy during Desert Storm that cost Prez Bush #1 his re-election. There's an article in today's Washington Post about the potential economic impact of invading Iraq. If it's a quick victory then it should have a neutral impact on the economy, but a prolonged occupation could be an economic disaster for our country.

To everyone else trying to get through on the phone lines, I called in as soon as they opened at 9am. That may be why I got through so quickly.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

I've been trying, off and on, for a few days. Always a busy signal. A friend who also has been trying speculates that the Resident was so disappointed by the number of folks who stated their objection to war in Iraq that he told the answerers to just take the phone off the hook :)

I'll try again. And again.

I have a hard time believing that that is really Jay Blair. I think it's a troll. Can someone who knows how please check to verify his email addy?

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

I finally did get through! The guy told me it was an honor to serve me! HA! Made me giggle a very polite he was!

Um, Jay, are you high?

In the first place, unless you have been pullin our leg for quite some time, the claim to be working in the defense industry makes no sense, since you are supposedly retired from salaried/contractural labor.

Secondly, even career soldiers do not make a claim of enjoying war; only a sadistic psychotic would feel that indescribable horror of warfare is something to be desired and enjoyed.

"Without opposition, there is no cause,only boredom."

Au contraire, nothing would please peaceniks more than to spend our lives serving others in a way that didnt involve having to constantly fight the idiocy that is war and conflict. Conflict is not only unnecessary for a full and complete life, it gets in the way, it halts progress, especially spiritual progress, which is where real joy resides. How very very sad to think that life is boring without conflict.

I do not want "peace to enjoy myself." I want peace because for some strange reason, knowing people are SUFFERING BOTHERS ME!!!!!!!!!!! Wishing people to 'enjoy all to come' , when all to come will involve human beings living in constant terror, being blown to bits, watching their babies being murdered and their homes and country destroyed, their lives lost or shattered with unspeakable horror , and all in our names..........what the bloody hell are you talking about?????? Are you nuts??????

"But the more you folks complain, the more determined the powers to be will proceed ahead,". Are you saying that you believe if the populace voted 100% to support this mad war that the Bushies would change their mind?? Are you saying that because the anti-war movement is growing that the Bushies will be MORE APT to attack Iraq?? On what do you base this bizarre viewpoint? How does it make sense?

"Meant to add, by diversion, I meant that it keeps you occupied and out of their way. "

How are we out of their way?? Those who sit back and say/do nothing are the ones who would seem to be out of their way. We, on the other hand, have no intention of staying out of their way. I for one intend to be in their face every chance I get.

OH, and by the way, yes, Jay, you are right. I am not a dumb blonde, but I still frequently get lost in your posts. This one, however, is off the charts.

Now I will await your post saying April Fool or somesuch..

Peace and love and all that hippy crap,

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

I enjoy working with nature and enriching my lifestyle while not really caring about other parts of the world. If I can help others without detracting from my own holdings ,thats wonderful. I have always embraced the barbarian warrior style of conquest (boot on the throat) and believe natural stewardship a neccesary way to clean up the ravages of war to provide a comfortable environment for people of my own kind as an oasis.

I am not high, I am conservative right, relying on investments and supportive of the current administration. I have just usually tried to avoid these types of topics as I do not share most of the liberal views here, but do respect your right to the view of your choice. Generally, I restrict to non political topics. But as all, I have my views, which are more conservative republican with a personal slant toward anarchy, hence my adversion to generally accepted society. I use all facets of our social structure to my own benifit first, but I do try to pursue interests to allow fringe benifits to others also.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

Wow, what a time for me to come back! l actually hate to discuss politics because, no matter what you think, there's no right or wrong answer. Until after the fact! And all the arm chair quarterbacks in the world think they have all the information they need to make an informed decision. Hell, it's hard enough for the people that do have access to all the information and they don't have a very good track record. Trust me,they are hardly giving us any of the information and they shouldn't.

It's not nice to let your enemy know what you know. Or the day and hour you're going to attack. Or what forces you're going to put in place. I think that we've talked about attacking too long. Do you think that Saddam isn't marshaling his troops right now and surrounding himself with civilians? All because we've warned him.

I'm with Jay on the phone calls. Do you really think that they're going to change their policy or plans because of a few phone calls? Have you forgotten that they don't work for us? The phone calls are just a diversion to let the people think that they( the people) are in control. And it helps to let our enemies know that we are divided. We need more Jane Fondas.

Ya'll can harp about the coming war all you want to but when good ol' Saddam develops and drops his little toy on the U.S. you'll be crying that we had all the information we needed to stop it, just like you did with 9/11. If we'd have taken aggressive steps to prevent 9/11 then you'd have been complaining that we were violating the Constitution in some way, violating their civil rights, etc. It's another one of those situations where you'll never know the right answer until it's over.

Wildman, (tired of pussy footing)

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

What Wildman said.

I wish the phone calls would do some good but I don't think it makes any difference at all what the results of the poll are. I don't want war either but what else are you going to do when saddam won't listen to reason. There is no reasoning with people like that. The best scenario would be for his own people to overthrow him but I also understand that's much easier said than done.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2002

How do we know that Saddam won't listen to reason? Other than what's been carefully spoon-fed to us from the media, what proof do we have that he's even up to anything? At least with the first Gulf War there was an outward sign of aggression. Don't you wonder why other than Britain no other country wants to back us? If we're really worried about nuclear weapons, why not go after China, or North Korea, or India, or Pakistan, or Cuba? I'm very worried about the precident the US will be setting with our new policy of "it's OK to attack someone first if we think they might maybe possibly attack us someday maybe". If it's OK for the US, why won't it be OK for other countries to do the same thing? If we say we can do it but they can't then we're just reinforcing the old Ugly American stereotype and giving incentive for even more terrorism.

I'm probably going to get blasted by some of you for saying this, but it's been on my mind for a while now. September 11th was a national tragedy and I'm not trying to belittle the memories of those who died that day. But if you look on a global scale and take into account the countries who have been under attack by terrorist for years if not centuries, was what happend to us really that bad? If those airliners had crashed into Mexico City or Belfast rather than New York and Washington DC would our government even care? I think this whole War on Terrorism has been blown majorly out of proportion. It's like the big bad bear got a beesting on his ass and now he's going to destroy the entire forest looking to swat the bee.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2002

He hasn't listened to reason in 12 years. The situation now could be compared to old western towns. Folks want to be civil, but they need your Earps and Hollidays to do the dirty work and keep the crap off the streets. The attacks last September brought the need of barbaric control to the surface once again. Why Saddam? Just the first stop on crushing the potential oppositions. After Iraq, maybe they will pick another. If no opposition chooses to rear up, our barbarians will once again melt to the background and let lovefest continue on as it has. I as most, enjoy the easy life, however, I do not cringe when my country has a need to show its uglier and stronger side. Its just part of the whole equation. Just think, you couldn't exist happily complaining about how bad the Indians were done had the government not crushed them and then chosen to allow you the freedom to exist. We all have a purpose, we all get some of what we want. It works. BTW if you want to call someone, call your congressmen, they are more inclined to listen to you and take action to protect their elected seat.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2002

Jeez, maybe I was wrong: Maybe Jay really is Jay. If so, he's the quintessential example of Shrub/Ashcrap/Rumdum/ Chainstore/Condeloser thinking. Thanks Jay, for clarifying what it means to be a totally selfish, mean spirited, jingoistic Republican ass.

One question, Jay: WHAT "toy" are you referring to? So far, I have heard NO real evidence that Iraq has ANY nuclear weapons, much less the means to deliver a nuclear weapon thousands of miles to our continent.

As far as the phone call bit, I think that the Congress, at least, does care what people think. Unfortunately, many in our legislature apparently share Jay's lack of moral values, and would happily kill all the "foreigners" in the world, if they thought that would get them reelected to their cushy jobs, with lifetime retirement packages after working one session, the ability to pocket millions of dollars in unspent campaign "contributions" (aka bribes)

So. We DO need to call this phone number. We also need to call our US Reps and Senators (their numbers are easy to find on line, btw). We need to show them that we're not all sheeple, who are willing to rally around the flag of death and war, all so our Resident Select can increase his oil buddies' profits by destroying Irag.

