Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from GreenDopeDoorDeala Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 18:25 (Agree/Disagree?) HE-MAN was a cartoon in the 80's about a gay superhero....nice name bro (reply to this comment)

From mex Tuesday, July 22, 2003, 18:50 (Agree/Disagree?) HE-MAN was gay??(reply to this comment)

from What? Friday, July 18, 2003 - 21:46 (Agree/Disagree?) People, could it be that HeMan is on the wrong site? One look at his profile and I'm wondering what on earth we're even taking the time to argue politics with him for. I guess it's a bit late now that there are plenty of us involved, but really..... (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, July 19, 2003, 14:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, I emailed him and he was indeed on the wrong site! Made for nice sweet conversations, though!!!:)(reply to this comment)

from A Reader Friday, July 18, 2003 - 17:59 (Agree/Disagree?) As Nick said, there is really no 'International body' to declare Bush's war on Iraq either legal or illegal. For that matter, find me any war for which there was a 'good' reason! The fact of the matter is that we live in an imperfect world, in which there are people (on all sides) who are willing to sacrifice their own lives (or the lives of others) for their cause. Yes, Bush and Blair may have misled their populations in order to pursue this war, but tell me - did Saddam do any better? Since when has war been a one-sided event? The fact that the Coalition forces are better trained and equipped, and were thus essentially guaranteed a victory doesn't make the other side any less responsible for the war! If anything, it only makes Saddam out to be an idiot as well as a tyrant! He's had over 10 years to sort out his issues - 10 years during which he lived as a king, while his people starved! Why is it that every time World opinion was changing in favour of lifting the sactions he would suddenly decide not to cooperate with the Weapons Inspectors? Somehow, I think he actually LIKED living under the sanctions! I mean, he wasn't suffering IN THE LEAST (I know this from first-hand accounts) if anything, his wealth was that much greater by comparison! Yet, he managed to portray himself as the 'champion' of the 'persecuted' Arabs. All the while, his actions only served to alienate the Arab world from Western society all the more! Dictators like him don't care about their subjects - after all, they are only there to serve him and his elite circle of aides - so what does he care if they're starving, or dirt poor? (An interesting tidbit I read recently is that the Iraqi population has almost doubled since the Sanctions were imposed, so he definitely wasn't short of a slave-labour workforce to build even more monuments to boost his ego!) (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, July 18, 2003, 18:09 (Agree/Disagree?) As an American I would like to think that we hold our leaders to a much higher standard than some crazy tyrant such as Saddam. If we allow them to stoop to his level we as citizens are in danger of going the way of the poor people of Iraq. The case against Sadaam was strong and valid so why the need for lies and embelished madeup evidence???(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, July 24, 2003, 19:23 (Agree/Disagree?) You said "The case against Sadaam was strong and valid so why the need for lies and embelished madeup evidence???" In other words, you agree that there WAS a good reason for the war! I agree with you that some of the 'evidence' they submitted was less than accurate, but even democratically elected governments aren't perfect. I don't take things at face-value, so I wasn't really 'convinced' either way by the '45-minute chemical weapons threat', or whether or not Saddam had bought whatever-it-was from some 'African country'. And to be honest, I think anyone who considered those to be the foundations of a military strike against Iraq to be entirely less than informed, and rather deserved to be misled! Focusing on a few inconsequential details only detracts from the FACTS, and the only result I can forsee would be that future dictators like Saddam could hide behind the threat of a domestic public outcry against any Western leader who may try to remove him from power. This world isn't - and never will be - perfect! So the sooner you can come to grips with that, the better.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, July 25, 2003, 22:45 (Agree/Disagree?) So your willing to allow governments to submit "less than accurate" evidence to justify a war? Why stop there? Let's allow police to submit "less than accurate" evidence against a defendant! Or allow corporate polluters to submit "less than accurate" pollution reports...