# Violent Pacifism



## Matt Stone (Mar 26, 2003)

Y'ever notice how the pacifist, anti-war protesters are getting more and more fond of getting all mental, rioting, attacking police, damaging private property, all in the name of non-violence?

Gotta love it.


----------



## chufeng (Mar 26, 2003)

Ladies and gentlemen...the following statement is from a peacenik who threatens blue haired old ladies who show any support for our troops...the same peacenik spat on a police officer who was there to assure his right to protest (unfortunately, the peacenik wanted to stop traffic and didn't have a permit to protest in the first place)...the officer did nothing.

Freedom of speech, man...
Thsoe of you who disagree with me...best shut up:

Because, if you support the war (notice, the people he was yelling at were holding signs that read We support our troops) you are a bigoted, narrow-minded, war-mongering, low IQ, knuckle-dragging moron...

I can appreciate his passion...now I'd like to take up a collection and buy him a one-way ticket to France...

Unbelievable

 
chufeng


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 26, 2003)

I think it defeats their purpose.  

Ghandi never had to swing a ball bat or throw a brick to make his point.


----------



## Nightingale (Mar 27, 2003)

it definitely defeats their purpose. you can't be offering peace with one hand and using a club with the other.

I think its as hipocritical as the anti-choice folks who blow up clinics and kill people...how can you call yourself pro-life when you're a murderer?


----------



## GouRonin (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *Ghandi never had to swing a ball bat or throw a brick to make his point. *



There there is a guy who, when they told him to go pound salt...really did.


----------



## Yari (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Y'ever notice how the pacifist, anti-war protesters are getting more and more fond of getting all mental, rioting, attacking police, damaging private property, all in the name of non-violence?
> 
> Gotta love it. *




I dont know how it's in the States, but here in Scandinavia (Denmark), we have the problem that there are certain groups that love to infiltrate normal quite demonstrations and start fights or damageing stuff. 

It gives the demostration a bad name and doesn't benifite anybody.

And we have to remember that no matter which group people belong to, rotten apples are every were. 


/Yari


----------



## yilisifu (Mar 27, 2003)

Anybody remember the demonstrations and riots during the Vietnam era?  I sure do.  Seems like these current peaceniks are doing exactly the same thing.  For many of them, I think it becomes a social thing rather than a real expression of concern.


----------



## Mike Clarke (Mar 27, 2003)

They have 'em down here too.

School kids and Uni students [who all have a grip on the real world by the way:shrug: ] smashed shop windows and slashed car tyres that were parked in the streets a couple of days ago [all in the name of peace]. They fought with the police and charged about the city centre of Sydney looking for all the world like the boneheads they are.
Now they are threatening to return next week and bring the city to a halt.

Gutless little shits who wouldn't last two seconds in the real world if tax payers didn't provide them with the great life they live.
Youth is wasted on the young all right!

Mike.


----------



## DAC..florida (Mar 27, 2003)

Wether you agree with this war or not you should show your support for our troops.

Here's my opinion: 

                              first take all the anti war protestors and ship them to either France or Germany!

                              second take all the dirty bombs and chemical missles and bombs we find in Iraq and divide them in half and then deliver them to either france or germany. 


                              third put a U.S. airforce base in bagdad with 20,000 marines stationed there at all times to help keep the peace in the middle east.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *Anybody remember the demonstrations and riots during the Vietnam era?  I sure do.  Seems like these current peaceniks are doing exactly the same thing.  For many of them, I think it becomes a social thing rather than a real expression of concern. *



AMEN BROTHA!  It sickens me to see them  on TV all smiley and happy for the cameras... If they are so passionate about the cause they shouldnt look like they are having FUN.  It's a PROTEST.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 27, 2003)

Gee, there's a shock. In any crowd there are schmucks, including crowds of demonstrators.

And while we're on the subject of being all smiley and happy, what's with all the smiley and happy about going to war? All the chest-thumping, all the fascination with the big guns and big boom-booms that I've been hearing? personally, I think it's a hell of a lot more acceptable to smile while you protest, than to smile while you rave about people being blown up...

Hey, let's put it in martial arts terms. Should you feel all happy about pounding some guy who deserved it, or should you feel OK that you're good and he/she isn't, but also kind of like a jerk that your art was imperfect enough that you got into a fight to begin with?

I realize this'll draw some flak. But folks, a) the northern quarter of the country had already been taken away and given to the Kurds. b) the US Navy and Air Force ran combat patrols/ surveillance over Iraq every day. c) the country was under economic sanctions. d) UN inspectors were crawling over the place, and more were on the way. What was the big rush?

I certainly support the troops, though I think it's a bad sign that anybody who questions this brilliant little war is supposed to say so, ritually--we're Americans, whatever the likes of Limbaugh may say, and supporting our guys can pretty much be taken for granted. I'm just opposed to fat cat politicians who never served sending brave men and women out to get shot at, without some pretty damned good reason...

And oh yeah. Anybody out there think that this war is the end of it? 

Oh well. Rant over. Thanks.


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Mar 27, 2003)

Sad how no one hears much about the really pacifist protestors, too... There was a rally in San Francisco, 50,000 plus, and no media coverage because no violence happened. Not news worthy.

As for "violent" protestors... Yeah, they're in the wrong, but they're also probably not as widespread as you think. There are plenty of people who are (to be diplomatic) a little confused on their views. At protests, there's also the colour-coding system, wherein people who are willing to take rubber bullets, gas, etc. from the cops go through the "red" routes where the heaviest resistance to the protest will be, and others take less dangerous "yellow" or non-contact, "green" marches through other areas of town. I've heard stories from the "red" zones. Not pretty, on either side. You protest, you're likely to get a boot in the face, gassed, or pepper sprayed (hasn't happened to me yet, but I've heard it's like getting stabbed by thousands of knives in your eyes). Nasty stuff.

That said, there's a lot of twerps out there whose definition of "protesting" is more like the immortal words of the Incredible Hulk: "Hulk SMASH!!!" They're the ones who smash windows, attack cops (it's happened, I don't deny it), etc. Those folks I tend not to associate myself with, and most half-intelligent and sincere protestors don't either. The point of protesting is to "PROTEST," not to break stuff. To protest is to argue against an action you disagree with, not to go on a rampage through down-town NYC. The best thing to do is to criticize the more violent ones, sure, but to also encourage people on the other side, the REAL pacifists, to continue their work. That's not a bad thing. A little bit of healthy dissent is what makes democracy a DEMOCRACY, a government for and of and by the people, as opposed to ye olde Iraq, where you have to conform, obey, serve, or die.

PS: RMC, man, you're dead on the money.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GouRonin _
> *There there is a guy who, when they told him to go pound salt...really did.
> *



LMAO!  YEAH ! Saddam would wish everyone is just like HIM!!  So would Hitler, Stalin, Polpot, the Kims in North Korea and all other dictators and mass murderers.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> ......I realize this'll draw some flak. But folks, a) the northern quarter of the country had already been taken away and given to the Kurds. b) the US Navy and Air Force ran combat patrols/ surveillance over Iraq every day. c) the country was under economic sanctions. d) UN inspectors were crawling over the place, and more were on the way. What was the big rush?....



The US operates on the basis of its military preparation. The so-called "rush" is nothing but some BS that career politicians mouth about. The US was going to attack when it has the military preparation in place, with or without the UN approval. This was stated so, way in the begining when Bush said we would disarm him if the UN wouldn't do so. We were preparing for war on day 1.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by DAC..florida _
> *Wether you agree with this war or not you should show your support for our troops.
> 
> Here's my opinion:
> ...



Let's not condemn all of France and Germany for the act of their government. The Christian Democrates in Germany are mighty pissed at the position the German government is taking.  There are French citizens as well as politicians who are disgusted at Chirac's cheap shot at shooting their ally, the US, in the back.

Governments come and go. The people remain.


----------



## Kirk (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *And while we're on the subject of being all smiley and happy, what's with all the smiley and happy about going to war? All the chest-thumping, all the fascination with the big guns and big boom-booms that I've been hearing? personally, I think it's a hell of a lot more acceptable to smile while you protest, than to smile while you rave about people being blown up...
> *



It's a testosterone thing, you wouldn't understand
No one likes seeing people blown up.  Where's your concern for
kids being put into wood chippers while thier parents watch?  
Where's your concern for whole country of tyranny and 
oppression?  Show me a similar hypocrisy to people screaming
for peace, yet spitting on people, fighting police, and causing
harm through thier "peaceful" gathering?



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Hey, let's put it in martial arts terms. Should you feel all happy about pounding some guy who deserved it, or should you feel OK that you're good and he/she isn't, but also kind of like a jerk that your art was imperfect enough that you got into a fight to begin with?
> *



If someone was trying to hurt my child, my wife or myself so that
I could no longer provide and protect them, and I drove his ****
in the ground, I'd feel DAMNED good about it.  And damned 
thankful to my instructor.  I won't even comment on your Kwai 
Chang Caine mumbo jumbo.



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I realize this'll draw some flak. But folks, a) the northern quarter of the country had already been taken away and given to the Kurds. b) the US Navy and Air Force ran combat patrols/ surveillance over Iraq every day. c) the country was under economic sanctions. d) UN inspectors were crawling over the place, and more were on the way. What was the big rush?
> *



a) the Kurds live in hiding, as hermits.  The were of no threat
to evicting Sadam or his tyranny.

b) Not 100% true, and I think you know that.  Iraq was in 
constant violation of the no fly zones

c) the economic sanctions were *heavily* violated by
France, Germany, and Russia.

d) UN inspectors were  there to prove what we already knew.

Protestors are quick to say "if it costs ONE American life .. is it
worth it?"  Sadam's killed thousands of his own .. how many
human lives was it worth to YOU to wait?



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I certainly support the troops, though I think it's a bad sign that anybody who questions this brilliant little war is supposed to say so, ritually--we're Americans, whatever the likes of Limbaugh may say, and supporting our guys can pretty much be taken for granted.*




I don't think supporting our guys can be taken for granted.  
There's morale involved too.  And violent protests, and signs
claiming this war is only about oil don't do much for the common
good out there.  How much better would they do thier jobs if they
didn't think they were abhored by thier own nation?

Why is it that whenever someone is NOT against this war, is
suddenly labeled a card carrying acolyte for Rush Limbaugh?  I'm
tired of it.  They can't win a debate with facts, so you resort to
saying "don't believe everything Rush says".  Which really is an
eluding tactic IMO.  It insinuates that this person, who doesn't
believe as you do, only parrots back what Rush says, and is not
capable of independant thought.  That had this person actually
had the ability of independant thought, then of course they'd
agree with you, because you're so smart, and they're not.  :shrug: 



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I'm just opposed to fat cat politicians who never served sending brave men and women out to get shot at, without some pretty damned good reason...
> *



So then you're opposed to a woman president, for at least 
another 15 years or so? Seeing how the average age of those
serving is 20, and women are just now seeing combat.  "Fat
cat" politicians insinuates, IMO again, that the only reason for this
war, in your opinion is to make the fat cat fatter.  If this is your
belief, then I'd like to ask what your news source is, and why 
they're not telling about the countless Iraqi's praying for us to
rid them of Sadam.  Is that not "some pretty damned good
reason" ?  The mass killing, the mass rapings, the mass tortures?