Think about this: US "experts" predict oil prices to go up to maybe $100 per barrel, with devastating results to our economy. Some have told me this PROVES that Bush must have higher minded reasons for attacking Iraq, since "obviously" he wouldn't deliberately destroy our economy if he weren't legitimately concerned about our national security.

Unfortunately, I believe that this highly immoral character would gladly do just that, if he and his pals would profit. And profit they would: $100 per barrel would increase their profits by hundreds of percent.

Gotta go. Jay, you need to do some serious soul searching.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2002

EM, I think it is a "testosterone thing" that some members of the male species embrace wholeheartedly that the whole war as a positive and effective means of making the rest of the world play by your own set of rules is a just and equitable thing.

I guess the Vietnam experience is too distant a horrific memory to the youngsters leading our country today, Dubya included. The end never justifies the means, war will always remain a horrible, murdering, horror that doesn't have to happen, we decide what happens, if we declare war, the souls of the murdered should rest heavily on our shoulders, THAT alone prevents me from embracing violence as an option to any conflict, large or small.

Remember, even World War II had the oppportunity to be prevented from occuring, there are always other options and solutions. Perhaps the world will know no different way of settling our conflicts till more women are in positions of leadership and authority. Estrogen does not make women wimps, but it does give us incredible powers of empathy and conscience, as well as strength.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2002

I have my moral views and political views. Thankfully they are not identical to some of the ones I see here. I will not degrade as some to name calling. As far as reconizing an Ass, you dont have to be a vetrinarian to identify them here. Enjoy your closed debate.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2002

Well, at least we can agree on one thing, Jay. Regarding your "moral and political views", I am EXTREMELY happy that "Thankfully they are not identical to some of the ones I see here"

That would be frightening, indeed.

Annie, I agree with your argument about women ruling the world, to a point. I agree that "we" males have historically done a horrific job of ruling, and am pleased that more women have taken an active role in politics, and most every other aspect of life.

Unfortunately, there may be as many macho women as men; I don't know. I do know that Condoleeza Rice, Margaret Thatcher, and their ilk are no better than lots of male politicos.

Perhaps it is less one's gender than one's basic attitude that are the basis for all the nastiness that happens around the world. Maybe some people just can't stand it if anyone, anywhere, is not under their total control?

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2002

joj, those "macho women" are the poor victims of a severe hormone imbalance, brought about by improper diet and chemical imbalances, you notice of the ones you mentioned, they are all of a premenopausal and later stage of their lives, such insensitive and aggressive behavior is not supposed to be in the normal range of maternal and feminist behaviors. There will be the bad apples in every demographic group, male and female, that is why I said "some members" of the masculine gender ;-), I did not want to imply that all men are Hitler incarnate.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2002

Thanks for the clarification, Annie; 'tho I don't believe Maggie (the Iron Maiden" is likely premenopausal.

Being a "mere male", I of course DIDN'T NOTICE that you said, "some members" of the masculine gender'" Too much testosterone induced hackle standing, no doubt ;-)

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2002

Sherri, you're probably right that if this attack had happened in another country that we wouldn't be where we are now. But, the fact is that it happened on our soil this time. The terrorist have attacked the U.S. while on foreign soil, four or five times and the U.S. did nothing but complain. No action. Since they weren't punished for previous terrorist attacks outside the U.S. against the U.S. then they brought the attack to our soil. I can't help but feel that if we had stomped their asses when they first attacked us, that they wouldn't have had the nerve to bring the battle to America. But, as it is, why should they fear, as the Japanese would say, the paper tiger? They had struck before with impunity. Why would they expect retaliation this time? I think our great President Clinton put us in this position by not acting swiftly at the onset of violence against the U.S.

Now Joe, I think it was me that mentioned the "toy". When you get this comprehension thing down you're really going to enjoy reading. I said, "develops and drops his little toy on the U.S". That means that he might not have one now, but we know he is stockpiling the parts to build one. Or maybe he's just stockpiling the parts to keep his enemies from building one? If he doesn't already have one and we haven't confirmed that yet, there's evidence that he will have soon.

Okay, "much less the means to deliver a nuclear weapon thousands of miles to our continent." Well, let's see. Maybe he could contact some of those drug smugglers that we're so good at keeping out of the US. borders? Or maybe some of those Mexicans that keep sneaking across our controlled borders? Naw, probably couldn't get in that way. After they get here they don't have to "drop" it but if that's what they want to do, private planes are easy to rent. I don't think they'd be worried about the condition in which they returned the plane. Hell, commercial aircraft wouldn't be out of the question! People are still getting on board with guns and knifes but that dangerous breast milk has been stopped and the guy with the plate in his head!

Ya'll sure went off on old Jay for expressing his opinion (if that is really his opinion), didn't you?

Joe, from your comments to Jay, I can only conclude that you're a died in the wool Democrat and nothing the Republicans do is right and there's nothing that Democrats can do that's wrong. The Democratic Party loves you and thanks you for your support, right or wrong.

EM., of all the people on here, I'd figured you to be one of the most tolerant of others views. Your wrath surprised me more than Jays or Joes.

Wildman, AR. (expressing an opinion)

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2002

Well...I hadn't planned on saying anything else about this subject, but...did anyone else notice that on tonight's evening news and on a previous night's news our president mentioned during his discussions about his desired "Irag Attack" that his daddy had been threatened by Saddam?? I can't help but think that George jr. is trying to take over where George sr. left off. Kinda like the Hatfield's and the McCoy's :-)!!

BTW...I'm a registered Independent, and most of the time I don't even vote along my own party lines!! I just know that I do not want another war, especially where we are the aggressor!

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2002

Oh yeah...almost fergot! I got through today and voiced my opinion on the phone. Probably wont do any good, but I felt better :-)!! AND..I spelled Iraq wrong on my previous post...sorry!

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2002

Jack, I don't know why you have characterized my post as 'wrath'; wrath in my book requires hatred and rage......I hold no such feelings, sorry, not even to Georgie et al, and certainly not towards Jay.

My post was emotional in nature, its true; I make no apology for my passionate nature, fact is I'm right fond of it. A more accurate description of my feelings after reading Jay's post was of complete disbelief that someone I considered a friend could hold such seemingly barbaric views of the world and her people. To make statements that seem to celebrate war, that he cared not a whit about anyone but himself, that he would help others when it was convenient for him, that he feels comfortable with the 'boot on the throat' mentality, these were beyond shocking sentiments to me, and I reacted by not only expressing my shock, but by asking lots of questions, most of which have still not been answered.

I have no anger towards Jay; I do, however hold a deep sadness. I cannot imagine how anyone who holds such a view of the world could be a happy individual deep inside, how the world needs his many gifts he could but apparently refuses to share. I feel this mindset feeds the all too rampant hostility and maybe even worse, the malaise, which I see as feeding the road to our own destruction.

Jack, you have a habit of making assumptions! Nothing that Joe said, from what I can see, inferred he was so narrow as to assume such partisan feelings. I'm going to be presumptuous enough to submit that he was merely stating that judging from comments Jay made, Jay was fullfilling an absolute stereotype, a stereotypical version of a right-wing Republican, minus the religous aspect. That stereotype includes selfishness (first political priority : low taxes.......I got mine, to hell with you; making frequent references to any gov't- connected program that helps people they don't know, "I use all facets of our social structure to my own benifit first"); paranoid (convinced the government wants all their precious guns, "I like to see the boot on the throat to establish political authority,") and so on, which all in all just doesn't paint a picture of a very happy, well-adjusted human being. But that's just my take, for whatever that's worth.

Oh, and Jack, are you serious?

"I can't help but feel that if we had stomped their asses when they first attacked us, that they wouldn't have had the nerve to bring the battle to America."

Stomped WHOSE asses? Terrorists are all over the world! Are we going to bomb the whole world? There are terrorists in the UK; shall we bomb them? How about Saudi Arabia, since that is where the hijackers came from?

Or maybe just the countries with capabilities of "mass destruction." Who has the biggest capability of mass destruction? Well gol darn it I believe its US! Can the rest of the world use the same logic/justification for pre-emptive strikes.........hell they could bomb us without impunity cuz we fit the description better than anyone else!