(oh wait... they already do!) Why not allow car companies to make "less than accurate" brakes? Do you think your government would allow you to submit a "less than accurate" tax statement? Yeah right!! That would be a perfect world!!! Those inconsequential details you mention like, WMD, imminent danger, nuclear weapons, and so on were the pseudo-facts presented by the Bush/Blair governments to boost their position. The morality of Sadaams regime and the welfare of the Iraqi people were in no way the primary reasons given for going to war, despite what they are now trying to spin it out to be. They wanted war and they used fear and lies because they didn't think the naked truth would do! If the war was fought to free Iraq from a dictator, then that is what should've been presented to the world, not hype, manufactured and exaggerated evidence. A government, esp. a world superpower and democracy, should be held accountable to its citizens for its actions. War is always an ugly subject and reasons for going to war should be held to higher standards than almost anything! I'm not a dreamer and I realize that the world isn't perfect, as you so charmingly stated, and it will never be as long as there are people willing to look the other way while crooked politics are played out at the expense of people's lives! (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, July 26, 2003, 05:44 (Agree/Disagree?) First of all Lydia, you yourself said that 'the case against Iraq was strong enough' - those were YOUR words! I agree with you, that governments should be accountable to tell the truth to their citizens - at all times - but I also recognise the fact that this is not - and dare I say, never will be - the case. I agree also that governments (everyone in fact) should be held accountable for their actions. The fact of the matter is, that the US/UK governments have given a lot of reasons for their attack on Iraq over the past 13 years! The media, however, has decided to emphasize on various ones at different times in order to create sensational headlines and to achieve their goals of SELLING PAPERS! You see, I don't believe those media spin-doctors in the Liberal Press any more than I believe the Right-Wing governments. As Abraham Lincoln said, you can only please some of the people all of the time - that, my friend, is as true today as it ever was! The FACT of the matter is that Iraq was NOT complying with UN resolutions regarding Weapons Inspections. Whether or not Iraq had/has those weapons, they spent all of 10 years putting barriers in the way of the inspectors. Yet, whenever it came to actually making the tough decisions of ENFORCING those resoultions France and Russia allowed their economic ties with Saddam (the oil contracts they have which would kick in as soon as the sanctions were lifted) to prevent them from taking a stand. Instead they opted to continue starving the country through the sanctions - sanctions which hurt everyone in Iraq EXCEPT those most guilty. Saddam and his cronies weren't hurt IN THE LEAST by the sanctions, it was only the Iraqi people. So in my opinion, this was was showing MERCY to the ordinary Iraqis! Granted, there are other countries who are also in contravention of UN resolutions (notably Israel) but does the one justify the other? I believe that each case should be judged on it's own merits, and I believe that the war WAS justified - and not because of the 'hyped up' reasons that the media keeps repeating. You see, I know a lot of Iraqi's personally, I know a lot of people who have been to Iraq, and I've heard first-hand reports of what it was like there before AND after the first Gulf War. The problems in Iraq are not caused by the West - although the sanctions definitely compounded the situation, by adding poverty to their already miserable fearful existence of no human rights or freedom.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, July 26, 2003, 14:39 (Agree/Disagree?) I do believe the case to remove Sadaam from power was strong and valid. I'm just not sure war, esp. under such circumstances, was necessary to accomplish this. I believe it was done mainly as a show for a certain political agenda. Over the past decade, esp. after a few years of the failed sanctions, serious steps to remove him should've been taken. I'm no expert, but, with all the sophisticated tracking technology, surely a very public political figure could've been tracked down and dealt with by whatever means necessary. Perhaps if just a portion of the ridiculous amount of money that is currently being spent on Iraq, mostly US taxpayers money, were used for this, the need for full blown combat could've been nearly eliminated. Given the current US economy, it was irresponsible to begin such an undertaking. You can talk all you want about "liberal spin" in the media and to a certain extent I agree with you, however, the media did not influence the documents that Powell presented to the UN, nor did they influence the Bush's administrations decision to ignore the recommendation of the CIA to eliminate certain portions of a speech (the same CIA that they are now blaming for their current PR disaster). The media did not write the counless speechs by both Bush and Blair on the immediate chemical and biological weapons capabilities, the supposed nuclear factories, or the sophisticated weapons able to reach our continents in less than an hour. To date nothing near the magnitude claimed has been found. This is a fact regardless of whatever "spin" the media may use. If your goona go to war based on whatever evidence, you better have the evidence before hand, not go to war to find it in the firstplace. I agree with you that the majority of countries opposing the war were not doing it based on some moral high ground, rather on their own economic interest that had nothing to do with what was best for the people of Iraq. Perhaps the best solution would've been to finish what the first Bush tyranny...I mean Presidency...started, thereby avoiding the more than a decade of suffering! Hindsight is 20/20, but perhaps to avoid any such future hindsight, we as citizens should seriously question a government willing to submit false and innacurate data to support any position, let alone one for war.