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *And oh yeah. Anybody out there think that this war is the end of it?*



I certainly hope not.  Many other countries have financial ties to
the Al Queda, and as a result .. are responsible for 9-11.  Many
more are looking to do out do the acts of 9-11.  They need to
be hunted down, like the dogs that they are.


----------



## MountainSage (Mar 27, 2003)

I urge all to get politically involved.  We have, as MA, as unique perspective on many different situations.  If there is a problem with our government then we must get involved.  Run for school board, county or city government, or just get more involved with the political party of choice to make changes for a "better" future.  I especially encourage the younger board participates.  I have been in the political area for 5 years now and find the experiance to be enlightening to say the least.

Mountain Sage


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> .....If someone was trying to hurt my child, my wife or myself so that I could no longer provide and protect them, and I drove his **** in the ground, I'd feel DAMNED good about it.  And damned
> thankful to my instructor.  I won't even comment on your Kwai
> Chang Caine mumbo jumbo.....



  LMFAO!  Good one!


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MountainSage _
> *I urge all to get politically involved.  We have, as MA, as unique perspective on many different situations.  If there is a problem with our government then we must get involved.  Run for school board, county or city government, or just get more involved with the political party of choice to make changes for a "better" future.  I especially encourage the younger board participates.  I have been in the political area for 5 years now and find the experiance to be enlightening to say the least.
> 
> Mountain Sage *



Yes. How true.  When better men (and women) do not step up to the plate, then they deserve the incompetent government they get.


----------



## DAC..florida (Mar 27, 2003)

JONATHANNAPALM

Good point it is the decision of the government! and not the people.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MountainSage _
> *I urge all to get politically involved.  We have, as MA, as unique perspective on many different situations.  If there is a problem with our government then we must get involved.  Run for school board, county or city government, or just get more involved with the political party of choice to make changes for a "better" future.  I especially encourage the younger board participates.  I have been in the political area for 5 years now and find the experiance to be enlightening to say the least.
> 
> Mountain Sage *



Well said sir.... Well said.

:asian:


----------



## Elfan (Mar 27, 2003)

Generally speaking the tiny minority of nutballs tend to get disporportionate attention.  Think abortion, 1 guy going into an abortion clinic and killing people gets far more attention that millions of people who may also be "pro-life."  However, he is in no way representative of those millions.  A few guys in a protest burnings flags will get more attention that a hundred thousand at the same protest waveing them.


----------



## Kirk (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *Generally speaking the tiny minority of nutballs tend to get disporportionate attention.  Think abortion, 1 guy going into an abortion clinic and killing people gets far more attention that millions of people who may also be "pro-life."  However, he is in no way representative of those millions.  A few guys in a protest burnings flags will get more attention that a hundred thousand at the same protest waveing them. *




If that's your experience, fine .. but that's not the case in the
anti war protests that I have personally witness.  The nutballs
are definitely in the majority.  Most often, they can't even spell
protest.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 27, 2003)

Though I thought the tesosterone remark was really mildly funny, I'm sorry to see that some folks still can't discuss ideas without turning to personal attacks.

Kirk, the measure of being an American--or a man, for that matter--is not whether or not someone agrees with you. 

Sorry you don't like me--of course, you don't even know me--and sorry if you don't like my ideas and arguments. 

Anybody got any evidence that Hussein had anything to do with Sept. 11? Anybody relish the idea that we'll just keep getting into petty war after petty war, 'till we've run all them varmints out of town? Anybody wonder how the hell we're gonna pay for all this? Anybody worried about consequences?

Thanks; interesting discussion.


----------



## Kirk (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Though I thought the tesosterone remark was really mildly funny, I'm sorry to see that some folks still can't discuss ideas without turning to personal attacks.
> *



There has NEVER EVER NOT ONCE been a thread on kenponet,
when dealing with political discussions, that you have not insulted
me.  You're right, I don't like you .. but it's because of the barrage
of personal attacks that you have launched at me for simply 
wanting to get a discussion going.  You've called me a 
homophobe, a racist, a zionist, a redneck, and Rush follower,
stupid, illiterate, and close minded.   The testosterone comment
WAS in fact a joke, yet had a point as well.  You're in the minority
of the opinion (IMO of course) that meeting violent people with 
a flower is the only and best way to stop it.



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Kirk, the measure of being an American--or a man, for that matter--is not whether or not someone agrees with you.
> *



Where did I say it was?



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Sorry you don't like me--of course, you don't even know me--and sorry if you don't like my ideas and arguments.
> *



In the year and a half that I've been in kenpo and on the internet
the fact that you and I don't know each other hasn't stopped your
barrage.  I most often don't like your ideas and arguments .. at
one point I thought I could actually learn something from you,
because I like to believe that I keep an open mind, and am willing
to listen to facts presented.  But you chose to insult me at every
whim ... and of course, you don't even know *me*.

All that aside, I thought I made a good attempt at addressing the
case you presented in your previous post, without resorting to 
the same tactics you've repeatedly used on me.  It's happened
between you and I, when discussing kenpo, but hasn't ever 
happened when discussing anything else.  Nightengale and I
are on VERY different platforms, politically .. yet we've never once
called each other a name.  Why is that?



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Anybody got any evidence that Hussein had anything to do with Sept. 11? *



Yes, the federal government does.  Via his financial backing.



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Anybody worried about consequences?
> *



Well that wasn't brought before.  How about another thread
on that very subject?  But if it's going to be a thread on how 
you're pursuing a utopian society where we all get together and
sign kumbaya, let me know ahead of time, I'll avoid it entirely and
give you your peace.  If you want an intellectual debate, without
insult, I'm game.  But  Mr Pot .. don't call the kettle black.



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Thanks; interesting discussion. *



You're welcome :shrug:


----------



## Elfan (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Anybody got any evidence that Hussein had anything to do with Sept. 11?  *



No Sadamn had nothing to do with the attacks.


----------



## MountainSage (Mar 27, 2003)

Kirk,
you have got to quit jumping when liberal try to ruff your feathers.  Your not going to change their minds and their usually just trying to get a person mad to show how irrational a "redneck" can be.  Besides that not reacting keep your blood pressure up and motivate you to do ALOT of punching bag workouts, I Know.

Mountain Sage


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 27, 2003)

I appreciate what you're saying, but I NEVER write simply to provoke. I'm presenting another side of the issue, or so I like to think, after writing nothing for quite a while.

Oh, and I ain't a liberal.


----------



## Disco (Mar 27, 2003)

sOUND LIKE A POLITICAN?

In all seriousness, I think that our problem(s) with the middle east are just starting. This war, for whatever idealistic or financial reasoning, in all probability will solve nothing except to get our own sons and daughters killed. I am against sending our troops over there. What we should do IMHO, is use the technology we have to ANNIHILATE the whole lot of em. I know, I know, sounds very harsh and inhumane. Many have already forgotten that this country has been attacked and innocent lives were taken. There are several generations who have been brainwashed / indoctrinated into just plain hating the United States. Common logic cannot change this lifestyle mindset. I've watched several news / viewpoint programs which asked the youth of the middle east their viewpoints. Without hesitation, everyone of them responded with bringing the U.S. to it's knees. These are just from the present generation. The prior generations are / have been sent forth to live in this country and at the appointed time, you know what will happen!!!....

If we have learned anything from Vietnam, is that you can't determine who the enemy is any more. So with that statement, mabey it's time to re-validate the ending we used for WWII against Japan. Perhaps then all the other growing 3rd world wannabe's (N.K) will have to think more than twice before the do something inflamatory. I have a personal vested interest in the middle east. I have two sons who are both as we speak, in harms way. So YES, my button has been pushed........:soapbox:


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *No Sadamn had nothing to do with the attacks. *



And just for the sake of argument, you know this how?


----------



## bdparsons (Mar 27, 2003)

posted the following towards the beginning of this thread...

"I think its as hipocritical as the anti-choice folks who blow up clinics and kill people...how can you call yourself pro-life when you're a murderer?"

As someone who is "pro-life" I totally agree with your statement. However I'm also struck by the hypocrisy of the term "pro-choice". How much "choice" does the child have in an abortion?

Bill Parsons


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 27, 2003)

I'd like to propose another scenario.  One that can eliminate the war, make America Strong again, and SHUT EVERYONE UP, the Protesters, the Countries who are against us, everyone.  I didn't originate the idea.  It's even a BAD BAD idea, that was presented to show the harm it could do, and I believe thier assessment of it.  

FORTRESS AMERICA.

America recalls all troops, abandons and dismantles ALL millitary bases overseas and EVERYWHERE.  We SEAL our borders, EXECUTE all illegal aliens still in the US at that time.   Cut off all trade, Import and Export.  No money or aid to any foriegn nation.  No travel, no Tourism.  Just build and stockpile internally and gain military strength.

The Middle east can certainly stop whining how they need to destroy us because we have too much involvemnet there.   

Of course, all the countries depending on us for Trade, Economic Support, Free money, relief aid durring times of disaster, etc etc. are all out of luck.  And that kills a handfull of US buisnesses so be it.  And if say, I dunno, Germany rises up and conquers France, so be it.  Then they move on to England, sweep across europe, and begin on the Soviets, so be it.  Not our problem.   It doesnt become our problem untill somone thinks they are big enough and yough enough to cross our borders "For No Reason" since we are completely separatists from the rest of the world.  

Can you see why this cannot work?  But I PERSONALLY see it as the only real alternative to war with nations that want to see us destroyed.  After all, you have 2 choices when someone smacks you down with a Bat... Fight back, or Run. 

 I suppose You can stand there and Go "Oww, that was bad why me?" as a third option, I suppose, if you wanna get killed by the guy with the Bat.  Which Is what I feel most of the people who object to this war would like us to do.   

Lets not forget, we didnt go to war to go to war.  Its not about OIL.   America was like a dragon awoken from its slumber by a "Crusading Knight waving his mighty Sword for Allah" because he didnt like the notion of dragons, and now that it's awake it's rampaging across the counrtyside smashing everyone who stands in front of it weilding a sword,  Instead of  trying to placate it and try and put it back to sleep.


----------



## Elfan (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *And just for the sake of argument, you know this how? *



There is no evidence that he was.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 27, 2003)

In the first place, our government has provided no evidence whatsoever that ol' Hussein had anything to do with Sept. 11. Call me crazy, I like facts--especially because, and I am sorry to say it, but the US has a long sad history of launching into wars with no evidence or faked evidence--there's the Spanish-Am. War, there's Vietnam. You can look it up.

If you find this a defense of a murdering, sadistic, greedy SOB like Hussein, well, I don't. I guess I just like my government to tell me the truth, and to avoid getting soldiers killed unless there's a darn good reason...and maybe there is. But so far, they sure haven't presented one.

Are we really supposed to go around the world and get rid of every tin-pot Hitler? Is that gonna work? What about our record of supporting (Ferdinand Marcos, Somoza, Noriega, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Nguyen Cao Ky, etc. etc. etc.) these guys when it suits our purposes?