Please enlighten us as to your battle plan had YOU been in President Clinton's place. Inquiring minds want to know.


-- Anonymous, September 27, 2002


That is my position. My apologies for being unpopular.

Think about Harry Truman calling pilots into the Oval Office and giving them a switch and asking them if by depressing that switch, they will kill 50,000 people, but save 150,000 or more. Tibbets was the only one to accept the logistics.

Consider the attack of 9/11 as putting the entire population of this country at risk. The hostilities with Iraq have gone on for 11 years. The threat is now here. What is our main objective? To go after Saddam. We will go in to establish order and verify he has no WMDs. By U.N. proclomation, he is to allow inspections.

If Saddam lived at 714 Elm Street, Any town USA, he would be as a parolee who has decided to lock himself in his house and not talking to his parole officer. Wouldn't the SWAT team come to correct the problem? And another point, people want to bitch about the draft, we have always been registered sice the 50s, except for three years during the 70s. Furthermore, our military is currently a voluntary force. During the Desert Shield and Storm campaign, our military had voluntarily enlisted personnel deserting because "I only joined the military to get college tuition." What did those bums think, they didn't have to pay tuition costs? Its very likely that you will see a continued rise in military enlistment, just as it has been steadily increasing since 9/11. Lottery selection of the Selective Service Registration may never have to occur. What has kept this country as strong as it has been, has been our position of strength in the past. Last year, that strength and respect were challenged in our own front yard. Before that, it was challenged abroad.

I, as many, had victims of the attack with local ties and know their family members, who influence my views more than the lines typed on these forums. You want to help innocent people, think of our own first. This isn't politics anymore. It is now spilled blood. That blood has awakened the slumbering barbarian within this country. I am sure many saw the movie "The Patriot". Remember how the main character changed from quiet to savage as fresh blood was spilled? The attitude of waging war is not due to Presidential rhetoric, testostesone or high inducing drugs, it is the awakening of the blood lust within. A normal human instinct, that not everyone chooses to supress. Should this action come to pass, there will be many willing participants taking part, just as you willingly oppose it.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2002

I was busily composing this post in Word, and now I see a couple of more posts have appeared. I think, though, that I will just add a little to the following and post it anyway.

I have given Jay plenty of time to recant. He hasn’t. I want nothing to do with anyone who WANTS war. Wildman and Denise (I think) seem to feel that war is necessary. While I don’t agree with their assessment of the situation, I am not taking issue with them because I don’t believe they WANT war, but believe it is necessary. Jay, on the other hand, WANTS war because “we need a target. Saddam is as good as any other. I need the activity to enhance my lifestyle.” To hope for war (and it’s accompanying disease, death, dismemberment, and destruction) to test equipment and for personal gain is completely despicable. The dead will include Americans – what kind of person would HOPE for that?! You may think it inevitable, but to desire it to happen? BIG BIG difference!!

In the past, many of us have identified this board as a group of friends. I cannot and will not be friends with anyone who hopes for the deaths of others for material gain. So, Jay, as far as I am concerned, you are persona non grata. This is not my own personal board. If it were, I would boot you out and change the password so you couldn’t come back. Since it ISN’T my personal board and not my decision, I will have to content myself with ignoring your presence and refusing to acknowledge anything you might post subsequently. And keeping a barf bag next to my chair.

Wildman, I suspect the reasons I have given above are why EM and JOJ “went off” on Jay, though I can’t speak for them. Being tolerant is a relative state (as is being intolerant) – no one is completely tolerant nor intolerant of absolutely everything! We all draw our lines somewhere. Mine include (but are not limited to) murder, rape, assault, child abuse, animal torture, and HOPING FOR OTHER TO SUFFER AND DIE! That’s not an opinion, that’s a desire. If YOU desire the deaths of others so that your “lifestyle” will be enhanced, then you, too, are ”persona non grata” to me as well.

Also, Wildman, I think you have reached the wrong conclusions about JOJ, but I will leave it to him to correct you if he wants to do so.

Yes, Marcia, I have suspected for quite some time that part of GWB’s zeal for war with Iraq has to do with personal vendetta, rather than best interests of the American people. But then, it seems to me that he stands to get some sort of personal gain from almost every action that he takes or wants taken. One of the myriad reasons I distrust Bush – he has too many conflicts of interest to actually be a servant of the people. And I do agree with you, war would be horrible, and for the USA to be the aggressor would just make it worse. I wonder how many who think “we” should go to war will be on the front lines risking their own lives? How many would still advocate war if they or someone dear were guaranteed to be one of the ones killed or horribly mangled?

Added after reading the most recent posts by EM and Jay:

EM, I don’t agree with wrath = hatred. To me, it means anger – and, yes, Jay’s selfish greed has angered me. It makes me sad as well, since I had considered him a friend. I can feel sorrow over such a person, but I won’t call him “friend”. I don’t hate him either, but I do find it despicable. He’s an adult, and responsible for his choices and his words. Patriotic posturing doesn’t change his statement that he favors war so that HE will gain.

And if anyone is wondering, I did take a random sampling of Jay’s previous posts and traced the IP of each – they all trace back to the same source. It’s really Jay, alright.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2002

We all have gained from hostilities. Lest you forget, War is what has ensured both your right to express your thoughts as you do here , and my support of our military actions. And wouldn't you prefer a war on the other side of the world as right here in this country. At least we have the good sense to wage war "on the road".

I venture to say, that very few here are invested in the stock market. After 25 years in the Defense Industry, I am heavily invested in military contractors such as Locheed-Martin, Rockwell, Raytheon and a host of others. Should this event occur, my lifestyle will benifit. For me , war is profitable as an investment choice.


Thank you for the IP verification. I also post my proper email address I agree with you on many points.

As you, I am re-evaluating the ones I have considered to be "friends" and now realise, many here are false liberals, lacking the ability of truly liberal thought. They are unable to accept anyone with differences that really matter. I see extreme similarities to some far right extremist groups from my area. Thankfully not all are that way, and that gives this board a bit of hope. This board was so different from when first formed. On my initial invitation, I was invited , even though I was conservative and I hope I can say this here ..... Republican and a supporter of George W. Bush and admitted it upon recieving the invite. Sorry for the potty mouth :>)

You may call me "selfish", "unfeeling" or even true vulgarities as some of you choose. I have not personally attacked any of you, simply posted my opinions of the in effectiveness of some of your strategies. All you can truly say of me is that you have formed your past opinons on me on your own, seeing only what you wanted to, because until now you only knew that I didn't really ever label myself and had a divorce. You find it hard to accept that I can have barbaric tendancies and enjoy agronomics, yet wasn't this country captured from the indians and freed from the British by exactly the same type of personality? All I can say is that I have accepted you as what you present to me you are and will continue to, although that view I have of some of you is different now. I will never again think that this group is a totally open minded gathering, because it is not. I will never discuss my political views with this group again. I will reserve those for the open forums to which I belong. I will contain my postings to agronomic topics only. My apoligies to those of you that I offended. I forgive those of you who offended me also.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2002


It may not be "your board" and you are not at fault, but you do have to admit, it has changed quite a bit since Jims departure. The posting frequency exhibits that. It dropped drastically before the formation of Homesteading Today. Password was in place during Jims time, however , he extended invitations to a more diverse width of posters, many of whom have since moved to other boards. Now, 4 posts per week are a rally. Stans board is more active than this one and Homesteading today has far surpassed anything left on Lusenet. The lack of new blood has drastically affected this site.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2002

It's not just a lack of new blood at this forum but the treatment some receive for voicing an opinion different from a select few here. Jay is absolutely right about the original invitations and how many have left. I know this certainly isn't the board that I thought it was going to be. I thought the original intent was to be able to discuss without a lot of bickering, you know, respect for opinions that differed without a lot of name calling. I enjoy hearing others ideas and opinions and how they have formed them and I believed that was what this forum would be about, but it isn't.

I didn't leave here but had decided to only post if I had something helpful to offer and not get into any of the discussions concerning religion or politics but then....why even bother to come here if one feels that to participate you have to avoid ideas that might be offensive, may as well just go to another board. That is basically what most of the others have done.

