Exposing The "Peaceniks"

[The Blowhard]

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-goldblatt032303.asp

Interesting article.

[Meatball]

more than just 'interesting' it shows in one place the argument that many here on the board have been making - albeit not as articulately and consicely as this.

But history has shown that unfortunatly when someone gets an idea in his head, there is no changing it, even with heaps of proof and rock solid arguments. They usually simply dismiss it as 'propoganda' or one sided.

Mores the pity.

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/philex/meatball1.jpg">

[TooCute]

Not to speak for anyone, but I think that a lot of the "peaceniks" on the board haven't argued any of those points; I think they wonder why we must be at war NOW.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

[HBox]

He did nothing explain why North Korea is not a bigger threat than Iraq. If anything, he convinced me even more that it is a bigger threat. Other than that, I'm glad somebody debunked all these stupid slogans.

[silera]

If anyone bothered to read and digest some of the reasons many of us against the war have posted, instead of calling us saddam lovers and leftists and stupid or ignorant or biased, you'd see that the statements that are listed as false in the article, aren't the ones that most of us are using as our reasons for disagreeing with the war.

Of the few true statements, or unverifiable, we do know that Iraq has not been linked to Al Queda. We know that Iraq has not attacked us. We know that the US helped put Saddam in power, and looked away and did nothing while the human rights violations we are now using to support this war were being committed.

I am not a Saddam lover, or a leftist or a peacenik. I think that there are options that were not exhausted, and I think that this war is putting us in danger. I stated somewhere else, WMD's were not used to attack us on 9-11, nor has Saddam used them against the United States in any instance thus far. Our desire for safety is no more important than any of the other myriad of nations that have been affected by terrorism, and in order to initiate a war against terrorism, we need the cooperation and support of our citizens as well as the international community.

We may be well equipped to go it alone, but that is not the point. The point is, what happens after we win in Iraq? Are we going to go into Pakistan, then North Korea? What about Russia, they can help terrorists too? When will it end and how many of our soldier's lives will we risk to get the job done? Will it even work?

Maybe if the international community, works together to rid itself of its own terrorist factions, the US will not have to invest so many lives and so much money into fighting a war that will benefit us all.

Terrorists are born because of actions like the one the US is embarking on now. We see our soldiers, they see children and innocents on their news channels, and it breeds the hate that cause 9-11 to happen.



<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

<font size=3><font color=red>I can't stand myself either.</font></font></center>
<font color=white>

[GaryWyze]

I think they wonder why we must be at war NOW.

<font color=purple>Allowing for more time, allows for the very thing we're there trying to prevent.... Iraq's ability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction.

But I'm sure that <i>they</i> already know this. It's just too bad <i>they</i> won't come out with the real reasons <i>they</i> oppose this war.

Although in reading through several other threads this morning, I guess <i>they</i> did.

Something about likening our disregard with the U.N.'s consensus that we wait, with the way Iraq has disregarded the rules set forth in the Geneva convention.

I think *they* are really scraping the botton of the oil barrel with that one.

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig</center>

[HBox]

Allowing for more time, allows for the very thing we're there trying to prevent.... Iraq's ability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction.



And while we're in Iraq, North Korea is building more and more nukes. And while we're in Iraq, Iran is coming ever so close to finishing its nukes.

[MoeSyzslak]

I don't think countries like France, Germany, and Russia were ever going to cooperate because of their aformentioned financial interests in Iraq and to a lesser extent they don't like the power the U.S. has had and avoiding this war, IMO, wouldn't have changed that enough to matter. As far as this war provoking future attacks, I don't think the insane need provocation. The explanations for the 9/11 attacks were a joke.






This message was edited by MoeSyzslak on 3-24-03 @ 2:03 PM

[TheMojoPin]

Boy, I'm glad it was clarified what I'm actually thinking and who the herd is I'm obviously running with mindlessly. Wouldn't want people to think I was thinking for myself, no sir!

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[FiveB247]

Did anyone happen to notice the person who wrote this article is from FIT?!

Many of those points have been brought up and argued on this board. You could have thrown it together from reading here.

Nice try Heckler.

Maybe FIT should stick to fabrics and run-ways.

[curtoid]

Yeah...the National Review is known for their unbiased reporting! Please - they have
their agenda, and (although they articulate their position better than most) it shows
when they simply refuse to address all the issues, and simply excuse them away as
being nonsense.

There was an interesting op-ed piece in the paper yesterday that basically said that
there are two kinds of anti-war protestors - there are the Marxest ones, that are
against all wars (the true peace-nicks that actually protested going into Afganistan, or
even Clinton for getting involved in Bosnia.

Then there are the "realist" who are not against war, just this one. And not because
of a grudge against the President, but for the precident it sets, and for the dangers
that will follow. Why the rush to war??? Containment, even if there were UN inspectors
there until the year 3003, would still be cheaper than the cost of this conflict.

Many of the protesters today want some sort of accountability by the government. of
why we are really in there - is it to free the Iraqi people? (why is that our business,
unless they have asked to be in there. There are plenty of examples around the world
of countries and dictators doing worse things than Iraq, yet we won't touch them).;
WMD? (again, there are plenty of examples of where we let countries slide);
retribution for September 11th? (can you imagine if the United States had responded
to Pearl Harbor by attacking China? It's the same thing here); getting rid of Saddam?

Bingo.