Personally, if a 500-lb bomb falls directly onto Hussein, I say it's a good day. "I've got a little list...they never will be missed." But ignoring the history....nope. 

I hope to hell I'm wrong.


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *There is no evidence that he was. *



And just for the sake of argument, you know this how?

My point is that we, the People, don't have access to the intelligence gathered by our side, nor the other countries in the coalition.

Dubya and Powell claim we have evidence of Saddam's support of Al-Qaeda.  At some point I have to have at least some small amount of faith in my Government and trust that they have the evidence they claim they have.

There is sufficient anecdotal evidence at this point, based on reports from folks who have had interactions with Iraqis who claim they want Saddam out of power but are too afraid of the torture and rape consequences to overthrow him themselves, to warrant our involvement.  If the evidence really does exist that Saddam and his regime assisted the Al-Qaeda folks in doing what they did to us, how can we *not* retaliate for such an attack?



> *In the first place, our government has provided no evidence whatsoever that ol' Hussein had anything to do with Sept. 11.*



There are far too many people who feel that the Government needs to reveal everything to the public for accountability before they take any action.  If half of the folks who ***** publicly about the war actually voted, then maybe they would have a reason to want accountability to be made.  However, there is something to the argument that you don't tell the criminal you are watching him when you are trying to catch him in the act, and you don't tell your attacker you are about to kick him in the groin just before you do it...

Sure, it may not be "our job" to clean up the little ***** holes around the world, but if we don't, who will?  There are some folks that just have no business being around.  At some point they need to be called out and taken down.  My pa told me once upon a time that sometimes you have to go to the bully and kick his *** before he comes down to your yard to kick yours...  Pre-emptive strikes work, sometimes...

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## MountainSage (Mar 27, 2003)

It seem most of the folks on this list that are against the war would be glad to see saddam meet his end in a violent way.  This is very curious, you want the results, but not the work to get the results.  No point just very interesting.  Disco, I agree with your statement and must admit that I don't have loved ones in this war, so to a point, for me, this is an academic debate.  I support the troops to the end, but my opinions are academic when the battle began.

Mountain Sage


----------



## Kirk (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MountainSage _
> *Kirk,
> you have got to quit jumping when liberal try to ruff your feathers.  Your not going to change their minds and their usually just trying to get a person mad to show how irrational a "redneck" can be.  Besides that not reacting keep your blood pressure up and motivate you to do ALOT of punching bag workouts, I Know.
> 
> Mountain Sage *



LOL .. I honestly was calm cool and collected in this entire thread.
I just suck at writing I guess.


----------



## Kirk (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *In the first place, our government has provided no evidence whatsoever that ol' Hussein had anything to do with Sept. 11. Call me crazy, I like facts--especially because, and I am sorry to say it, but the US has a long sad history of launching into wars with no evidence or faked evidence--there's the Spanish-Am. War, there's Vietnam. You can look it up.
> 
> If you find this a defense of a murdering, sadistic, greedy SOB like Hussein, well, I don't. I guess I just like my government to tell me the truth, and to avoid getting soldiers killed unless there's a darn good reason...and maybe there is. But so far, they sure haven't presented one.
> ...



Nothing to really argue with there,  but note Yiliquan's comment
about faith below your post.  And proof aside, I feel there's no
arguing he supports, and trains terrorists of his own.


----------



## Nightingale (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by bdparsons _
> *posted the following towards the beginning of this thread...
> 
> "I think its as hipocritical as the anti-choice folks who blow up clinics and kill people...how can you call yourself pro-life when you're a murderer?"
> ...



how much "choice" does the 14 year old rape victim have in the matter either?  

Personally, abortion isn't something I'd ever choose.  However, I don't know other people's circumstances, so I don't presume to make that choice for them. That's all the phrase "pro-choice" means.  Pro-choice is not necessiarily pro-abortion.  Its about making a personal choice and giving others the right to do the same.


----------



## Bod (Mar 28, 2003)

I would ask, why would Hussein support Al-Quaeda?

Hussein's government is just the sort that Bin-Laden is trying to overthrow. Islamic fundamentalists are the primary destabilising influence in Iraq, as shown by the uprisings by Shia Muslims in the south of the country.

Why have faith in your government, if what they are saying clearly contradicts common sense, unless of course you willfully ignore the truth about Hussein and Al-Quaeda?

Know your enemy.

Know your politicians too.


----------



## Kirk (Mar 28, 2003)

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend".  

I've heard that from a ton of Muslims (albeit in regard to the 
Nation Of Islam)

We are the infidel to all of them.  Re-read Bin Laden's speech ...
he speaks of support of Iraq, and how the U.S. and Isreal are
the devil, and the infidel.  We should be punished for the crimes
of those we have elected (ALL of those, this includes Clinton) in
the past 6 generations.  In his own words, we have starved the
people of Iraq.  Doesn't sound like Bin Laden's interested in thier
overthrow to me!


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *"The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
> 
> I've heard that from a ton of Muslims (albeit in regard to the
> ...



I think we really oughta be careful about the ol' blanket statements of "they all hate us." Many do, sure, but not everyone, and one of the biggest fears of people here in Canada, and elsewhere too, is that a war that the ME perceives as nothing more than an imperialistic invasion WILL CAUSE MORE HATRED. I don't want to look back 20 years from now and go, "oh, S---, that war caused 9/11 part two!" If the war is justifiable, if the US was attacked by Iraq, like in 9/11 where the US was attacked, then everybody'll join the bandwagon, and we did, to attack and eradicate the Taliban regime that sponsored the people who attacked the US. It's that simple. The international system is set up to DEFEND people from AGGRESSION. The way it's being perceived in the ME and many other parts of the world is that the US is the aggressor, and that's a dangerous perception to let fester.

That said, there was also a great line by Jean Chretien, love him or hate him. When the war was still only a thing of debate, he asked something along the lines of "the problem with regime change is, when do you stop?" How many regimes need changing? Who gives anyone the right to interfere in other countries? I know the obvious answers: strength and power, or the injustice of a regime. There hasn't been much of an uprising in Iraq as this war's gone on, not yet anyway. In fact, from the sounds of it on the BBC and CBC and independent news, there's a lot of support for the Iraqis and even for the regime being built up in the region and in the countries as a result of the war (if you want proof, go online to www.thestar.com, and look up their coverage of the war, or to the BBC's webpages). People don't like Saddam, but they don't like being invaded a great deal more than they dislike Saddam. 

The US has all the power in the world right now. I'm not a US citizen, I don't vote in the US. So I don't have any say in the US's policies that have the potential to influence me. The Bush administration is bent on reshaping the regimes of states that they either dislike, or that they perceive as a threat. Perhaps this is legit, perhaps not, but the question still remains "When do you stop?" Who's next? Russia? North Korea? No, they can actually hurt the US, they've got Nukes? What about Canada, Mexico, the Latin Americas? The great thing about defensive alliances is that it's pretty easy to see when they should get involved-- when someone attacks the members of the alliance. The problem with this whole proactive approach of the US lately is that now, everyone, even some of the US's oldest allies, are starting to get scared by the possibility that, if they disagree with the US, that they're next. I may dislike some of Chretien's policies, but I'm very loyal to my country and to the government that runs it. I don't want a regime change in Canada, and I would pose to everyone on this site that the Iraqis may have similar feelings about their regime, as repulsive as that may sound. If there is an uprising against Hussein, fine, then I'll eat my words. But if there isn't, and they go right back to a dictatorship once the Anglo-American forces get done in Iraq, or if the citizens of Iraq start fighting back against the US and the UK, what then?

Just posing some questions. Keep it above the belt folks, you know I'm a liberal, and attacking me as such ain't a valid argument. Question what I've said, sure, but be aware that liberal = bleeding heart or stupid. (In the classic sense, liberal ideology was much closer to modern day "conservativism" or Republican party ideas... go look up John Locke and his ilk, and you'll see it's true). If we want to discuss this war, let's do it intelligently. We owe it to each other as fellow martial artists and as fellow human beings to present intelligent views, 'cuz that's how we all get wiser, and how we sharpen our own views: by discussing them intelligently and having to defend them against a worthy opponent  (and this is directed to everyone, myself included, I'll try to tone my language down a bit).


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 28, 2003)

I agree with much of what you're writing, Ciarloch, though I'm not a liberal. 

Just to throw in something new, it might be useful to look at Edward Said's old book, "Orientalism." Among other things, it does a nice job of dealing with this, "all of them," argument...everybody Muslim, everbody in the Middle East, ain't the same...and this us/them logic is part of what got us in this mess to begin with. 

As for the point about us non-violent types who study kenpo and wouldn't mind if a Big Bomb landed right on Hussein's head, well, if I contradict myself, then I contradict myself. I quite agree that it's a contradiction...and I ran into a great quote in Samuel Fuller's autobiography this morning...in the 1930s, a friend said, "Anybody who isn't confused isn't thinking straight."

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Elfan (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *If the evidence really does exist that Saddam and his regime assisted the Al-Qaeda folks in doing what they did to us, how can we not retaliate for such an attack? *



Agreed the US would then be perfectly justified in attack Sadamn Hussien.  However, no administration official has claimed that this is the case so I have to at least have a little faith in my government and belive that they were telling the truth when they said Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks. 

What I was getting at is that the administration isn't even claiming that Sadamn was behind the attacks (there was a claim that there was a meeting in Prauge between an Iraqi inteligence oficial and one of the hijackers but this was retracted).  Is it *possible* that Iraq and Al-Quada have talked to each other? Yes.  When Osama Bin Laden calls for the overthrow of Sadamn Hussien in his latest tape do I think that an alliance between the two is very likely? No.


----------



## GouRonin (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *I think we really oughta be careful about the ol' blanket statements of "they all hate us." *



I just want to say that I really do hate you all. I am just too lazy to do anything about it.
:shrug:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 28, 2003)

A beautiful statement of a rational politics. And, I mean it....


----------



## D.Cobb (Mar 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yari _
> *I dont know how it's in the States, but here in Scandinavia (Denmark), we have the problem that there are certain groups that love to infiltrate normal quite demonstrations and start fights or damageing stuff.
> 
> It gives the demostration a bad name and doesn't benifite anybody.
> ...



We have them here too, the official name for these morons is RENT-A-CROWD.

Unfortunately the jail time they should recieve, is never used appropriately.

--Dave

:asian:


----------



## D.Cobb (Mar 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *I don't want to look back 20 years from now and go, "oh, S---, that war caused 9/11 part two!" *



9/11 part 2 has already happened. It happened when that maggot with the rat infested beard and the tea towel for a hat, got his scumbag cronies in Indonesia to blow up the nightclub frequented by Australians, because of our support for the war on terrorism.

Our country is small, as is our population. But we have some of the best trained troops in the world. I don't like war, no one except these cancerous cells do. But I support our troops, Australian, British and US with every fibre of my being.

I don't get to use this smilie very often.

:soapbox: 

--Dave


----------



## Disco (Mar 29, 2003)

AMEN!.....   Brother from down under. We need MORE folks with your line of thinking.