If anyone here thinks that this is just whining, then go back and look at how it usually goes here, you can't be that blind.

Oh, and for the record, I was invited even though I am VERY conservative in both politics and religion. I am a born-again believer (Christian), and am a registered Republican that does NOT always vote along the party line. There, a few labels for all to see but there is much more to me than that. Some people just can't ever get past stereotypes to see real people...and seeing real people of ALL TYPES is exactly what I had hoped to be able to do here.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2002

Most intuitive on your part, Earthmama! You saved me a bunch of typing. Fact is, I'm of an Independent bent, but recently registered Green, just to try to get some common sense parties in there against the Republocrats. So there goes YOUR argument about my "loving anything the Demorats do", Wildman! Maybe try rethiinking some of the other ideas you ASSUME I must have.

EM, you suggest "How about Saudi Arabia, since that is where the hijackers came from? " Well, how about OKLAHOMA, for a start, since Terrorist Timmy pulled his terrorist bit in that state?

Jay Blair says, to no one's surprise, "You want to help innocent people, think of our own first.". Why is that, Jay? Do you think OUR innocent people are of more value than the innocents in some other country, some other religion, some other ethnicity, some other economic class, perhaps?

I gotta go; it's my honey's turn on the computer now; I'll check the rest of the comments later.


-- Anonymous, September 28, 2002

Terry, I am confused by your post. What has been done to you? I thought you felt relatively comfortable here. I know many of us disagree on many issues, but that's what we are here for, to discuss stuff, isn't it? This forum can surely not be characterized as having "a lot of bickering." Bickering is almost non-extistent here, and that is the truth.

Would you be so kind as to explain what this means? "If anyone here thinks that this is just whining, then go back and look at how it usually goes here, you can't be that blind." How what goes? I honestly have no idea what you are referring to.

I certainly am not going to assume that because you sound mad at the forum that you are supporting the things that Jay has said. I know that your faith is important to you, and surely it cannot condone relishing war for personal profit? Did you actually read this thread? And if after having read it, do you not see how we could not let these kinds of sentiments go by without remark?

You are right that this a place to exchange ideas, and differing viewpoints SHOULD be encouraged. No one who I am aware of has stopped anyone from doing so. Only one person was ever asked to leave, and that because the person had frequently displayed mean and hurtful behaviour, and that is something we will not tolerate, should not be expected to.

We all get angry sometimes, express ourselves in an angry manner, its true. But meaness of spirit is not a quality I think this forum has any tolerance for, and that judgement is made over time, not based on one incident.

I was under the impression we had some time ago cleared up the hurt you had felt here, but now it appears there is still something bothering you, and I would like to know what it is. We cannot know each other without openess.

I am sorry if I did anything to offend you, Terry, truly I am.

As for Jay, I personally do not want him to shut up. I am fascinated to know what makes a man become such an island, such a seemingly heartless creature, who honestly feels that his financial security is well worth the slaughter of thousands of other human beings?

As to this incident with Jay, since I believe everything happens just as it should, I am now working hard on the lesson inherent in everything that happens in my life. I think I'm pretty clear on what it is, but equally clear that Jay, and perhaps others, will see my lesson as silly or more new age crap. But that's ok, since it is MY lesson, cant speak for anyone else's in this regard.

My lessons are these:

Unconditional love, which is just what it says, love without conditions. It should matter not a bit to me that someone does not love me, I will love them just the same. If I do not, I have taken the first step that has always been taken which eventually becomes a war, the first step that divides me from them, that makes them 'other,' and leads quickly to demonizing. I must always strive to find the spark of god within us all, cuz I know it is there.

All of the Four Agreements, which are:

1) Be impeccable with your word, which means to speak with integrity, saying only what I mean, and to never speak against myself or others, to use the power of words always for truth and love.

2)Don't take anything personally, (which I think Jay will agree with), which means to remember that NOTHING anyone else says or does had anything to do with me, and to think it does is the height of arrogance, since I have not walked in their shoes.

3) Don't make assumptions, which means to have the courage to communicate clearly, openly and completely with others, asking questions for clarification rather than assuming I already know the answer.

4) Always do your best, which means as long as I remember that my values are based on love, I will always do my best, and not indulge in regret or self-judgement.

Its true traffic has been slow here lately, I have noted it myself. There are many more posts than Jay alluded to however, and I think his last post was meant to hurt Joy, because she laid into him pretty hard, understandably so. We humans do that. If Jay is using Chucks forum as a favorable comparison, so be it, but I for one would have no interest in being involved in a forum like that; indeed, that is why we left in the first place.

Can't we all just get along?


-- Anonymous, September 28, 2002

Brings to mind the immortal words of John Lennon..."all we are saying is give peace a chance". Why can't the whole world try to live in peace and let other religions, governments, societies, etc. live and practice their own way of life without interference and judgement from others!!?? People should be able to live as equals AND without terrorism! I'll take off my "rose-colored" glasses now :-)!!

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2002

EM, My views are easy to understand. I set my parimeters and borders and exist within those limits with the people of my choosing. I may venture to other venues, but only with the express purpose of furthering the aspects of my chosen group and area. I do not embrace the world or care what happens unless it threatens my comfort zone. No, I do not have trouble sleeping, I sleep very soundly. While I do share ideas with others of all backgrounds, I do not relish true familiarities other than the few that I relate to. What does it take to gain my favor? Its different for each, but truthfulness to ones self and a lack of a need to present oneself as a carbon copy is a common factor. I detest "plastic" people and especially people who misrepresent themselves.

Since you must know how I became desensitized to world suffering, I will tell you. I come from a military family, four generations of career men. I grew up during the Viet Nam era with those draft protesting peaceniks rediculing me for the choices of my family (I had no family members drafted, they all pre enlisted at 17). They spit on my brothers when they came home with ease because the troops were under orders to not engage the enemy while in the terminal in San Francisco. That was bad enough, but when those draft dodgers protested at the airport as remains of KIAs were being carried by honor guards by throwing burning flags over the barricades, I realised how false their claims were and that the true enemy wasnt a yellow man in the Asian jungle, but bead wearing, dope smoking flower children and peaceniks right here at home. Their words spout one thing while their actions show another. I chose to mature and do the best I could to create better machinery for war as my protest against those hippies. Often when helping to design a better piece of hardware, I was driven by the thought that if it could detect a threat faster or kill at a greater range, I could help at least one person to do a job and come home to knock someone who "just didn't want to go" flat on his ass. So , you see, you and I are both actually fueled by similar emotions, just on opposite ends of the spectrum. I hear many peaceniks also say they don't want to die. No one does,not even a soldier, thats why warriors try to kill the other man first. Many peaceniks emmulate the American Indian, yet cannot understand the thought "Today is a good day to die. If I do not die, I live to fight tomorrow". They forever live in fear, longing for a peaceful comfort zone, yet afraid to forge it by their own hand. I will never live in fear of any potential threat as long as I can raise a hand to battle it. Collateral losses are to be avoided or at least kept to a minimum, but that is part of the equation. You will never understand, as I will never understand your driven force. We are each differently aligned , one emotionally, the other logistically as part of the machine.

Protests do work to convert people and color the world. Often they color an eight year olds world olive drab. As far as other peoples choices, I defend their right to follow any direction they choose, should they choose to be my enemy, I will fight them and respect them for a good fight if they warrent the compliment.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2002


No, I do not care on way or the other about Joy response. I was actually communicating with you when she posted her response. I am simply pointing out that in a 25 day period only 23 threads have been started of a group of 21 participants posting during that time. New thread volume has been down for months. Half of the registered posters have moved on. The sites sterility is beginning to show effects on the content. No it is not Joys fault, it is a result of the groups chice to remain closed with no new posters. I know a new participant that I brought here , quit after only a few weeks due to a lack of diversity on the site that didn't provide a fertile environment of discussion. The lack of diversity may actually be the root of the mass adversion to my opinion as I am not the same as the 11 core members here. Sadly, the board here is deteriorating.