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Saturday, July 26, 2003, 20:34 (Agree/Disagree?) You're sure he needed to be removed, but your not sure war was necessary to accomplish this? How were you planning on removing him? I'm not a big fan of Bush or his war myself, but let's at least be realistic. Furthermore, if you're going to reject Bush's foreign policy, at least reject it on logical grounds. Assasination? Do you know how many other sleazebags were waiting to take his place? Have you heard of Sophism? It's (among other things) the belief that there is no absolute right answer, or absolutely perfect solution, there is only a best solution. In this case, I think war might have been the best solution. But I don't really want to get into an anti-war debate with you, I just think you should think about your rhetoric more carefully. Finally, is further ranting going to accomplish anything? Maybe you could've written your senator or gone out and protested before the war actually started, but it's a little late now. Why don't you focus on something a little more useful, like helping the poor orphaned wounded children?(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, July 26, 2003, 23:12 (Agree/Disagree?) One more thing, how do you know I didn't protest the war?? Are you sure I was not involved in a campaign to let the corrupt conservative Kentucky senators know what I, as well as other students, thought?? My furthur ranting was a response to someone else! Besides, I enjoy political debate! I thought about a political carrer, but since it requires more compromise than most people think, I chose another path! (I don't really think my political beliefs would be very electable anyway, even with liberals!) (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, July 26, 2003, 23:03 (Agree/Disagree?) The US has installed and removed leaders of their choosing before, with out war, it would've been nothing new! As far as the orphans go, I'm working on it!! Once I have my Masters in Ecosystems Restoration, I can save them and future generations of poor orphans from certain death due to homelessness! Your concern is admirable, maybe you'd like to help as well???(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, July 26, 2003, 20:33 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm coming to realise that our viewpoints may actually be rather similar on this issue. Like you, I'm ashamed that my government would present information to their public that is incorrect (whether knowingly or not). I believe that a covert surgical strike to remove Saddam and his hierarchy would have had better results toward solving the situation than an all-out war. However, it was the same liberals who are now calling for 'another solution' in hindsight, who were opposed to such actions before the war, on the grounds that it would be illegal to interfere with another sovereign nation's politics. You see, as much as I hate war I realise that there comes a point when it is imperative to be pro-active rather than re-active. Why must it always be the bad guys who make the first move? (Not that Bush and Blair are the 'good' guys, ha!) The point is, do we need to wait for another September 11th before action can be taken? IMO there's a lot to be said for a pre-emptive strike - providing it's justified, of course. That said, it's now time for the Coalition forces to get out of Iraq! They'll be criticised whether they stay or leave, so the best move would be to get out and let the Iraqis take control of their country as they've been talking about all this time. Of course it WILL be a mess - for a while even - but in the end, it'll be for the best.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, July 26, 2003, 22:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Maybe we do have more in common than I thought! Guess that means your smarter than I thought!!! Just kidding :)!! As far as liberals not wanting to "interfere" in another nations politics, I think that's a little hypocritical! The US has never been too shy of putting their nose into someone else's business! I consider myself liberal, but I don't agree with that view point. Preventing another 9/11 won't be acomplished by another war, it won't be acomplished by the current one! That's a whole other ballgame played by a different set of rules!(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, July 26, 2003, 05:47 (Agree/Disagree?) CORRECTION to 5th paragraph, last sentence: "...this WAR was showing MERCY to the ordinary Iraqis!"(reply to this comment)