Take care and stay safe........:asian:


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *In the first place, our government has provided no evidence whatsoever that ol' Hussein had anything to do with Sept. 11. Call me crazy, I like facts--especially because, and I am sorry to say it, but the US has a long sad history of launching into wars with no evidence or faked evidence--there's the Spanish-Am. War, there's Vietnam. You can look it up.
> 
> If you find this a defense of a murdering, sadistic, greedy SOB like Hussein, well, I don't. I guess I just like my government to tell me the truth, and to avoid getting soldiers killed unless there's a darn good reason...and maybe there is. But so far, they sure haven't presented one.
> ...



Here is the truth. The US wants to put in place on top of the 2nd largest proven reserve, a pro-US government.  And we want to have a mlilitary stationing area in the heart of the Middle East.

Imagine this: By controlling the world's 2nd largest proven oil reserve, the US can dictate oil prices by turning the spigot in Iraq. Controlling oil prices means controlling Russia, Saudi, Iran and everybody else's livihood.  We can also deny Al Qaeda the opportunity to obtain WMD from Saddam. And we demonstrate to the world, especially any nation that wishes America illwill that,  with or without the UN,  you will suffer the same fate as the Taleban, Bin Laden, and Saddam.   Oh, BTW, we get to take credit for freeing the Iraqi people too.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> .....There are far too many people who feel that the Government needs to reveal everything to the public for accountability before they take any action....



Nah.... they just do not understand the greater strategic issue called national interest.

So they are reduced to arguing the peripheral issues that the US used to distract the critics.

Do you really think Chirac is concerned about the Iraqi people? Hell no!  He has been trying to prevent America from becoming the world's ultimate superpower.  Shroeder is only catering to win the last election which he almost lost. Putin is concerned b/c Russia is the biggest supplier of  chemical and biological weapons to Iraq.


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Mar 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Nah.... they just do not understand the greater strategic issue called national interest.
> 
> So they are reduced to arguing the peripheral issues that the US used to distract the critics.
> ...



I think you're right on the money with the ulterior motives of many of the EU, but then again, if the US gets the kind of control you've been talking about, JN, I'm scared. I don't want any one nation with that much power. It turns into trouble very quickly once they start abusing it.


----------



## Elfan (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Here is the truth. The US wants to put in place on top of the 2nd largest proven reserve, a pro-US government.  And we want to have a mlilitary stationing area in the heart of the Middle East.
> 
> Imagine this: By controlling the world's 2nd largest proven oil reserve, the US can dictate oil prices by turning the spigot in Iraq. Controlling oil prices means controlling Russia, Saudi, Iran and everybody else's livihood.  We can also deny Al Qaeda the opportunity to obtain WMD from Saddam. And we demonstrate to the world, especially any nation that wishes America illwill that,  with or without the UN,  you will suffer the same fate as the Taleban, Bin Laden, and Saddam.   Oh, BTW, we get to take credit for freeing the Iraqi people too. *



This is a description of a good thing?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *This is a description of a good thing? *



It is the coming reality, good or bad.

As far as the national interests of the USA is concerned, it is a good thing. And considering the historical fact that the US is the least tyranical empire, it is a good development for international stability.

Having said that, things have their own ways of fouling up the best laid plan.  We shall see.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *I think you're right on the money with the ulterior motives of many of the EU, but then again, if the US gets the kind of control you've been talking about, JN, I'm scared. I don't want any one nation with that much power. It turns into trouble very quickly once they start abusing it. *



Nations look after their own self-interests. That is the nature of things.  If it makes you feel better, the US is the only empire in history, that has NO design in conquering and annexing new territory.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 30, 2003)

It is a bad thing. Mainly because I keep giggling whenever I say, "Jawohl, mein Fuhrer."


----------



## Elfan (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *It is the coming reality, good or bad.
> 
> As far as the national interests of the USA is concerned, it is a good thing. And considering the historical fact that the US is the least tyranical empire, it is a good development for international stability.
> ...



Just how much did the Germans benifit from Hitler's empire? Or the Russian people from Peter the Great? Greeks from Alexander?Or Rome from Ceasar?   Hell the transformation from republic to empire marked the decline of Rome, and that perhaps it the best comparison to modern America.  Like Augustus we will cover our building in a marble facade and watch as they rot away inside.  Our military power will be unable to obscure that the vaules that make American the idol of the much of the world (and indeed even the people of the Middle East agree with American values) will fade to dust and will be no more.

-----

For an empire that has"NO design in conquering and annexing new territory" it seems to have gotten a hell of  a lot bigger over the years.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 31, 2003)

So if I'm reading correctly--and I am--this thread has argued itself around to the point that those wacky protesters are absolutely right to be protesting.

And spare me the, "human nature and history means it has to be this way argument." I thought the whole idea of martial arts was that you weren't bound to apparent limitations and the dead past.


----------



## Kirk (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *So if I'm reading correctly--and I am--this thread has argued itself around to the point that those wacky protesters are absolutely right to be protesting.*



You actually feel that way?  Those out there, spitting on people,
inciting riots, hitting law enforcement officers, are right?!?

No one argued the right to the 1st amendment at all .. except 
when it violates the rights of others.

It always cracks me up when anti war protestors dust off thier 
little picket signs to start marching again.  There's 2 certainties
that exist once this happens.  1) people will be out there telling
them to shut the hell up.  2) people too goodie goodie to actually
spend time in anti war protest (e.g. t he hollywood crowd) go out
and call those in group number 1 all kinds of names.  The most
drastic is "those against the first amendment".  

With the exception of MCAS Yuma, AZ, every place I have ever
lived has had the klan marching through downtown mainstreet
in a recruitment rally.   In San Antonio, the police keep the public
WAAAAAAAAAY far away.  San Antonio is over 50% hispanic, and
there is NO WAY the klan could safely make thier march, unless
the citizens of this town were kept waaaaaaaaaaaaay far away
from them.  People from all races show up with thier signs, and
are all basically telling the KKK to "shut the hell up".  Yet none
of your little group, Mr McRobertson, and none of the hollywood
"elite"  talk about how the poor klan can't protest the way they
want to, and how the blacks, hispanics, asians, and caucasians
are opponents of the first amendment.

One last note.  You leftists would have so much more of a voice of
reason if you'd kill Janeane Garofalo.  Her idiocy is at record levels.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *Just how much did the Germans benifit from Hitler's empire? Or the Russian people from Peter the Great? Greeks from Alexander?Or Rome from Ceasar?   Hell the transformation from republic to empire marked the decline of Rome, and that perhaps it the best comparison to modern America.  Like Augustus we will cover our building in a marble facade and watch as they rot away inside.  Our military power will be unable to obscure that the vaules that make American the idol of the much of the world (and indeed even the people of the Middle East agree with American values) will fade to dust and will be no more.
> 
> -----
> ...



I think you are letting your imagination runs too far there.   But that's ok.

Hmmm..... have the US gotten bigger?  The last time I checked, we still have only 50 states.....


----------



## Elfan (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *I think you are letting your imagination runs too far there.   But that's ok.
> 
> Hmmm..... have the US gotten bigger?  The last time I checked, we still have only 50 states.....   *



Started with 13.  Where did the other 37 come from?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 31, 2003)

Oh I see....

Sorry. Not interested in revisiting events that are irrelevent to the current time.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> ....You actually feel that way?  Those out there, spitting on people,
> inciting riots, hitting law enforcement officers, are right?!?...



lol  Kirk, they make great MA practice targets.  Great opt for you to get in more sparring time.  lol  See, in the unlikely event that you get arrested, charges will be routinely dismissed in such political incidents.


----------



## Elfan (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Oh I see....
> 
> Sorry. Not interested in revisiting events that are irrelevent to the current time. *



Well when does the "current" time begin?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 31, 2003)

I thought we were talking about current strategic events, not something our foundingfathers did.


----------



## Elfan (Mar 31, 2003)

> the US is the only empire in history, that has NO design in conquering and annexing new territory.



You were the one who brought up history and classified the United States as an empire.   Considering the current US flag is only abour 43 years old (ie younger then many people posting here) it seemed relevant enough.  The phenominal increase in the size of the US since its founding, which I supose you presume happened without conquering or anexation unless American benevolence is a development of the "current" time, seemed relevant as well.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 31, 2003)

My "little group?" Gee, I don't hang out much with Ms. Garofalo. Not since that spat over the Third International, when we were in in Tangiers after sending Ho Chi Minh a birthday card, carried on after we'd made passionate love 'neath a starry sky, then passed the microfiche with the secret plans for the flying saucers we stole from Area 51 on to Stalin....oh, wait. Where was I?

I realize this will likely only occasion more invective, Kirk, but please re-read my post. I don't seem to see the place it argues for spitting on anybody, or for violence of any sort. I also don't seem to see the place where I raved about what a great guy Hussein was, or about how the American military was the root of all evil. 

After reading a set of posts arguing for a) the US uber alles, b) the US's necessary role as conqueror of the world (oh god. Not realpolitik again...), I was basically suggesting, well, not with my country you don't. 

I guess too, JN, I take it as a large-scale martial arts issue. Violence, unless I'm wrong, is supposed to be a last alternative, isn't it? And aren't we supposed to be the good guys, the idealists, the ones trying to help? Or do I have my ideological statements confused?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *You were the one who brought up history and classified the United States as an empire.   Considering the current US flag is only abour 43 years old (ie younger then many people posting here) it seemed relevant enough.  The phenominal increase in the size of the US since its founding, which I supose you presume happened without conquering or anexation unless American benevolence is a development of the "current" time, seemed relevant as well. *





Name one country that the US has conquered and annexed?


----------



## Elfan (Mar 31, 2003)

Mexico


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 31, 2003)

Philippines, Mexico, Cuba (well, briefly), Puerto Rico, Texas, California, a fair chunk of the Indian Nations, etc. etc. etc...

Then there're all the "protectorates."

I mean, I found "Wind and the Lion," very appealing too...but I also read Twain, "To the People Sitting in Darkness."


----------



## Kirk (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *My "little group?" Gee, I don't hang out much with Ms. Garofalo. Not since that spat over the Third International, when we were in in Tangiers after sending Ho Chi Minh a birthday card, carried on after we'd made passionate love 'neath a starry sky, then passed the microfiche with the secret plans for the flying saucers we stole from Area 51 on to Stalin....oh, wait. Where was I?
> *



You claim not to hurl insults or like having them hurled at you, but
I present to you sir, that this brand of condescending sarcasm is
the same thing. 



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I realize this will likely only occasion more invective, Kirk, but please re-read my post.*



Well you know me very well.



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I don't seem to see the place it argues for spitting on anybody, or for violence of any sort. I also don't seem to see the place where I raved about what a great guy Hussein was, or about how the American military was the root of all evil.
> *



Maybe you should re-read the topic of this post?  Those are the
people we're talking about.



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *After reading a set of posts arguing for a) the US uber alles, b) the US's necessary role as conqueror of the world (oh god. Not realpolitik again...)
> *



Wow, I dunno about others posting here, but this sure seems to
look like the insults and labeling the you claim to abhore so much.