Yes, the singletree board at homesteading today is our active board. We quit using lusenet after it became evident that Chuck was providing a safe environment and found no need for dual sites.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2002

Oh, EM., I don't know how you can misread such a simple sentence! "I can't help but feel that if we had stomped their asses when they first attacked us, that they wouldn't have had the nerve to bring the battle to America."

I can't believe that you can't understand whose asses I'm referring too if you read the sentence with the rest of the paragraph. And I don't understand how anyone with an IQ bigger than their waist size could possibly believe it meant that we are "going to bomb the whole world? There are terrorists in the UK; shall we bomb them? How about Saudi Arabia, since that is where the hijackers came from? " We're not talking about bombing a COUNTRY when it comes to terrorist but, rather eliminating the terrorist. They're individuals, not a country. Yes, we will be bombing "in" their country because that may be the only way to get them, but we're not out to destroy a country and all it's inhabitants but to eliminate the terrorist. Now, I know that if that previous little simple sentence confused you, this one will send you around the bend. Yes, I know we will be destroying some of the country that we're attacking and I know there will be civilian casualties but some of you can't seem to understand that the goal is to eliminate the terrorist or if we can't eliminate them then to at least wake them up to the fact that attacking the U.S. and killing Americans is not productive.

Did you not know that the US Cole, an American Embassy, a marine barracks were bombed and other attacks were made against the U.S. on foreign soil? And that in each case it wasn't some drunk boater that decided to ram his skiff loaded with explosives into the side of a U.S. ship on a whim or an individual with a grudge against the U.S. but a faction of an organized terrorist organization in each case. We knew who they were and we sat on our hands and did nothing. Our diplomats scolded the foreign countries diplomats, a big show of outrage was expressed by all countries involved and NOTHING was done. Americans died and we did NOTHING!

Now, I'll give you my views on Saddam. I'm sure you're interested. Saddam is in the same relative position as was Hitler at one time. If we had taken out Hitler before he opened the crematoriums, would we have been the bad guys? Yep! He hadn't killed the Jews yet, had he? Would it have been worth it to have been considered the bad guys to have saved millions? Hum, but we wouldn't have known at the time that we were saving millions, now would we? After the atrocities start and you take him out, you're the hero. Funny, isn't it? Before when you could have possibly saved millions, you were the bad guy if you acted, but after millions die, you're a hero for having taken the same action. The same with Saddam, if we take him out now, we're the bad guys, but whether we're right or wrong in the eyes of the rest of the world, we take a step towards preserving our life, our life style and our freedom and theirs (for E.M., that's all the other countries other than the one we attacked, the ones that are against us) and I don't care which side of the fence we're on, we want to preserve our life, our lifestyle and our freedom. Or at least one of the three. If you say it ain't so, then I have nothing else to say to you. If you say you'd rather die than have someone else die to preserve your life, etc. then I'm through because, folks, SOMEONE is going to die. Either we get them or they keep killing us.

If a nuclear bomb is ever detonated within our borders our way of life is over. No more freedom but martial law, suspension of the Constitution. You'll think that you're watching one of the old "B" movies about the Soviet Union where people are hauled out of bed and never seen again, torture in basements, restricted travel, gas rationing, unusable parts of the country, more crowding in cities and more depletion of our resources and on and on. I'd rather be the bad guy than to be the dead guy.

. 'Jay Blair says, to no one's surprise, "You want to help innocent people, think of our own first.". Why is that, Jay? Do you think OUR innocent people are of more value than the innocents in some other country, some other religion, some other ethnicity, some other economic class, perhaps? ' This isn't Jay's answer but mine. I say YES in response to Joe's question. While I don't want a war, I refuse to sit by and preach peace and play Jane Fonda while terrorist are killing Americans with impunity. While I think life is precious, I say America First and Americans First! If I lived in France, I'd say French First but I don't! I'm an American and if wanting to take care of our own first, protect our way of life and then take care of the rest of them makes me a bad American, so be it. That's the way I feel. I don't want to live in a third world country and I don't want the U.S. to become one!

Joy, as far as I'm concerned this is YOUR forum. You hold the password and do the work. I've noticed that some of those that were here when I came on are now gone. If I ran any of you off, all you need to do is come back and say so, or let Joy know and I'll be gone and you won't even have to change the password.

More and more this board has been turning into a government bashing forum and as much as I hate politics, I unfortunately feel compelled to respond when people post professing to know the truth about why the government is doing something or indicating that loving our enemies will solve all our problems. Bull shit.

E.M. I think the answer to what I would have done in Clintons place is in this post. Search for it.

Woodsbilly, aren't you glad you're here? Woodsbilly? Woodsbilly, you are still here aren't you?

Joe, mea cupa for being wrong about your political conviction but, I didn't "assume", I drew a "conclusion" from your posts and what appeared to be a tirade against Jay and all Republicans. Perhaps I didn't have all the information so the conclusion was wrong.

Okay, I've about had all of the fun that I can stand.

Wildman, (Hawk)

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2002

if wanting to take care of our own first, protect our way of life and then take care of the rest of them makes me a bad American, so be it.

No, I think it probably makes you a typical American, and you'd be a typical Frog, or Russian, or probably a typical Iraqi, if you lived there. I think that may be part of the problem.

I see American citizens as just as worthy of love and protection as any other citizen, all else being equal. Not that I have the same respect for some of the adults (Saddam Hussein Adolph Hitler, and GW Bush come to mind) who are willing to kill both their own, and other countries' citizens.

But how about the innocents? The children? I care as much about a Guatemalan child as I do about some kid from Alabama. Or New York. Or Oregon, for that matter.

None of these kids, or their parents, for that matter, rate more for simply being BORN in this country. Some of them rate more because they are kind, upstanding, compassionate, and contributing members of whichever society they're in, but not because the roll of the dice dictated that they be born in the US of A instead of Nambia, Australia, or Saudi Arabia.

That's my hit, and I'll stand by it.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2002

Here's a really good synopsis of the whole situation, with various viewpoints: Confronti ng Iraq

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2002

Joe, I understand what you're saying and I certainly don't disagree that all the children and even adults, in the world are equal. I don't think it's a matter of whose deserving or where they're born but a matter of priorities.

Being a simple kinda guy, I have to think in simple terms. I have to get off the global scale thingy and get closer to home to understand things. What I'm trying to say, and evidently not very well, is that if my child or spouse (U.S.) is sick (in danger, threatened, etc.) and my neighbors child or spouse (foreign country) is sick, then I'm going to take care of my own first and if, after taking care of my own, I have the wherewithal and resources, then I'll help the others. It has nothing to do with the fact that the people in my house are more deserving, in the eyes of the rest of the neighborhood (world), of life because they were born in my house (U.S.) and not the house next door (foreign country). I think it has to do with the fact that I have to prioritize. The people in my house are my people (Americans), the people in the neighbors house aren't my people. I won't let mine die while I spend my time saving the neighbor. I take care of mine and then help the others if I can. It doesn't mean that you don't feel compassion for others but, if it comes to a choice of who lives or dies, mine come first. I'm really sorry if there are people out there that think that's wrong. You see, my problem is that I can't see how everyone doesn't feel that way.

I extend that analogy to my neighborhood, my city and my state. If my neighbors house is on fire and there's also a house fire in my city, I take care of my neighbor first. It isn't that he is more deserving than the one in the city or I don't feel empathy, but I have to prioritize. If my neighbor doesn't have food, then I'll supply him with food. Is he more deserving than someone else that is hungry? No, but I can't take care of the world. I have to prioritize. I take care of the people in my country even to the detriment of those in other countries because that where my priorities lie.

You're right in that if I were of any other nationality, I'd feel the same way about my country. I hope.

Wildman, (living in befuddlement)

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2002

I think you'd you hard-pressed to find ANYONE who doesn't agree with that analogy; we all feel that way. Unfortunately, I do not see it as a valid analogy. It just is not that black and white. It would be more like if you were frightened into believing your neighbor might be planning to make your child sick, you would feel justified to do whatever you can to make their child sick pre-emptively. In other words, if it were just about protection, most of us would probably stand in line, but it's not just about protection, it's about aggression, something I thought this country was not supposed to do.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2002

EM., I just hate it when you do that! The analogy was in response to Joe's comment about the children and the innocents not about attacking any country but even then, it still holds true. "But how about the innocents? The children? I care as much about a Guatemalan child (NEIGHBOR) as I do about some kid from Alabama. Or New York. Or Oregon, (MY HOUSE)) for that matter."