from shocked but not awed Friday, July 18, 2003 - 17:10 (Agree/Disagree?) To the right-wing masters of rhetoric: Let me explain what terrifies me whenever this subject seems to come up. Here's a sample monologue from the things I have heard from people on this topic. "If you are at all critical of our leaders or lifestyle you are anti-[US], a traitor, and I have nothing to say to you. You should be grateful for the [US] and the freedom we enjoy, and if you can’t be appreciative and stop your criticisms, just get the hell out. We are at war, our enemies are everywhere and drastic times call for drastic measures. I don’t have to understand everything or see evidence myself, my leaders do, and I trust them and believe they have our best interests at heart, whether I see it or not. We are the leaders of the world during these dark times, and we have the right and obligation to do things that others could not. We don’t do these things just because we can, but because the [US] is an example to the rest of the world. The [US] is the best and most wonderful place in the world, and we don’t need to understand or experience other societies first hand to know this. We don’t need to talk or dialogue with anyone else outside of the [US] and if anything even comes close to interfering with our own policies of self-interest, we will reject it out of hand, no matter what the repercussions." Replace "US" with "Family" and it would be a conversation with my mother. Any cause, organization, country or political view that does not allow for dissent, dialogue or criticism is very frightening. (reply to this comment)

from frmrjoyish Friday, July 18, 2003 - 13:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Somehow the right wing has managed to cast the "unpatriotic" label on anyone who does not agree with them. It's not unpatriotic to not want our troops to be involved in an illegal war. They wouldn't be over there getting killed if Bush had not pushed for an unnecessary war. Perhaps if Bush had presented facts as opposed to lies, exaggeration, hype, and fear before the UN, the international community would've been more apt to lend their support and our troops would not have to bear the burden alone. My brother is in Iraq and I want him home! I don't want to see my brother come home in a bodybag just because some people have a warped sense of patriotism! (reply to this comment)

From Albatross Friday, July 18, 2003, 13:39 (Agree/Disagree?) There is no international body with the right to declare this war illegal or otherwise. The United State system of government approved it. It is therefore not illegal. You can inpune the motives behind it and the justness of its cause, without being unpatriotic, but international, or even majority disagreement with it does not make it illegal. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Saturday, July 26, 2003, 16:33 (Agree/Disagree?) There isn't? I thought the UN had that right, at least in theory. Please explain.(reply to this comment)

From Albatross Saturday, July 26, 2003, 18:59 (Agree/Disagree?) The UN does not have the right. I'm sure the French and their banana republic cronies would like to believe they do. But the fact is that they are powerless in that regard. I'm sure you would agree that the US and many other nations would never sign away their right to wage war. Efforts to gain UN approval are for the support it offers and for reasons of diplomatic niceties. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Saturday, July 26, 2003, 20:23 (Agree/Disagree?) But what about resolutions that declare certain wars illegal, e.g. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? The UN has the right to censure or sanction the US for attacking Iraq without their approval right? It's interesting that they haven't done a damn thing, goes to show how powerful the US really is.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, July 26, 2003, 20:39 (Agree/Disagree?) The thing about something being legal or not is that it's all a matter of WHERE you are: what could be perfectly legal in one country, will land you in jail in another. The decisions of the UN are only binding to countries that wish to remain a part of the UN, and since the US is one of the 5 Permanent Members - who all hold Veto power - there's not much chance of a resolution being passed against them (unless a meeting of the General Assembly is called, in which case the resolutions are non-binding.) For all it's hype, the UN is basically a forum for the world to express it's opinion, and the amount of actual power that it holds over member countries is very minimal.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, July 18, 2003, 13:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you for showing me the light!! I was unaware that a war based mostly on political agenda and exagerated evidence on a country that faced no "emminent danger" to US citizens was legal! I guess now that a preemptive strike precedent has been established any such wars in the future will also be legal! God Bless America!!!! (reply to this comment)