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I guess too, JN, I take it as a large-scale martial arts issue. Violence, unless I'm wrong, is supposed to be a last alternative, isn't it? And aren't we supposed to be the good guys, the idealists, the ones trying to help? Or do I have my ideological statements confused? *



It IS a last alternative ... Please don't spout the "we should've
just given them MORE time" .. cause y'know 12 years just wasn't
_enough_ time. :shrug:


----------



## Nightingale (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *
> 
> Name one country that the US has conquered and annexed? *



Hawaii


----------



## chufeng (Mar 31, 2003)

RMCROBERTS,

Where do you live?

I'll bet it's in "annexed" territory...
So why don't you just give it back to the original owner?

If you aren't willing to do that...you have no argument.

I get sick of the "blame America" crowd...we've done more for others than anyone's done for us, ever...(except for the native Americans who kept us from starving to death during the VERY early years)

Ironically, your ability to say whatever you want was paid for with American blood...I defended your right to spout your "America is bad" crap for over 22 years (time on active duty)...and still do...

The "peaceniks" always come out of the woodwork when America is spilling more American blood for someone else.

This is not about Oil...we don't get much from Iraq and can easily make that up by increasing extraction of oil in the Alaskan region.

Pull head out of your...um...the sand...Read what the "human shields" found out after their idealistic, sorry butts hit the sand in Iraq...

I'm done with this thread..........................................

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 31, 2003)

You mean the US actually conquered a free people and forced them into the Union at gunpoint?  Never!  Cant have happened.





Oh....guess not....oops.
==============
United States Public Law 103-150
The "Apology Resolution"
Passed by Congress and signed by President William J. Clinton
November 23, 1993 


President Clinton signs Public Law 103-150, the "Apology Resolution" to Native Hawaiians, on November 23, 1993, as Vice-President Gore and Hawaii's Congressional delegation look on: Sen. Daniel Inouye, Rep. Patsy Mink, Rep. Neil Abercrombie, and Sen. Daniel Akaka (L to R) 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- excerpts -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whereas, prior to the arrival of the first Europeans in 1778, the Native Hawaiian people lived in a highly organized, self-sufficient, subsistent social system based on communal land tenure with a sophisticated language, culture, and religion; 

Whereas, from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation... 

Whereas, on January 14, 1893... the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii, including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii; 

Whereas, soon thereafter, when informed of the risk of bloodshed with resistance, Queen Liliuokalani issued the following statement yielding her authority to the United States Government rather than to the Provisional Government: 

"I Liliuokalani, by the Grace of God and under the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom.
"That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed a Honolulu and declared that he would support the Provisional Government.
"Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do this under protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands."
- Queen Liliuokalani, Jan 17, 1893 
Whereas, without the active support and intervention by the United States diplomatic and military representatives, the insurrection against the Government of Queen Liliuokalani would have failed for lack of popular support and insufficient arms. 

Whereas, in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland reported fully and accurately on the illegal acts of the conspirators, described such acts as an "act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress", and acknowledged that by such acts the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown... President Cleveland further concluded that a "substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair" and called for the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy. 

Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum. 

Whereas, the health and well-being of the Native Hawaiian people is intrinsically tied to their deep feelings and attachment to the land;
Whereas, the long-range economic and social changes in Hawaii over the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have been devastating to the population and to the health and well-being of the Hawaiian people;
Whereas, the Native Hawaiian people are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territory, and their cultural identity in accordance with their own spiritual and traditional beliefs, customs, practices, language, and social institutions; 

Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
The Congress
- apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893... and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;
- expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people; and
- urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...the logical consequences of this resolution would be independence." 
- Senator Slade Gorton (R-Washington), US Senate Congressional Record
Wednesday, October 27, 1993, 103rd Cong. 1st Sess.



Full Text - http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawall.html


----------



## chufeng (Mar 31, 2003)

> Hawaii



Nightengale...

You are right...but I lived there for awhile and befriended a few real Hawaiians...even though there is a movement for sovereignty, there are some Hawaiians who understand that they'd be speaking Japanese, today, if we hadn't been there...

Think about that.

Should we have set aside MORE land for the Hawaiian natives? 
YES...but I don't have any magic bullets to make that happen.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 31, 2003)

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/acknowledges.html

U.S. acknowledges wrong in 1893 Hawaii overthrow
Clinton issues a formal apology 100 years after the fact
Honolulu Star-Bulletin
November 23, 1993 
By Pete Pichoske
Phillips News Service 

WASHINGTON - The nation ended more than a century of official silence on the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy as President Bill Clinton today signed a resolution acknowledging, and apologizing for, the U.S. role in that overthrow. 

Although the formal apology has been dismissed as useless symbolism by some native Hawaiian leaders, a solemn Clinton and an ecstatic Hawaii congressional delegation hailed the signing in glowing terms. 

"This is a spectacular moment for Hawaiian history," said Rep. Patsy Mink, D-2nd. 

"This is a great time for Hawaii," added Sen. Daniel Akaka. "One hundred years ago a powerful country helped overthrow a legal government. We've finally come to the point where this has been acknowledged by the United States." 

During a brief ceremony in the Oval Office, attended by Vice President Al Gore and the entire Hawaii delegation, Clinton said he was happy to fulfill the promise he had made to the people of Hawaii when he visited the state in July. Clinton had been urged to support an official apology during his visit. 

Queen Liliuokalani was toppled Jan. 17, 1893 by a rebellion led by the American minister to Hawaii and supported by U.S. military forces. 

The formal apology acknowledging the nation's part in that coup was aproved this fall by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

Supporters, led by Akaka, a native Hawaiian, had been pushing for an apology during the centennial observance of the kingdom's overthrow. 

"I'm elated at what happened today," said Akaka.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 31, 2003)

> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/HAWAII/hawaii.html
> Hawaii is not legally a state!
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 31, 2003)

Hey, guilty as charged. I've read some of the history. I recollect some of the lies. I like democracy, the Bill of Rights, and the ACLU. I respond with comedy (not necessarily good comedy, but still) to insults.

Oops. I tell you what, though. I don't claim that people aren't real Americans because they disagree with me, or I don't like their views. I don't overlook inconvenient facts because they contradict my beliefs. I don't expect everybody to think the way I do, and I'd be weirded out if they did, considering how often I'm wrong.

As I've mentioned before, I hope to hell I'm wrong this time too.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 31, 2003)

I was a bit surprised when I found the Hawaii info...had a heated argument a few months back with someone about it.  I used to have about 15 links to info...was interesting to say the least.

:asian:


----------



## Kirk (Mar 31, 2003)

Kaith,

Fox News is reporting that blatant evidence tying the Hussein
with Al Qaeda.  CNN.com have anything about it?


----------



## chufeng (Mar 31, 2003)

Kaith,



> In 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided that the best way to get a reluctant America into a war with Hitler was to "back door" a war by luring Japan into an attack against the United States. By cutting off oil exports to Japan, Roosevelt forced Japan to invade the Dutch East Indies, and by placing the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl, Roosevelt made an attack at Pearl the mandatory first move in any military move by Japan in any direction.
> 
> See "Pearl Harbor: The Mother Of All Conspiracies" for the details on Roosevelt's monstrous swindle.



This smacks of conspiracy theory...and kind of destroys the credibility of the rest of the article you posted...mixing fact with one's own agenda is deception and misinformation and really doesn't do much to objectively address an issue. I admit that America exploited the Hawaiians...and the Native Americans of this land...BUT, look at it from the perspective of the time in which all of that happened...it was a different world...The Spanish, Portuguese, British, and French were the major colonialists...not the US...Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines were our big conquests...and we offered self rule (except Hawaii) to them after a time...

I can dig up tons of stuff against America and tons of stuff for America...some of it downright socialist in its ideas and the other side damn near fascist...I prefer the middle ground...but when my brothers are dying in a place where tyranny is the rule...when they lie in the sand bleeding because they really believe that what they are doing is right...I'm going to stand behind them and the Commander in Chief.

There will be time enough to argue the good and the bad of this conflict after our troops are safely home...arguing against the conflict only feeds the resolve of the enemy and increases the numbers of those who will die, on both sides...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Kirk (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> *when my brothers are dying in a place where tyranny is the rule...when they lie in the sand bleeding because they really believe that what they are doing is right...I'm going to stand behind them and the Commander in Chief.
> 
> There will be time enough to argue the good and the bad of this conflict after our troops are safely home...arguing against the conflict only feeds the resolve of the enemy and increases the numbers of those who will die, on both sides...
> ...



Preach it, bruthuh!!!!!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 31, 2003)

Hey could all you Europeans and Africans and Asians jsut pack up and go home?

I would like to have my lands back. 



(* Real life incident I was involved in, on 9/12/01 at a Gas Station *)

Man exits Gas Station Yelling at the Middle Eastern Gas Station Owner, with lots of racial slurs. He walks right into me and he is stopped looks up and continues to yell and the owner and now me. I am shocked. My Jaw is on the ground and he just will not shut up. His wife says something to him and he gets into his/her truck. He then yells out at me. "Got a Problem *Sensor*, why do'nt you go back to your own country? "

I just smiled and said, "Go Home White Man!"



The US is not set up for being an empire. In November 2004 we will have another revolution and one third of the Senate, 100% of the House and a New(old) President will all be open for replacement. This will happen again in two years where another third of the Senate and 100% of the House will be up for revolutionary overthrow. The empire will not happen. If it does move forward then look for a civil war from within both politically and violently.

He who screams the loudest is not always the most right. He just wears out his vocal cords 


(* Just my opinion posted here *)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 31, 2003)

I put up 3 bits, just as reference.  I saw the 3rd first, and took it with a grain of salt.

My only intent was to veryify the 'Hawaii' comment.

Havent checked CNN yet....

Chufeng, Kirk, you wont get any disagreement from me on those points.

:asian:


----------



## Nightingale (Apr 1, 2003)

Fox...

the network that brought us "Who wants to marry a millionaire"

nuff said.


----------



## Kirk (Apr 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> *Fox...
> 
> the network that brought us "Who wants to marry a millionaire"
> ...



Yeah ... dems and libs hate fair and equal reporting.  I suppose
you think Dan Rather is unbiased???


----------



## Kirk (Apr 1, 2003)

Why attack Iraq now?

Al Qaeda, Hamas and associated terrorists of the 
world are out to get the US  in a big way. They
proved with the Sept 11 attack that they are
capable of a major strike. This just whetted their 
appetite for an escalation to the next level.

There is a strong likelihood that the next level 
will not be a similar attack that takes out 2,800
people, but leaves no long-lasting damage. They
will take their time, and likely go for a strike 
that will try to take out a  major US city. It
could be a dirty bomb, with combination radiation
and/or biological agents, exploded near a major 
city, such as from a container ship in the Hudson
River, or San Francisco or Baltimore harbors. It
would not even have to be unloaded, and we don't
have the technology to detect it in advance. And
they are likely to have several such strikes in
the works, in case one or two are discovered.

We are talking about a "first strike" by them that 
will, for all practical purposes, seem like a last
strike to us. It will do so much damage to our economy,
and several hundred thousand people, that the war is
over as far as the terrorists are concerned, and they
won. We will only be left to wonder who did it and who
to bomb in retaliation.