I believe that I indicated that while I have empathy for the Guatemalan child, those in Alabama, New York or Oregon are going to come first in my book. I do NOT care as much about that neighbors child as I do mine. And I don't know anybody that does. Okay, maybe Joe and that's okay. Now, you say that the analogy does not apply. Beg to differ. Remember, I said sick, in danger or threatened? And you wrote, " It would be more like if you were frightened into believing your neighbor might be planning to make your child sick , you would feel justified to do whatever you can to make their child sick pre- emptively." I don't even know how you came up with that. The anology was about making choices. It wasn't about getting even Em, it was about making choices and prioritizing. I would take care of MINE first. I wouldn't be out to make theirs sick!

You say it's about aggression and the U.S. isn't suppose to do that? Well, tough titty. If we'd kept every country that we've beat in war or that we've liberated, then we wouldn't be fighting with anyone but we didn't. We gave the countries back to the losers and helped them rebuild their countries. Other countries keep the loser when they win. Now, since the U.S. isn't going to be fighting the U.S. I really don't want to be the loser. If Saddam is a threat, I want him gone. I don't like the color of his flag and I really don't want to live under it. Why is it that everyone thinks we have to play fair? We have to play by the rules and they don't. Trust me, I don't want to be in any games ya'll play if that's the way ya'll feel. What do you think has to happen before we're justified in taking action? Saddam supports terrorist. Saddam is stockpiling chemical weapons. Saddam is trying to procure plutonium? Wonder why? To annihilate his neighbors? Do you think the government just decided that they didn't like Saddam so we should eliminate him? They're making these decisions on information that we don't have and will never have and shouldn't have.

You say if it were about protection, you'd be standing in line? Well, get in line. Do we have to wait until he sets off his chemical weapons? Supports more terrorists to do the work for him? I, for one, do not want to wait until something happens before we act. It's much better in my book to act than to react. Anytime you react you're in a disadvantageous position.

EM. if you keep misconstruing my post then I'm going to have to conclude that I don't express myself much good and will have to take some lessons.

Now, reach for your Prosaic because I think you're fixing to need it. IF we have to go to war with Saddam or whoever, I will support the government 100%, RIGHT OR WRONG!

Wildman, (ducking)

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2002

Something else about Saddam, people want to say he doesn't have any weapons now. How the hell can anyone tell what he has? No inspectors have been there for 4 years. Even when they were there, did they actually get actual data?

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2002

Hey Jack ol boy, you needn't duck cuz of lil ol me.....I'm non- violent, remember? :)

I dunno why you kept referring to 'getting even.' I never mentioned anything about getting even? However could one get even preemptively anwho? And yes I know you were talking about choices. If I have been convinced that my neighbor might be considering making my child sick, I have a choice in how to handle it. I would probably choose to first of all hold her close (protect my borders), while spending energy on finding out if I had been fed the truth, talking with my neighbors to compile a list of their grievances against me/my child, engaging a professional negotiator to work on compromises/solutions. The choice I personally would never make is to attempt to make their child sick preemptively, while assuming that, even though they had never harmed me directly in the past,and had indeed been a former ally in a previous altercation with another neighbor, that my harming their child would not only immediately put a stop to their supposed plan to harm mine, but also that afterward we could go back to co-habiting in the same neighborhood in peace. (Man was that a long sentence!)

And your explanation of your analogy was very sweet and all, but really unnecesary cuz I'm pretty sure I understood it the first time.

"We gave the countries back to the losers and helped them rebuild their countries"

Really? Like Afghanistan? Do you know what life is like in Afghanistan right now? Course I have not been there personally and have no desire to do so :) but I do read voraciously the world press every day. It aint pretty, and we aint doin much. I would LOVE it if we were spending a good chunk of those billions we are spending right now on beligerance build-up, on rebuilding Afghanistan......seems a no-brainer to me that we would do tons of more in the propaganda department by helping folks,and behaving as if we actually cared about the civilians we accidentally murdered. (reportedly thousands more than died on 9/11)

" If Saddam is a threat, I want him gone. I don't like the color of his flag and I really don't want to live under it."

Under what possible scenario are you seeing us living under his flag? His measly army is 1/5 the size it was during the Gulf War.

"Why is it that everyone thinks we have to play fair? We have to play by the rules and they don't. Trust me, I don't want to be in any games ya'll play if that's the way ya'll feel"

This is not a game. This is life and death, and a precedent setting decision that will very well affect how our nation is viewed throughout the world, possibly forever. Personally, I would like to be a citizen of a nation that is respected, not feared. They are not the same thing. Respect does not come from bullying others into submission, it comes from behaving in an honorable way so as to garner admiration and trust. If we do not "play fair", we are hypocrites if we expect others to do so, and we garner nothing but contempt and resentment, which is not respect, and is a breeding ground for endless future situations such as this.

"Saddam supports terrorist. Saddam is stockpiling chemical weapons. Saddam is trying to procure plutonium? Wonder why? To annihilate his neighbors? Do you think the government just decided that they didn't like Saddam so we should eliminate him? They're making these decisions on information that we don't have and will never have and shouldn't have."

I have no doubt that these things might be true. But as yet even the administration admits it doesnt have absolute proof. How could it, when it hasnt looked recently? So, Jack, I think your assumption that they are making decisions on information we don't have is premature. And if you are not aware of the litany of other reasons why the Bush Administration (and the Clinton,and Bush 1) has for getting rid of Saddam, then do some more reading, its not hard to find.

"You say if it were about protection, you'd be standing in line? Well, get in line. Do we have to wait until he sets off his chemical weapons? Supports more terrorists to do the work for him? I, for one, do not want to wait until something happens before we act. It's much better in my book to act than to react. Anytime you react you're in a disadvantageous position. "

See Jack, this is something that makes no sense to me, but I know you'll be patient with me cuz after all, my IQ is no bigger than my waist size. :)

How on earth are we to rid the world of terrorists by bombing Iraq? Do you folks believe that were we to actually be successful at getting rid of Saddam, that most of the people who hate us throughout the world would suddenly have a change of heart? Or be so frightened that they would stop their plans and get a real job? Or do you believe that after we bombed Iraq, which by every single predictive military scenario I've read would result in hundreds, very possibly thousands of our men being killed, that this would pretty much be the end of it? And if not, what are we to do then? Continue to take over all the nations that are harboring terrorists? I don't get it. And obviously we would be breeding more and more hatred in the process, setting up our children's world as an endless series of hostilities.

Peace, (still hoping)

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2002

EM. I'll tell you what I'm gonna do. I'm going to give up!

I've explained and explained the best I can and you still come back with the same questions and misconceptions of what I said. I give up. I evidently aren't smart enough to get my point across without pictures.

You continue to live in your own little peaceful world and we'll keep fighting and defending our country so you can.

Wildman, (hanging out the white flag)

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2002

Ok, Wildman, although I don't really understand the giving up part. I don't look at this exchange as a contest, but an important presentation of various ideas. Would have been a lot more instructive, however, had we had more participants....sigh....

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2002

Wildman, you made some very good points. You're mistaken in thinking I wouldn't take care of my own kids before someone else's. I'm responsible for my kids; one of them is here because I chose to give him life; the other two are here because I took a pledge to treat them as my own when I adopted them.

On the other hand, if I were given a choice somehow of protecting two strangers from Oregon, Alabama, or wherever, or three people from Mexico, Guatemala, or elsewhere, I'd expect I'd choose the latter. I hope I never have to make that kind of choice, however; I'm glad I haven't had to get into triage situations yet, in my volunteer position in CERTS. (Citzens Emergency Response Team.) Yet, that is what I've been trained to do. And nowhere in our training were we told to put citizens ahead of non citizens in our triaging. If we had been, I would not have stayed with the program.

I'm sure there are pleny of situations we could speculate on that are "gray areas", but l'd rather not.