From Albatross Friday, July 18, 2003, 14:27 (Agree/Disagree?) As I said, your opinion on the motives, and agendas for this war notwithstanding, there is no codified international protocol that has the US as a signatory that provides for declaring this war illegal or otherwise. If you study history, you'll see that most wars are based on "political agenda", and that "emminent danger" is not the only justification for war waging. (whether or not that was one of the excuses used to sell it to the public) So you're of the idealist camp. That's not a crime, nor evidence of stupidity. I'm sure we all wish the world could be free of war, hunger, poverty,and disease. But so long as there are people willing and planning to blow me or my fellow Americans up just because we are Americans or have a foreign policy that supports Israel, Then I have absolutly no qualms whatsoever about excersizing our right to strike first. (whether or not our stated reasons for doing so meet with your rather arbitrary and broad standards.) And if we happen to dethrone a two-bit despot in the process....more's the better. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Saturday, July 19, 2003, 04:15 (Agree/Disagree?) There is also no codified international protocol that has the US as a signatory that supports your own stance in regards to seeking justice in terms of criminal prosecution of abusers in the Family. This is why it's so difficult to prosecute people who have comitted crimes against children overseas. You've hit pretty hard on Liberals here, however I don't understand how someone can back this sort of intrusion and dictatorial right-wing fundamentalism and also go against everything the fanatical Republicans stand for, by saying that children also have inherent rights. Ask any adamant Republican their opinion on the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (ratified by every country in the world but Somalia-which has no recognised government-and the US) and see what they say. The principles of the CRC are the core values of our own Safe Passage Foundation and if enforced would have made a world of difference to us. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Friday, July 18, 2003, 17:15 (Agree/Disagree?) As long as your fellow Americans continue to blow innocent people up, there will be people willing to blow them up in return. Let’s put this simply: Yesterday (9/11) Saudi Arabians kill Americans. American people desire to see blood. America friend of Saudi Arabians. Brave Bush send big bombs to Saudi Arabia’s neighbor, hoping dumb Americans will think “it’s all the same damn middle east anyway”. Result: Tomorrow Iraqis will kill Americans. How’s that for intelligence? (reply to this comment)

From Albatross Friday, July 18, 2003, 17:46 (Agree/Disagree?) That's fine wolf. The good news for us then, is that we can kill a lot more of them then they can of us. So if it's to be the law of the jungle then let's have at it. I have little doubt about the outcome.(reply to this comment)

From Nick Friday, July 18, 2003, 17:45 (Agree/Disagree?) That’s a very naive and simplistic way of looking at it. We all know it's a lot more complicated than just tossing a few bombs into random Middle Eastern countries part of a blood war for the deaths of 9-11. 3,000 or so US civilians working in an office building are innocent people. You can hardly call the specific laser guided bombing of military used installations and facilities innocent targets. Yes, a few civilians got in the way and that’s extremely unfortunate, but war ant pretty.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, July 18, 2003, 15:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Your ignorance of the fact that the people who are planning and have planned to blow you and your fellow Americans up are the Al-Queda terrorists, not Iraq, is certainly not a crime nor evidence of your stupidity! (reply to this comment)

From Albatross Friday, July 18, 2003, 16:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Be original with your retorts. You bore me otherwise. Search..I did not single out Al-Qaida. It is however naive to imply that they are the only ones who wish us harm. (as you are so charmingly demonstrating) But be it Al-Qaida, North Koreans, Iraqis, or people with hopelessly unwieldy screen names who wish me and my fellow Americans harm, it's unresonable to suggest that we sit on our hands until we suffer a devastating blow. I will admit that I am starting to feel rather bad @ having stooped to engage in a spat with a America hating leftist sloganeer, since you have demonstrated an incapacity for arguing the issue, but rather fall back on the slogans, and conspiracy theories. And now I have a vacation to take. Out(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, July 18, 2003, 17:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, so it's not so fun when one of your own poorly disquised putdowns is directed back at you???? I am quite capable of arguing issues, but perhaps you'll come up with a better argument to support the issue without the easy fallback of being an "American hating leftist" if one does not.(reply to this comment)

From Albatross Friday, July 18, 2003, 17:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, frmr....perhaps when you come up with something besides America-hating leftist drivel, I can think of you in a different light. But until then...I'm afraid I have no other choice. (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, July 18, 2003, 18:05 (Agree/Disagree?) If America was originally intended as a nation of freedom for all and a beacon of hope for the entire world, I can harldy see advocating peace and restraint whenever possible as anti-American. I do agree that some war is unavoidable and inevitable, but I do not see that as the case here. I followed the events leading up to this war very closely and Bush was dead set on war no matter what. He pushed for inspectors to reenter Iraq in the hopes that they would quickly find the much touted WMD, when they found none he called for military action, when they requested more time, he ignored that request and called for military action. He presented what he believed to be an open and shut case before the UN vowing to do whatever possible to gain international support before taking action. In his zealous fervor to build a case for war, he deliberatley presented false and misleading information before the US and the world. When this still failed to sway nearly all other democratically elected world leaders, he pushed on anyway! I'd be interested to know what the thousands of men and women who joined the military after 9/11 to fight the real danger to this country, the war on terror, would say now that they are involved in this war that they and the rest of the country have been manipulated into!(reply to this comment)