So the notion that we are not a "first strike" 
country becomes a death sentence for us, if we allow
this to happen first, before we take action.

The terrorists will have a very difficult time 
pulling this off without the help of a small industrial
complex. The current providers of such a complex to the
terrorists are Syria, Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

From among these, Iraq and North Korea have 
the least stable leadership, and Iraq is the one with
the most proven attempts to develop weapons of the type
that terrorists would like to have.

It is reasonable to think that our national leaders
believe that we must prove to all these countries that
we are not going to sit by waiting on Armageddon. We
need to stop the terrorist supporters now, and we need
to show the other terrorist supporters what is in store
for them if we feel we need to hit them to protect our
national interests.

Terrorists have no allegiance to a particular 
country, so they don't fear retaliation by the US. The
old cold-war standoff is no longer operative.  The
terrorists probably consider a nuclear retaliation
against one or more of these supporting countries just
the cost of war.  They, and their supporting countries,
also know that the US will not just heave a few nukes
onto a Baghdad in retaliation, killing a couple of
million innocent civilians.

 The terrorists are also not members of the UN. Our
discussions there are just a comedy to the terrorists.

So the US must act now in every way possible to 
stop the possibility of such an attack against the US. Part 
of that action is to deny the terrorists the support of
these rogue countries. If a rogue country's leadership is
so unstable that they might sell/give the terrorists the
weapons, then we must stop it now. Iraq is such a country.
A measured, non-nuclear attack on Iraq may cause the others
to cease their support of  the terrorists in such a
dangerous way. It also may cause the least civilian
casualties of all the alternatives.

We must make it clear to the terror-supporting 
countries that there will be a price to pay, and that a
nuclear retaliation, which we are unlikely to use, is not
the only option open to us.

I think President Bush understands he cannot let a 
first strike happen, and that nuclear retaliation is no 
longer a threat.

We must go after the terrorists, and their supporters
and suppliers, now.


P.S. A history lesson:
Do you know why the US was in such a rush to 
develop the atomic bomb in WWII?It's not because we simply 
wanted such a weapon. 

It's because concerned physicists, including German refugee, 
Albert Einstein, warned  Roosevelt in writing that the
Germans had the most capable physicist in the field of
nuclear physics, Nobel Prize winner, Werner Heisenberg,
and he was known to have a laboratory working on such a
device. We  knew what would happen if he was the first to
have such a weapon. Think about it.

I believe we are in a similar race today against the terrorists.
The war has begun, so the "don't go to war" crowd apparently has a
mis-understanding of what we are up against. We are at war 
today. 

Our country was similarly divided just before Pearl Harbor and
our entry into WWII.  A modern-day  "Pearl Harbor" is likely
a surprise that is unacceptable to us.


----------



## MountainSage (Apr 1, 2003)

You all need to learn more about politics.  Pro or con war doesn't matter in the political arena.  It is all about getting re-elected!  Politicians hold their fingers in the air and find the direction of the wind and make a moving stand.  You're going to drive yourselves crazy trying to put a rational arguement,pro ro con, on a political situation.  Bottomline: POLITICIAN DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK, THEY JUST WANT YOUR VOTE!  Yes Kaith,  Bill Clinton didn't give a damn about you or any other liberal .

Mountain Sage


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Apr 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *Mexico *



  Wanna brush up your geography again?  IS Mexico our 51st state now?



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> Philippines, Mexico, Cuba (well, briefly), Puerto Rico, Texas, California, a fair chunk of the Indian Nations, etc. etc. etc...
> 
> Then there're all the "protectorates."



Wanna go back to school with eflan too?  Is the Philippines one of our states now? BTW, we inherited the colony after the war with Spain. We took over the administration. We didn't invade and conquer it. Cuba?   Puerto Rico? Good riddence if they want independence, get rid of them.  Texas?  In case your high school curriculum failed to mention this, Texas was an independent state, The Republic of Texas.  The Texans later decided to join the Union.  Cali? Was Cali ever a nation?  Indian Nations? Those are nations in names only.



> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> *Hawaii *



okay.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Apr 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> *Fox...
> 
> the network that brought us "Who wants to marry a millionaire"
> ...



We are talking about the FoxNews Channel.  O'reily has nothing to do with that sleazy program. Of course you knew that.  So why bother to mislead?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MountainSage _
> *You all need to learn more about politics.  Pro or con war doesn't matter in the political arena.  It is all about getting re-elected!  Politicians hold their fingers in the air and find the direction of the wind and make a moving stand.  You're going to drive yourselves crazy trying to put a rational arguement,pro ro con, on a political situation.  Bottomline: POLITICIAN DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK, THEY JUST WANT YOUR VOTE!  Yes Kaith,  Bill Clinton didn't give a damn about you or any other liberal .
> 
> Mountain Sage *



Actually.... in the last 4 elections I voted as follows:
Dukakis, Perot, Browne, and Browne.
Never voted for Clinton, or her husband. 

But otherwise, yup, your right


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 1, 2003)

I love it. Freud was right: the basic structures of all alibis is, "I never borrowed your bucket, I gave it back, and anyway it had a hole in it when you gave it to me." The question comes up: when did the US ever land-grab? Answers are given; the response is, "that never happened, we gave the land back, and anyway they weren't real countries anyway." 

And who spoke up for politicians, liberal and otherwise? I certainly didn't, and (as I've remarked before) never voted for Bill Clinton. 

By the way, I recommend reading ALL of Heinlein, rather than selected bits. Try, "Solution Unsatisfactory," in which he remarks that a) "the US has had greedy Congresses and Presidents before. Oh yes! read about the history of the Mexican War..." (OK, it's a paraphrase...but read it), and b) that no country can be trusted with total power over the world.

Thanks for the discussion. It's interesting, now that some of the silly name-calling has died down.


----------



## MountainSage (Apr 1, 2003)

Kaith,
Read your post during lunch and about choked to death from laughing about the Clinton comment.  I like that one .  Your a better Libertarian than I am, I voted for I voted for CLinton once and only once and the Republican candidates.  Do I take your comments to mean that you didn't approve of Hillary running for Senate in New York. We need to start a political thread to poke polite barbs at each other and our parties.


Mountain Sage


----------



## Elfan (Apr 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *  Wanna brush up your geography again?  IS Mexico our 51st state now?  *



heh I chose the most blantantly obvious example and you still arn't happy.  Here is how Britannica (ie a dour encyclopedia, about as unbiased as you can get) describes it:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=53692&tocid=0&query=mexican war&ct=



> Mexican War
> Encyclopædia Britannica Article
> 
> also called Mexican-American War , Spanish Guerra de 1847 , or Guerra de Estados Unidos a Mexico (War of the United States Against Mexico) war between the United States and Mexico (April 1846February 1848) stemming from Mexican anger at the United States' *annexation of Texas* in 1845 and from a dispute over whether Texas ended at the Nueces River (Mexican claim) or the Rio Grande (U.S. claim). The warin which U.S. forces were consistently victoriousresulted in the United States' *acquisition of more than 500,000 square miles* (1,300,000 square



Emphasis added.  I also found a prety map for you from encarta:


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Apr 1, 2003)

Well, that proves to you that Britannica is WRONG!  LOL  Texas was an independent republic, before they decided to join the Union!


----------



## Elfan (Apr 1, 2003)

I think you are getting a bit to hung up on that word...



> an·nex    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-nks, nks)
> tr.v. an·nexed, an·nex·ing, an·nex·es
> 1.  To append or attach, especially to a larger or more significant thing.
> 2.  To incorporate (territory) into an existing political unit such as a country, state, county, or city.
> 3.  To add or attach, as an attribute, condition, or consequence.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Apr 1, 2003)

Genius. The point is, we didn't conquer and annexed Texas from Mexico. The Republic of Texas WAS an INDEPENDENT and FREE state, before it decided to join the UNION. 

Gee, wanna brush up on ENGLISH too??


----------



## Elfan (Apr 1, 2003)

Mexico may differ in opinion with you about the legal status of Texas at this time, nor did I or Britannica claim that Texas was annexed *from* Mexico, only that it was annexed.  

However, that is besides the point as shortly thereafter the US conquered about half of Mexico as you can see by the pretty map.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 1, 2003)

Tone the heat down a bit folks....


Texas won its independence from Mexico and became a free republic.  They later joined the Union on their own.  This was seen as a point of issue and the Mexican War broke out.  Many of the generals in the civil war (US) fought in that war.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *  Genius. The point is, we didn't conquer and annexed Texas from Mexico. The Republic of Texas WAS an INDEPENDENT and FREE state, before it decided to join the UNION.
> 
> Gee, wanna brush up on ENGLISH too?? *




Sure I will brush up on English, any time. I can always increase my vocabulary.

http://www.lsjunction.com/events/events.htm

Check the above site out.


----------



## D.Cobb (Apr 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *By the way, I recommend reading ALL of Heinlein*



Yeah, then we can all sign on as scientologists.....
Praise the lord, and send me the money!!

--Dave

:shrug:


----------



## Kirk (Apr 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by D.Cobb _
> *Yeah, then we can all sign on as scientologists.....
> Praise the lord, and send me the money!!
> 
> ...



Is Heinlein a scientologist?  Or were you thinkin' of  Hubbard?
Hey Bob, any relation?


----------



## Yari (Apr 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *Is Heinlein a scientologist?  Or were you thinkin' of  Hubbard?
> Hey Bob, any relation? *



I hope not or I seriuosly be thinkning of leaving.

Tried scientology, not my cup of tea, and I will not support them willingy (sp?).

/Yari


----------



## Nightingale (Apr 2, 2003)

We didn't annex Texas from Mexico. We annexed California and New Mexico and Arizona after the Mexican American War.  The Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo ended the war and gave the US the territory.

Below is some info if you're interested:

As with all major events, historical interpretations concerning the causes of the Mexican War vary. Simply stated, a dictatorial Centralist government in Mexico began the war because of the U.S. annexation (1845) of Texas, which Mexico continued to claim despite the establishment of the independent republic of Texas 10 years before. Some historians have argued, however, that the United States provoked the war by annexing Texas and, more deliberately, by stationing an army at the mouth of the Rio Grande. Another, related, interpretation maintains that the administration of U.S. President James K. Polk forced Mexico to war in order to seize California and the Southwest. A minority believes the war arose simply out of Mexico's failure to pay claims for losses sustained by U.S. citizens during the Mexican War of Independence. 

The Mexican War between the United States and Mexico began with a Mexican attack on American troops along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846. Fighting ended when U.S. Gen. Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14, 1847; a few months later a peace treaty was signed (Feb. 2, 1848) at Guadalupe Hidalgo. In addition to recognizing the U.S. annexation of Texas defeated Mexico ceded California and , New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States.  Under the treaty, Mexico ceded to the United States Upper California and New Mexico (including Arizona) and recognized U.S. claims over Texas, with the Rio Grande as its southern boundary.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *Is Heinlein a scientologist?  Or were you thinkin' of  Hubbard?
> Hey Bob, any relation? *



If I was, you think I'd still be driving a 90' Tarus?   (or watching it rust since its undrivable right now..heh)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 2, 2003)

Actually, the connection between Heinlein and Hubbard comes through John W. Campbell, sci-fi writer and editor of "Analog," who loved pseudo-science and power of positive thinking claptrap--apparently, to get your stories published, it helped to buy into John W.'s latest, "How to Become A Superman In Your Spare Time," scheme...so scientology, Van Vogt's "World of Null-A," books, Heinlein's :"Lost Legacy," etc., all come out of the same set of fantasies.