Your statement, " IF we have to go to war with Saddam or whoever, I will support the government 100%, RIGHT OR WRONG! " indicates to me that you are exactly the type of US citizen Bush and party are looking for. You really think it's ok to support the government when it's doing something wrong? That's pretty weird, and I have to admit I don't understand the attitude. But I guess that's what Bush is banking on. Sort of a "Deutchland uber alles" mentality", only substitute "Amerika uber alles".

As far as those who think we need to kill a few hundred thousand Iraqis, and who knows how many US folks, because Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction, or even if it's proven that he does, well-hey!-so do we, so do lots of other countries. Hopefully the fact that we all have them will work as well as MAD did during the "cold war".

By the way, I see that Tony Blair stated a day or three ago that Iraq definitely has chemical and biological weapons, and that Saddam is prepared to launch them within 45 minutes if he's attacked! He goes on to say we "have to attack Iraq" so that Iraq won't be able to use these weapons on England. Hmm. Let's see: if we attack Iraq, Saddam will launch these weapons within forty-five minutes. Presumably, when we attack, Saddam will launch these weapons. I don't get it. Can someone fill me in?'

Maybe if we attack Iraq, we'll find out that not only do they have no weapons of mass destruction at all, or that they can't deliver them, or that they are ineffectual. But then again, maybe they'll manage to get their chemicals and biologicals over here some way. Maybe also half the middle east will do likewise, as they line up against our "American Adventure".

Now tell me this: why do we need to act before the election?

Earthmama, your scenario with the freaky neighbor allegedly wanting to get your child sick is a good one. In fact, it reminds me a lot of the story of the Hatfields and the McCoys. I don't think that story had a good ending, did it? Maybe it still doesn't have an ending, even?

EM, the more of your posts I read, the more I respect you as a person, both intellectually and morally. Thanks. I wish you lived in my area; we need more folks like you around here.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2002

By the way; could any of you folks who are willing to follow our government, or Bush, "right or wrong" tell me if you are ok with Bush's behavior on Sept 11? Specifically I'm referring to his first grade reading lessons in Florida during, and for quite a while after the attacks? Why wasn't he getting his butt in gear when he heard the US was under attack? Why wasn't he at least seeking a safe harbour, knowing that the enemy certainly knew his location, and would be thrilled to make him their prize casualty? What did he know about this attack BEFOREHAND which made him feel so safe and secure at the Florida School?

And anwer me this: why did the DOD hold off on intercepting the jets which nailed the second tower and the Pentagon?

Seriously, do you understand all the implications of these issues? Do you care?

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2002

Why should he terrify the children in the class while he had his staff handling the data collection for him and an aid whispering in his ear. He was still in charge. Surely, you didn't miss that prior to him going airborn. Would you want to terrify your children?

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2002

EM, I read the material at your Sept 29 post, "Confronti ng Iraq "

I found it to be a pretty comprehensive synopsis of the entire situation. I did have a two observations on its contents I'd like to share with y'all, though:

There are a couple of statements I want to comment on, though.

First, the statement that ******************* “In the days after the invasion of Kuwait, there were widespread fears that the world would be whipsawed into the kind of energy crisis that exploded twice in the 1970s. It never happened.

Although prices spiked to about $40 a barrel immediately after the invasion, they dropped back below $20 when it became clear that allied troops were routing Iraqis. Other producers had quickly stepped in to replace the production lost from Iraq and Kuwait.

Now, after a decade of sanctions, Iraq only contributes 2 percent of the world's production, meaning any disruption would be relatively small.” ***************** Others have suggested that oil could easily reach over $100 per barrel-not because of Iraq’s mere 2% of oil production, but because of a destabilization of world oil resources, OPEC , etc. OPEC , etc .

My second observation has to do with this statement from the article:   ****************

"A military operation in Iraq will be comparatively easy"

******************     I suggest that a military operation in Iraq might actually be comparatively easy, except that the Bush plan, at least as it now stands, is to not destroy Bagdhad. It would be fairly easy to destroy Baghdad, but apparently very difficult to try to attempt to capture or kill Hussein without doing so, as it would involve seriuos hand to hand combat in a city in which US forces would presumably be at a severe disadvantage.

Hopefully, we won’t ever have to find out!

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2002

Jay, surely you're not serious! "Terrify the children?" They'd be a lot more terrified if a jet hit their school with our alleged president blown away!

Surely you don't believe he should have just sat there, with all the decisions he needed to make as Commander in Chief!

Don't you think he could fairly easily have said to these kids, "Sorry kids; I have to go somewhere else right now. I'll be back, and we can continue this reading lesson at a future date.

For that matter, if Bush hadn't been pretty sure he wasn't going to be a target (due to whatevere insider information he apparently had), it would have been smart to tell the kids that there had been a change of plans for the day, and they were going to get to practice a fire drill!

I think the average school kid, being used to being told what to do and when, would not have panicked; I believe they'd have calmly walked out of the school building just like they always do during fire drills.

I was actually hoping, Jay, that you would come up with some facts I'd missed. I don't WANT to believe the conclusions I seem to keep coming up with vis a vis Bush and his activity on that fateful morning. Sorry you didn't. Can anyone else please help me out by giving a credible excuse or explanation for Bush's actions (non-actions)?

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2002

Jay, as to your question, "Would you want to terrify your children"? I'd have to say that, if there were a landslide coming down the mountain behind my house, or a forest fire coming up the slope behind my house, or a 767 heading for my house, terrifying them would not be my biggest concern, frankly.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2002

Oh, No, no, NO, JOE! I'm sorry if you interpreted my post to say that you wouldn't take care of your kids. That's certainly not what I meant, no matter how it came out. Why, if someone told me that, I'd punch them in the nose! Hope we never meet! I'll punch myself, but probably not as hard as you would.

"You really think it's ok to support the government when it's doing something wrong? "

No, Joe, not if the government is doing something wrong and it doesn't involve a WAR. Protest away! But if we go to war, I don't care who it's with, or what the reason, or whether I think it's justified or not, after the war starts, I will support the government 100%. It has nothing to do with who's President or what party they're with. I realize that that might be hard to understand and you'll probably understand this even less, it's because I don't want to contribute, directly or indirectly, to the.... death.... of our fighting men and women.

I understand about the triage situation. Caregivers are suppose to be blind to everything but the extent of the injuries and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Anything I could say about what Bush does or doesn't do, thinks or doesn't think, would be pure speculation.

Wildman, (nose sore, didn't know my own strength)

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2002

Wildman, how does questioning the wisdom of a war our government has got us into "..... contribute, directly or indirectly, to the.... death.... of our fighting men and women."?

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2002

Joe, thank you for the sweet words! (Your check is in the mail). ;)

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2002

EM, I spoke the words in earnest; no check is necessary; nor would I cash it.


-- Anonymous, October 01, 2002

Well,ok then Joe, if you insist. It'd probably bounce anyway. :)

I wanted to comment on Jay's previous post about his childhood experiences with war protesters. I found it very interesting and I want to thank you for your sharing it, Jay. I think I understand you better now.

I can hear the pain in your words as you recall what you remember watching those years ago, and how it affected who you are today. But don't you think that with life experience comes the wisdom to discern why people do things, and that this would include why those people did those things in your presence? I am in no way defending their behaviour, mind you, I find it despicable, but I am also sure that many of those folks who were there behaving in this fashion are now sorry for it. I know it's so, because I know some of them personally.

The people who were expressing themselves in this manner had good in their hearts too, same as those of us who chose to only march peacefully, pamphlet, and write lots of letters against the war. Same as those boys who truly believed when they joined up they were doing what was right.The protesters wanted the war to stop. They too had loved ones over there, friends and brothers and lovers, and they were sick of watching them die for what they saw as no good reason. Some of these peoples' methods of expression were just plain wrong, and I can see where they would be taken as disrepectful of those who had died, and how it would appear to be hypocritical of them, and I am sorry you had to see that. It must have been terribly painful. In their passion to end the war, they lost sight of their true target, and lashed out at the symbols, at folks who were more accessible, to try to ease their frustration at an administration who ignored them.