From Nick Friday, July 18, 2003, 14:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Hell yeah! God has blessed the US with the power and strength to be the worlds watch dog. If that means that in the future the US decided that a preemtive strike is in the best interest of the international community and it's own people then I say go for it. Yeah that’s unfortunate that in the process people die and there is loss. But sometimes you do have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Lives must sometimes be sacrificed for the good of the rest of the nation. I don't mean to be all "familyish" here, but what about Sergeant York? He finally realized that in order to save lives he had to take some. (reply to this comment)

From shocked but not awed Friday, July 18, 2003, 14:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Since you don't have family in Iraq Nick, I guess you have a different attitude about this than those who do. Human life is always precious and for young men and women to be sent to the front lines of battle under false pretences and deliberate misinformation is not something that Americans who value justice, freedom and integrity and will stand for. Here's a thought too, perhaps the Iraqi people are attacking US troops because they are invading and occupying forces in their country, not because some Americans disagree with this administration's behaviour. (reply to this comment)

From Nick Friday, July 18, 2003, 14:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Off course I value human life. The lives of our family and friends fighting over there and the lives of the Iraqi people that were lost due to Saddams dictatorship before the war. I also believe that the lives and well-being of generations still to come are worth something and we need make sure that we do our part to make this world a better place for them. Both in the US and over in Iraq. Like I said, it's tragic that in the process lives are lost, but unfortunately that’s the price that we are forced to pay. I am curious what your family that you have stationed over there have to say. I bet they would agree with me in that they are fighting for a just and noble cause. I would like to know what the families of our brave fallen solders have to say? Would it be that their sons and daughters died in vain or that they died fighting for freedom and liberty. I guess in your mind these heroes are actually nothing put pawns that were sent to death buy a cruel and evil leader that has some evil agenda. (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, July 18, 2003, 16:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Perhaps if blood is to be shed it should be shed for a cause that does not need to be proped up on lies and falsifications!(reply to this comment)

From shocked but not awed Friday, July 18, 2003, 15:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh now they are heroes? I thought you considered our troops broken eggs. I don't actually have family stationed there, but some of my close friends do and my friends certainly do not agree with you. Their family members that are there actually are primarily concerned with survival and not the Great Cause. Having been an innocent casualty of someone's grandiose scheme myself and struggling to just get through when life was insanity, I can certainly understand this. When you live in a cult, you unquestioningly accept your leader's claims, cross continents because of their fantasies and wrap everything that doesn't make sense in a bundle of faith (actually perhaps that's where the weapons of mass destruction are). In a democracy you hold your leaders accountable for their actions and words, and you make sure that they can back up any claims they make with fact. Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin(reply to this comment)

from Nick Friday, July 18, 2003 - 11:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Gezuz! Get a fucking life! It's people like you that are contributing to terrorism by undermining our president and our troops. You are encouraging Hussein loyalists to continue with there guerrilla attacks. When they see coverage of anti American and anti British garbage they think their strategy is working and feel encouraged to continue killing our troops. (reply to this comment)

From neezy Friday, July 18, 2003, 18:54 (Agree/Disagree?) undermining your precious president..!? the guy's a dead-set moron, seriously I have nothing against americans in general, but your president is just a dumb fucken hick. Just look at his round little face when he's giving a serious speech & he starts trying to use words that you know where just explained to him 5 minutes ago. & feel free to follow suit on my(& I use the term loosely) retarded president (he was over there in bed with your prez not long ago). I promise I won't cry about it.(reply to this comment)

From HeMan Friday, July 18, 2003, 11:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Dear Nick, A wise man once said that you can't reason with people whose opinions were created out of emotion. I will not reason with you. But I will say that I am interested in finding out about all lies and exposing them, lies about campaign financing, lies about the budget... There are a lot of people that you can scare with your violent attempts at intimidation. But not me. I certainly hope that you aren't hurt by all of this. Have a nice day.(reply to this comment)