What's particularly interesting to me is the way that a lot of libertarianism and extreme right-wing nutcake ideology traces back into science fiction...including loons like Edward Teller (still with us! must be those monkey glands) who sold Reagan on SDI, another sf idea that we're being stuck with once again. I'd recommend reading H. Bruce Franklin, another commierat English professor: "Robert A. Heinlein: American as Science Fiction," and "War Stars," or going through some back issues of "Science Fiction Studies."


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Apr 2, 2003)

The loon, Edward Teller, Father of American's nuclear deterrence (so ingrates like you can mouth off in the warmth and safety of your living room, and not dying in some Soviet/Cuban mental wards or gulags) brought forth to Reagan, the SDI which got the evil empire into a bankrupting armrace, which resulted in the overthrown of the barbaric communist totalitarian regime in Moscow.

Thankyou for revealing your level of objectivity and grasp of reality.  lol


----------



## D.Cobb (Apr 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *Is Heinlein a scientologist?  Or were you thinkin' of  Hubbard?
> Hey Bob, any relation? *



Aw crap!! My Bad!

Oh poop!! 

(hands up in the air)
SORRY! SORRY!

Dammit now who looks stupid???? 

--Dave


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 3, 2003)

Yes, yes. The old, "If it weren't for..., ingrates like you would be dying in a gulag now." Reminds me of the old "Sat. Night Live" sketch about the kid who didn't wanna go to school, so Bill Murray announced that he just wouldn't go to work either, so his boss didn't, then the Russians invaded their breakfast nook...

Why not just argue facts and ideas and theories, and skip the silly name-calling?


----------



## Kirk (Apr 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Yes, yes. The old, "If it weren't for..., ingrates like you would be dying in a gulag now." Reminds me of the old "Sat. Night Live" sketch about the kid who didn't wanna go to school, so Bill Murray announced that he just wouldn't go to work either, so his boss didn't, then the Russians invaded their breakfast nook...
> 
> Why not just argue facts and ideas and theories, and skip the silly name-calling? *



When people use the first amendment to solely speak out 
against everything the constitution represents, against the
government, any actions they do, and those executing the orders
given to them, it makes me, and apparently many others, 
just plain disgusted.  You should hold some of these freedoms
to heart.  In the case of this war, how many Iraqi citizens have
the right to publicly protest Sadam?  And we all know what
happens to those protesting against communism in Russia.  

When people solely use the first amendment to talk about how
much they hate America, then the obvious question, even though
you love to poke fun at those who ask it, is "then why not 
leave?".  To those of us who value ALL the liberties we have, we
get a bit temperamental at you, who despises our economic 
system, and democracy in general.  IMO, people like this only
have those ideals are full of themselves.  They think that they're
soooooo special, and so apart from the crowd, that they'd 
somehow be in power in a communist/socialist/marxist form of
government.  How quickly they'd change thier tune if they had to
personally witness thier own child being gunned down in a
public town square, for speaking her/his own mind.  Again, IMO,
the blood shed by our own brethren in this war is on YOUR hands,
because of your attempts at deystroying thier morality, thier
mindset, and thier conscience.  Where as you just feel, protestors
are simply exercising the right that they abhore so much, free
speech.


----------



## Nightingale (Apr 3, 2003)

the first ammendment exists PRECICELY for people to speak out against the government.  That's what its there for.  The folks writing the bill of rights remembered what it was like when you couldn't speak out against the crown, and decided that wasn't what they wanted for the new government.


----------



## Kirk (Apr 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> *the first ammendment exists PRECICELY for people to speak out against the government.  That's what its there for.  The folks writing the bill of rights remembered what it was like when you couldn't speak out against the crown, and decided that wasn't what they wanted for the new government. *



Yes ... but to speak out against the liberties provided to you by
that amendment is ignorant.  It wasn't JUST "the crown" that the
amendment exists for.  It's not like they said "Here's the right to
free speech, please use it to put down everything American". 

The fact remains that without war, the right to bash your fellow
Americans to high heaven, to put down your government and your
very way of life wouldn't exist.  You're also not given the right to
incite riot, which is what a LOT (no, mr mcrobertson not a teeny
tiny one or two amongst peace loving pacifists protesting the war)
of current war protestors are doing.  When law enforcement 
officials and other Americans innocently get violent acts committed
upon them, then it is NOT YOUR RIGHT.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Apr 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> ...We didn't annex Texas from Mexico. We annexed California and New Mexico and Arizona after the Mexican American War.  The Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo ended the war and gave the US the territory......



I suppose all the people in California, New Mexico and Arizona must have been dying to rejoin Mexico, huh?   LOL

Yeah, all these years, they must have been dying by the hundreds of thousands to fight against this imperialistic invader called the USA!  

As for Hawaii, if the US didn't take over, it would remain the private property of the corrupt and defunct royal family. And for the enrichment of the royal court, not the commoners. The Hawaii people are better off within the Union.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 3, 2003)

Thanks for the truisms and cliches.

I still haven't read any arguments with my facts, interpretations, or underlying theory. Just yadayada about being a disloyal American, about love it or leave it, about how I'd feel if my mom got shot by commies, about subverting democracy (here's a good line from, "The Patriot," "Your sense of liberty is as pale as your skin"), about despising capitalism (guilty as charged) etc. etc. etc.

That's it? That's all ya got? If this were a composition class, I'd hand the papers back with notes about the necessity of providing fact, footnoting sources, arguing logically. (Can't wait for the posts about people like me being what's wrong with the commierat educational system, what with the way we commierat teachers keep asking students to think through their arguments and provide evidence for their claims...disloyal, disloyal, disloyal.)

Welllp, guess I can get back to subverting democracy, putting florides in water, advocating those contributions to UNICEF, and generally preparing for the coming takeover by lesbians, one-worlders, commies, trade unionists, ACLU members, tree-huggers, and all us other un-Americans.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Apr 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *Yes ... but to speak out against the liberties provided to you by
> that amendment is ignorant.  It wasn't JUST "the crown" that the
> amendment exists for.  It's not like they said "Here's the right to
> ...



Nothing wrong with people speaking their mind, even if that only demonstrates their degree of ignorance....  Good men and women have gave their lives to ensure that this right remains in this country.  It is also your right and my right to say that these people are wrong (or worse,  ignorant or full of horse manure). Granted, that does not necessary mean they are of menace or illwill.   People with good intention can also be misguided. [I am sure the feeling is probably mutual in many cases.  lol ]


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Apr 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Thanks for the truisms and cliches.
> 
> I still haven't read any arguments with my facts, interpretations, or underlying theory. Just yadayada about being a disloyal American, about love it or leave it, about how I'd feel if my mom got shot by commies, about subverting democracy (here's a good line from, "The Patriot," "Your sense of liberty is as pale as your skin"), about despising capitalism (guilty as charged) etc. etc. etc.
> ...




What are you whining about?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2003)

I think some folks need a nap.

Less snippy folks....less snippy....


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Apr 3, 2003)

Ok. Allow me to rephrase that then.

"Forgive my ignorance and inattention. Would you kindly restate what it is that you would like me to address?"

[note to admin: lol, is this better?]


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2003)

Much better.  Now I dont have to hit myself in the head with my mouse to simulate a cyber butt-kicking.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Apr 3, 2003)

LOL. Actually I was at a loss as to what he was asking me to address, as my post he quoted was mean to be a humours jab at Nightingale's post regarding the annexation of CA, NM and AZ.   I got carried away in my blasting off my mouth. In verbal commnunication, there are more cues one can convey one's attitude. But, that is lost in text communication.


----------



## Elfan (Apr 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Welllp, guess I can get back to subverting democracy, putting florides in water *



Damn Ruskie stop depleting my precious bodily fluids!!!


----------



## arnisador (Apr 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *When people use the first amendment to solely speak out
> against everything the constitution represents, against the
> government, any actions they do, and those executing the orders
> ...



??? Why else would anyone need those freedoms? Is there concern that the government might prohibit agreeing with govt. policies and praising elected politicians?


----------



## Kirk (Apr 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *??? Why else would anyone need those freedoms? Is there concern that the government might prohibit agreeing with govt. policies and praising elected politicians? *



Disagreement is often used, ... abhorition, and a call for a new
government that doesn't allow for the first amendment isn't quite
as common.  

Those seeking a Marxist/Communist/Nazi regime, are IMO, anti
American.  Just because you desire to physically live on American
soil, doesn't make you pro American.  If you seek to shred the
constitution, and replace it with a Marxist doctrine, a Communist
regime, a dictatorship, an oligarchy ... you're anti American.  If
you say "not only do I hope the Iraqi's win, I hope they get to
drop some bombs on us" .. you're anti American.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 3, 2003)

Good to know. I'd always suspected that there was something un-American about Charles Lindbergh....


----------



## Kirk (Apr 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Good to know. I'd always suspected that there was something un-American about Charles Lindbergh.... *



You've been screaming for "facts" and this is all you present, huh?


----------



## Kirk (Apr 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Good to know. I'd always suspected that there was something un-American about Charles Lindbergh.... *



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While visiting Germany, Charles was treated as an honored guest 
by the Reich. He toured their aircraft facilities and was deeply 
impressed by their state-of-the-art equipment and by 
the "organized vitality," as Charles called it, of the German 
people. He even considered moving to Berlin. In 1938, Hermann 
Goering personally decorated Charles with the Service Cross of 
the German Eagle, for his contributions to aviation. By 1938 the 
Nazi agenda was no secret, but their philosophy seems not to 
have disturbed Lindbergh at all. Americans back home, starting to 
hear of Hitler's atrocities, were less sanguine. The sight of their 
Golden Boy wearing a Nazi medal disturbed many.

The disturbance blossomed into hatred over the next few years. 
Lindbergh returned home and publicly urged America not to enter 
the war, warning that such a course would be foolhardy in light of 
Germany's superior military prowess. There was no pressing 
need to fight the Germans, he stated, since these European 
skirmishes were "not wars in which our civilization is defending 
itself against some Asiatic intruder." Rather, the German culture 
was much like our own; we were all White inheritors of the great Western cultural tradition, weren't we? We shared with Germany 
the imperative of creating "a Western wall of race and arms 
which can hold back the infiltration of inferior blood," as he 
wrote in the Reader's Digest. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm .. sounds pretty anti American to me.