Those people were not 'hippies,', Jay. The media liked to characterize anyone who looked a certain way as hippies, but to me anyway, true hippies held, living in peace and loving all humans, as their number one value. It might sound like a technicality, but to me its important, because in this sense, some of us never stopped being hippies. Many many young folks did not truly have their hearts in the movement, were swept up by the excitement and sense of community that they did not find in their stale, beige, suburban homes, and acted without real heartfelt passion, the way young folks are often wont to do. I would submit that these are among the folks of our generation that quickly forgot the values we tried to get across back then, and went on to live unquestioning, unexamined lives, blowing the opportunity we had to make this world so very much better.

"I hear many peaceniks also say they don't want to die."

Actually most of the peaceniks I know, myself included, are not the least afraid of dying. I personally have no fear of death, except that my children would miss me terribly because we are so close. Our motivation for wanting peace is not so personal, it is wide in scope. We would envision a world where we all get along, pursue our own interests without stepping on each other's toes, use the world's resources in honorable, sustainable,and egalitarian ways, and treat each other with respect. And we never give up on this dream. Never, no matter how many people laugh and shake their heads, shout and wag their fingers, or even do violence upon those we love. It takes hard work, vigilance, and lots of self-examination, and it starts right where we live our everyday lives, like on this forum.

I too hold our Native people in special high regard, and understand what you are saying when you quote,"Today is a good day to die. If I do not die, I live to fight tomorrow." In fact I agree with you. The difference is that as long as I draw breath, I will fight to abolish violence, not to promote it.


-- Anonymous, October 01, 2002

Sheesh. I take a few days off and look what I missed...Apparently, everyone has gone back indoors while I'm still out picking strawberries.

Fwiw, I think we need regime change at *home*...unfortunately, that will take another couple of years (although the electioneering has obviously started).

The Iraq war whoops are deeply dividing the country again. Even my little church is edgy and divided. While I support everyone's right to an opinion, I don't see enough compelling evidence to justify military action as the *first* thing to do. We waited 12 years, we can wait til after the mid-term elections, for heavens sake: try the inspection thing for a while.

Our intelligence is somewhat suspect these days, too, ya think? (see pre 9/11 investigations going on). I just don't TRUST what we are being told: remember the secret White House energy strategies last spring! We didn't even get info from that, and that isn't even classified info. And for you media fans, George W. recently said "they tried to kill my dad," which is a little personal, and reminds me of the old "Dallas" teevee show...ya know, family dynastics, etc. What is this about? family revenge? oil?

Bottom line: if I had more trust in the current administration (the one that brought you "votes from Florida",etc.), I'd have more trust in what they're telling us. I'm extremely skeptical. If they want my trust, they can wait until after the mid-term elections, and then talk seriously about Iraq. For now, it sounds too much like Karl Rove's politcal engineering...war sells if you're a Republican (and the economy, health care, campaign finance reform, etc. don't...SHHHHH!!!!!). Hey isn't Bush the education president?

'nuff said for now. Play nice,'s the only sandbox left in town.

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2002

Honestly folks, do any of y'all really think that ANYONE in a position of power would give a rat's ass about what happens in the Middle East ( including Iran and Iraq) if it were not for the proximity of those nations to our oil producing nations over there???

THAT is what fuels these endless debates and discussions over the so called "need" to go to war with Saddam, the part about the war against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction is a giant cover for the blatant, easy to see truth, it's ALL about oil folks, nothing else really matters to the politicos, be they Republican or Democrat, they all answer to Big Money Oil.

The sooner we as a nation become oil independant, the sooner we can let the Middle East eat their oil and see what life is really like without the USA at their beck and call over their oil, small matters like adquate food will make those countries change their tune in a hurry, without resorting to war of any kind.

I think sometimes we can't see the damned forest for the trees! Oil is what the Gulf War was ALL about, this business with Iraq is NO different, when you get right down to brass tacks.

Whether or not you believe war is just and moral action is your personal business, but you should know the true reason for said war, and to me, oil is defintely not worth one lost life, especially since we have plenty of it right hear at home, it just happens to cost more produced here at home.

Just one more time that the politicos put the value of human life way below the value of a mere barrel of crude oil, such folks in office really scare me.

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2002

Annie, I don't know if the oil is the only reason; certainly it's a big part of it. I do think that there are at least a couple of other aspects to Bu$h's godawful plan to invade Iraq (and ? and ? and ?)

First, he needed a diversion from Enron/Haliburton/Arbusto ("bush" in Spanish, BTW) and Harken. Not to mention the economy falling apart under his watch, even if he does claim "Clinton" caused it all.

Second, I don't know if Bu$h is interested in PROTECTING "our " oil supply as much as damaging it. Think about it. If he sends our boys and girls over there and manages to cause general social upheaval all through the midwest, and that raises oil to a hundred bucks per barrel, what will be the results? You, I and everyone else in the world (I suppose) will end up paying lots more for gas. Lots of businesses will start doing the back stroke. Lots of unemployment.

Does Bu$h give a rat's ass about all that? From his general attitude about human life, I doubt it.

The important thing to Bu$h, I suggest, is that he and hi$ oil buddie$ will be able to sell all the oil they do sell at incredible profits!

And their other buddie$, e.g. Jay, will make windfall profit$ by selling ammo to the U$ military and to most everyone else who gets involved.

By the way, I know this sounds pretty far out. However, my next door neighbor, when he retired as VP of Unical, was given a copy of a book called "The Prize", which he loaned me.

Y'all ought to read it. It outlines the historical corruption that was found throughout the oil industry from right after Charles Drake discovered that well in the nineteenth century right up until the late 20th century. Nothing has changed: corruption, bribes, threats, kickbacks,politicians on the payroll, foreign presidents set up and owned by us oil companies. REal eye opener.

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2002

It took me awhile to read all of these posts. I've seen many good points from both sides of the discussion.

Joy, you were right in your assumption that I do NOT want a war. I think it was Annie that said that this was all about the oil. I think she's pretty much right. I've felt all along we should as a nation begin to find more ways to not be so dependant on the Middle East. And I don't mean by drilling in Alaska. I'm talking about alternative energy. Anyone I mention this to seems to think I must be crazy. So since the majority of our people aren't willing to try something new, that's why I believe war is inevitable. Our government can't seem to reason Saddam into doing what it wants so it will bully him into what it wants. At the same time I see Saddam as being just as big of a bully but with less power. And that's what really scares me about not doing anything. I'm afraid he'll take every and any opportunity to harm us. As someone else said in this thread it's more advantageous to be proactive than reactive. I don't want war and I do think of the women and children and the elderly and just plain decent folk over there who have nothing to do with this. We also have those same types of folks here that I don't want to see harmed either. I just don't see any good solution.

I don't know the solution. But it looks like this situation will turn nasty and I don't think it really matters what the people want or how many phone calls we make. I believe everything has already been decided. it's only a matter of when.

Jay, I still like you even though I may not agree with you. I hope you feel as though you can continue to voice your opinion here. I hope we can all get along and that time will soothe any hurt that happened. We need to agree to disagree and still remain united. Even though we like to live an independant lifestyle, we are still people who need each other.

-- Anonymous, October 02, 2002

I'm just posting a couple of highlights from this article, the link to the complete story is at the bottom

Agency disavows report on Iraq arms Joseph Curl THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published 9/27/2002

The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist. "There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

In October 1998, just before Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, the IAEA laid out a case opposite of Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 declaration. "There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance," IAEA Director-General Mohammed Elbaradei wrote in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair on Sept. 7 cited an agency "report" declaring that satellite photography revealed the Iraqis had undertaken new construction at several nuclear-related sites. This week, the IAEA said no such report existed.

-- Anonymous, October 03, 2002

Thanks, Sherri. This is more confirmation that the Administration is trying to find (or manufacture) "facts" that support their predetermined desire to start a war.

I'll copy the news report to my emailing list.

By the way, I'm going to start a new post "URGENT" Call your Representatives re Iraq NOW". It will have some info about how to easily, and quickl call your reps for free.



-- Anonymous, October 03, 2002

Sen. Wellstone gave a speech this afternoon, announcing he was going to vote "no", at least unless the UN security council gives the go- ahead. Looks like today China, France, and Russia all say nay once again. The George and Tony club are alone; so far so good.

-- Anonymous, October 03, 2002

Moderation questions? read the FAQ