From Nick Friday, July 18, 2003, 12:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Opinions created out of emotion? LOL, my political opinions were created through years and years of keen interest in politics, listening to all sides of the story and what I feel to be correct according to my own set of values and ethics. Not the X Files. As for my "Violent attempts at intimidation" I guess you were referring to my remark where I said "Gezuz, get a fucking life." Ouch! Scary! When someone tells me to get a fucking life I shake in my boots! (reply to this comment)

From Albatross Friday, July 18, 2003, 12:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Which is why it is not possible to reason with the slogan spouting anti-american left wing. HeMan begins with the assumption that everything is lies and works backwards from there. The good news for the eventual survival of the USA is that Liberals claim not to own guns, and those interested in preserving our democracy do. (How's that for violent attempts at intimidation?) (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Friday, July 18, 2003, 16:31 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm confused Dan. I'm all for gun-ownership, but are you implying that "those interested in preserving our democracy" are going to use their guns to make sure the "liberals" shut up? Isn't a democracy where guns enhance your voice somewhat oxymoronic? I think the key to democracy in the US is to not let either group get carried away. Both sides preach this hate rhetoric about the "bleeding-heart liberals" and the "dumb red-neck conservatives" and would gladly do away with the other, forgetting that democracy is nothing without dissenting opinions. In conclusion, can we all lighten up? I was against the war too at first, but now that it's being won (combat has NOT ended), let's look at the bright side - the rebuilding of Iraq, killing/jailing Saddam, etc(reply to this comment)

From Albatross Friday, July 18, 2003, 16:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually Joe, I think that us in the middle politically have more to fear from the politically correct leftist and their disregard for our national security, among other things, than we do from the the occasional craizies on the right. And while I don't see private guns being used to "shut the liberals up", I do see them as a theoretic protection against the more authoritarian members of our lunatic fringes. ( be they far right or far left ) You asked,"Isn't a democracy where guns enhance your voice somewhat oxymoronic?" It is and I agree. The guns are as a defensive devise, not as a mechanism to stifle free speech. That's what we have Berkely and political correctness for. (reply to this comment)

From jean Friday, July 18, 2003, 20:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Occasional crazies? What do you call the current reigning government? The conservative position has of late been anything but conservative. They have set out to systematically strip American citizens of their basic constitutional rights. Nothing justifies this, not even threats from abroad. The conservatives (and liberals) no longer serve the American people, only their own interests. To view extreme religious rightwings (which is what conservatives are) as only occasional crazies is dangerous. They have proven themselves to be a threat again and again. Sure everyone hates kneejerk liberals (and politics) but you have more to fear from the administration now in power. By the way, what is exactly is politically middle? I hear lots of people claiming to be just that, but cannot describe it in terms of a political position -- what it seems to mean is that they are either politically apathetic and uniformed or they hate the political situation and are in the midst of some sort of identity or ideological crises. P.S. I can see how political correctness may stifle free speech but how does Berkeley accomplish that? I'm, of course, assuming that you mean the school and not the philosopher.(reply to this comment)

From HeMan Friday, July 18, 2003, 12:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Dear Nick, The point is, Nick, that being a patriotic American means defending what makes our country great and what makes our country great is our freedom and spirit. It is very doubtful that a terrorist or other country will attack us and enslave us. It is, however, very possible for people with low integrity to steal our lives, and take away our freedoms. The founders saw this as a big problem. They designed our government so that little states would not be dominated by the big ones by creating a Senate. They were very afraid of the tyranny of the majority. You seem to want to tag me with a label so you can attack me. I guess you are a person with a gun and you think that will help you. It won't be me that attacks you. But if you are doing something that hurts the American people then I want to find out about it and make sure you stop. Like my article says, we need to govern ourselves with facts. Again, have a nice day. (reply to this comment)

From Albatross Friday, July 18, 2003, 13:32 (Agree/Disagree?) You say, "It is very doubtful that a terrorist or other country will attack us." On what do you base that statement? I submit that the events of 9/11 argue otherwise. If we were to adopt the measures that American leftists are calling for, there will be no doubt then that we WILL be attacked. Our weakness will invite it. (reply to this comment)

from Albatross Friday, July 18, 2003 - 11:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Fuck Off! (reply to this comment)