----------



## Kirk (Apr 3, 2003)

The death-blow to Lindbergh's fame came in September 1941, when he made an infamous
speech on behalf of the America First Committee, an organization promoting neutrality
in the war. Speaking in Des Moines, Iowa, Lindbergh castigated the war-mongering
attitude of the British, President Roosevelt, and especially the Jews. In what
sounded like a veiled threat, Lindbergh announced that "Jews in this country should
be opposing [war] in every way, for they will be the first to feel its consequences."
He also denounced the Jews as the "greatest danger" to the United States, because of
their "large ownership and influece in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and
our government." 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In so saying, Lindbergh re-activated all the moth-eaten stereotypes about Jews'
supposed control of society, none of which had any basis in fact, but all of which
had earlier been spoken in Germany. In fact, Lindbergh and his wife had been present
during Kristallnacht, the infamous "night of broken glass" when Nazis attacked
Jewish homes and businesses. Later apologists for Lindbergh's remarks have sometimes
claimed he was "naive," but this is a disingenuous claim. He had witnessed the
Nazi's actions; he knew what he was saying.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lindbergh did not seek any service in Europe. Nor, after the war, did he recant his
pro-Nazi statements. The furthest he would go was to assert that Hitler was an
immoral man who had abused his power. This "immoral abuse of power," somewhat vague
idea though it was, became the focus of Lindbergh's criticisms in post-war speeches.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 


I take it he's one of your heroes? 

 Just because he has superb accomplishments as an aviator ... 
doesn't make him pro American, nor a model American.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 4, 2003)

Kirk,

Do you believe in or take benefit(s) from a Union?


As for 1941 and the Isolationism, it was much more than CL who wanted to stay out of the war. Just Like 1914, many did not want to enter into the Great War going on in Europe.

In 1941, it took Pearl Harbor to move this county to war. In the Great War it took the sinking of some of our ships that were amking supply runs to England. So, I think it was much more tha just CL and his Isolationism. There was/is a history of it prior and after the dates you reference.


Good research though.


----------



## Elfan (Apr 4, 2003)

Kirk could you cite your sources please.


----------



## Kirk (Apr 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *Kirk,
> 
> Do you believe in or take benefit(s) from a Union?
> ...



There's more than isolationism and not wanting to go to war in
my post though.


----------



## Kirk (Apr 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *Kirk could you cite your sources please. *




Why?  First off, many are making claims without backing them up
with sources.  Secondly, those that are posting sources are 
getting ridiculed for who thier sources are, so what's the point?


----------



## Elfan (Apr 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *Why?  First off, many are making claims without backing them up
> with sources.  Secondly, those that are posting sources are
> getting ridiculed for who thier sources are, so what's the point? *



So I can check them silly and see how reputable and/or biased they are and see what other useful information they have, just as I would hope people would do with anything I posted.  If I posted some something like "american's are baby killers wraa!!!" and cited (www.AMERICASUX.COM) I hope people would jump all over me for it.

From http://www.charleslindbergh.com/history/index.asp (which is rather pro-Lindbergh)

We see that he:

- made the first solo nonstop flight across the Atlantic Ocean 

- visited the aircraft industries of France and German

- Lindbergh stopped his noninvolvement activity after Pearl Harbor

- flew 50 combat missions in WWII

Now having seen a very anti and pro view of Lindbergh we might check out something more even handed like http://www.acepilots.com/lindbergh.html and go from there.

From all this I might conclude something along the lines of "Charles Lindbergh was a war hero and amazing aviator but held strong negative opinions towards Jews and was vocal about them."

Anyway, this was your source, no?

Icharus Falls: Charles Lindbergh and the Rejection of Heroism by Ilana Nash, September 11, 1999


----------



## Kirk (Apr 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *So I can check them silly and see how reputable and/or biased they are and see what other useful information they have, just as I would hope people would do with anything I posted.  If I posted some something like "american's are baby killers wraa!!!" and cited (www.AMERICASUX.COM) I hope people would jump all over me for it.
> 
> From http://www.charleslindbergh.com/history/index.asp (which is rather pro-Lindbergh)
> ...



Apologies brother, after so many heated discussions, I kind of
got on the defensive, and read your post with this harsh, 
condesceding tone.  That is where I got the info.  Peace!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *There's more than isolationism and not wanting to go to war in
> my post though. *



True,  your post does have much more, yet you and no one else picked up that the US policies in the past have mirrored those of many today in the current global situation. I was hoping others might comment on that. That is all. 

Trying to add to the discussion, and maybe get some information, out of it.

Train Well Kirk :asian:


----------



## Kirk (Apr 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *True,  your post does have much more, yet you and no one else picked up that the US policies in the past have mirrored those of many today in the current global situation. I was hoping others might comment on that. That is all.
> 
> Trying to add to the discussion, and maybe get some information, out of it.
> ...



Rich, since many have been taking offense to my posts, and 
feeling attacked by me, I just gotta chime in and say that it wasn't
my attention in debating your post.  Sorry if it seemed that way.


----------



## Elfan (Apr 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *Apologies brother, after so many heated discussions, I kind of
> got on the defensive, and read your post with this harsh,
> condesceding tone.  That is where I got the info.  Peace! *



Heh, no worries man.

:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 4, 2003)

I mentioned Lucky Lindy because I get damed tired of people who feel that they're qualified to decide who is and who isn't American enough. 

Kirk is precisely correct about him: among other sources, I've been reading Samuel Fuller's autobiography--he was at the 1941 rally, where Lindbergh spoke in support of Hitler. 

I might add, however, that Fuller then goes on to castigate the late and unlamented Sen. Joseph McCarthy for pretty much what you'd expect--being a right wing, repressive jerk  (much like J. Edgar, but we all know about him and Clyde W. Toland, as much as we know about Roy Cohn) who found Commies under every bed and regrettably gained enough power to persecute Americaans for their traitorous exercises of free speech and the right to free political association. 
And before anybody starts screaming about Fuller being a commierat himself, I recommend reading his book or seeing his movies, including, "The Steel Helmet," and, "The Big Red One." I also recommend reading about his military service, which included North Africa in 1942, Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, and the invasion of Germany. Sorry I never got to meet the man.

This country has a long, proud tradition of citizens speaking their mind, even if the gov't doesn't like what they say. Funny how so many of the politicians who scream about that tradition the loudest turn out to be disgraces...Nixon, Agnew, etc., etc, the list just goes on...


----------



## Kirk (Apr 6, 2003)

WMD Chemical Agents found in Iraq. US GIs Exposed

Posted on Sun, Apr. 06, 2003 
Troops, journalists undergo cleanup for nerve gas exposure
By TOM LASSETER
Knight Ridder Newspapers

ALBU MUHAWISH, Iraq - U.S. soldiers evacuated an Iraqi military compound on Sunday after tests by a mobile laboratory confirmed evidence of sarin nerve gas. More than a dozen soldiers of the Army's 101st Airborne Division had been sent earlier for chemical weapons decontamination after they exhibited symptoms of possible exposure to nerve agents.

The evacuation of dozens of soldiers Sunday night followed a day of tests for the nerve agent that came back positive, then negative. Additional tests Sunday night by an Army Fox mobile nuclear, biological and chemical detection laboratory confirmed the existence of sarin.

Sgt. Todd Ruggles, a biochemical expert attached to the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne said, "I was right" that chemical agents Iraq has denied having were present.

In addition to the soldiers sent for decontamination, a Knight Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman and two Iraqi prisoners of war also were hosed down with water and bleach.

U.S. soldiers found the suspect chemicals at two sites: an agricultural warehouse containing 55-gallon chemical drums and a military compound, which soldiers had begun searching on Saturday. The soldiers also found hundreds of gas masks and chemical suits at the military complex, along with large numbers of mortar and artillery rounds.

Chemical tests for nerve agents in the warehouse came back positive for so-called G-Series nerve agents, which include sarin and tabun, both of which Iraq has been known to possess. More than a dozen infantry soldiers who guarded the military compound Saturday night came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to very low levels of nerve agent, including vomiting, dizziness and skin blotches.

A hand-held scanning device also indicated the soldiers had been exposed to a nerve agent. Two tests at the compound were negative, but further testing indicated sarin was present.

Sarin can be inhaled or absorbed through the skin and is considered one of the most feared but also the most volatile of the nerve agents, chemical weapons experts have said. A cloud of sarin can dissipate after several minutes or hours depending on wind and temperature.

The soldiers, journalists and prisoners of war who tested positive were isolated as everyone else evacuated the area. After about 45 minutes, the group was walked, single-file, down a road for about a city block to where two water trucks awaited them. The men stepped between the two trucks and were hosed down as they lathered themselves with a detergent containing bleach.

1st Lt. Elena Aravjo of the 63rd Chemical Company said she thought there might well be chemical weapons at the site. "We do think there's stuff in this compound and the other (agricultural warehouse) compound, but we think it's buried," she said. "I'm really suspicious of both of those compounds."

The suspicions, or at the very least concerns, were widespread. The 2nd Brigade's commander, Col. Joseph Anderson, toured the site on Sunday, as did Brig. Gen. Benjamin C. Freakley, the assistant commander of the 101st Airborne for operations. Shortly after, the division commander, Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, also visited the site.

The ranking officers made no official comment about suspected nerve agents. Troops not wearing chemical protection suits later reoccupied the military complex, while sections of the agricultural warehouse remained taped off.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 6, 2003)

Thank you Kirk for the post.



> Additional tests Sunday night by an Army Fox mobile nuclear, biological and chemical detection laboratory confirmed the existence of sarin.



The Fox was one of my programs at General Dynamics, I only wish they could have found the stuff and marked it before the exposure? Yet, with the equipement available they should be able to determine the what and how much, pretty good.

My respects go out to our Fighting Men and Women :asian:


----------



## Elfan (Apr 7, 2003)

It doesn't seem to be clear/confirmed :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-8apr2003-13.htm



> Suspected WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide
> 
> Suspected WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide
> A facility near Baghdad that a US officer had said might finally be "smoking gun" evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons production turned out to contain pesticide, not sarin gas as feared.
> ...


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 3, 2011)

Johnathan Napalm said:


> The US operates on the basis of its military preparation. The so-called "rush" is nothing but some BS that career politicians mouth about. The US was going to attack when it has the military preparation in place, with or without the UN approval. This was stated so, way in the begining when Bush said we would disarm him if the UN wouldn't do so. We were preparing for war on day 1.


 It never stops surprising me how no one on the right fails to admit that our financial woes are due to an illegal war that killed its estimated a million Iraqi's and we would never have gone in if not for oil claiming our costs would be repaid by oil and all the corporations that polititions got paid from to supply the war effort if not bad enough bilked the US taxpayers out billions in fraud all the while playing on good honest young people and families for thier patriotism and also the lower income who the only way to get an education or a job is to risk thier lives in the military.

Its all about the haves and have nots and corporations profiting from the missery of the less enfranchised its been that way since time began people have died to beat that back and it makes me sick that right wing media outlets only want to paint all the OWS as loosers and felons when everday people are just getting together to express enough is enough some very intellengent and good family people are risking thier safety by being exposed to some jerks and while I support the lawforcement to be able to do their job they have some bad apples to that want to have the chance to exert force on defenseless people


----------



## granfire (Nov 3, 2011)

I suppose this thread is a time capsule?


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> I suppose this thread is a time capsule?


----------