There is enough evidence to show that the motivations behind the war are NOT
altruistic - that the GOP action group, Project for the New American Century has been
pulling the strings on this for years. It is about bringing down a man who we
supported, and who eventually bit our hand. These are why up to 200 Iraqi civilians
are dead (iraqibodycount.net), and why our brothers and sisters in the military are
being put in harms way.

There was a rush to war by the Anti-Peace crowd - there was NO effort to end this
without conflict. This was going to happen even before the attacks on September 11.
People close to the President have been planning for this for over 7 years.

We have become the Holy Roman Empire.


[KOP]


















This message was edited by KOP on 3-24-03 @ 2:30 PM

[GaryWyze]

I am not a Saddam lover, or a leftist or
a peacenik. I think that there are options that were not exhausted

<font color=purple>Name some.

WMD's were not used to attack us on 9-11, nor has Saddam used them against the United States in any instance thus far.

He hasn't used nuclear weapons or time machines either. Oh wait, maybe that's only because he doesn't have the capibility.... yet.

The whole idea behind this operation is to prevent him from getting to that point.

Our desire for safety is no more important than any of the other myriad of nations that have been affected by terrorism, and in order to initiate a war against terrorism, we need the cooperation and support of our citizens as well as the international community.

Apparently not.

We don't need the world's support to do that which is reasonably necessary to safeguard ourselves against a clear cut threat.

Or are we going to argue that point as well?

what happens after we win in Iraq? Are we going to go into Pakistan, then North Korea? What about Russia, they can help terrorists too? When will it end and how many of our soldier's lives will we risk to get the job done? Will it even work?

It has to work. Our very future depends on it. As far as Pakistan, North Korea, etc., they all constitute a potential problem, but none more menacing or imminent as Iraq.

True, replacing the regime in Iraq won't bring upon world peace, or even ensure that some other nation isn't poised to take its place, but the alternative of not doing anything isn't a very viable one.

Maybe if the international community, works together to rid itself of its own terrorist factions, the US will not have to invest so many lives and so much money into fighting a war that will benefit us all.

And in a perfect world, that's exactly the way it would be. But then again, in a perfect world they'd be no reaon for a war on terror.

Many countries within the international community not only tolerate, but outright support terrorism.

You can't expect them to be a part of the solution, when they actually feed into the problem.

Terrorists are born because of actions like the one the US is embarking on now. We see our soldiers, they see children and innocents on their news channels, and it breeds the hate that cause 9-11 to happen.

That's a very naive thing to say. America is an incredibly prosperous nation. That's reason enough for resentment among most of the world. Throw in such things as democracy and religious freedom, and you've all but ensured a certain amount of hatred.

In Bin Laden's 9/11 manifesto, it's our democratic way of life he labels as an afront to Islam. Not our arrogance.

True, we could strive to be more diplomatic in our dealing with the rest of the world, but our failure to do so isn't what fuels our enemies.

Their beliefs are in direct contrast to ours. And according to their interpretation of Islam, they *must* fight the infidels. They further believe that paradise awaits those who die while doing so.

Good luck reasoning with that rationale.

I'm also sorry it's come to war, but not as sorry as I'd be if we did nothing now and payed as dearly as I believe we would later.

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig</center>



This message was edited by GaryWyze on 3-24-03 @ 2:48 PM

[curtoid]

"It has to work. Our very future depends on it. "

Gary - I agree 100% with this. Now that we are in there, there is no room for failure.

[KOP]

[samnyc]

You can't argue with the radicals because they rarely believe any assumptions I suggest for my case ...

- they say the US government allowed 9/11 to happen
- they say Osama bin Ladin is (still) working for the US government
- they say Bush's election was engineered
- they say that Saddam's weapons are not dangerous
- they believe that Bush is more concerned with oil than human lives

[GaryWyze]

<font color=purple>Well, I don't think it was intentional, but I think the Gov't allowed 9/11 to happen.

I think Bush stole the election.

And while I believe he's also concerned with the potential loss of human life, I'm sure that oil and the attempted assassination of his father is playing a part.

Gusss that make me 1/2 a radical. Don't you just love labels, they make everything so nice and neat.



<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig</center>

[HBox]

In Bin Laden's 9/11 manifesto, it's our democratic way of life he labels as an afront to Islam. Not our arrogance.



I must have missed this. Where is this manifesto you speak of?

The reasons why Bin Laden and Al Qaeda hate us are more complicated than that. They don't like our military presence in Saudi Arabia (in alleged Muslim holy lands) and the Middle East at large. They do not like our support for the Saudi Royal Family, and our installation of burtal dictators in Iran and other places. They do not like that we supported Saddam in his war against Iran (Bin Laden hates Saddam amost as much as us). It does us harm to simplify the issue. When we do this, the regular, non-fundamentalist Middle Easterners think we do not know or care what the real problem is. And that is why, when push comes to shove, they prefer these murderous terrorists to us.

There is a lot we could do to reach out and communicate with the Arabs. That is where I fault the Bush admistration the most.

This message was edited by HBox on 3-24-03 @ 3:27 PM

[FiveB247]

Some of you, whether radical or not, make such generalizations about politics, groups of people and issues.

Not all the protestors are radical leftists. Most of the them want peace and march/ protest accordingly.

Not all of the US's reasons for war are obligitory. Obviously removing a tyrant and evil dictator has merit. But all the intentions and reasons don't fall in line in with the international community or certain agendas.

Please stop grouping every thought to some larger belief. And posting a story from FIT regarding the true facts of peaceniks and world politics is a joke. You might as well turn on CNN for dick jokes.

[high fly]

I am not a Saddam lover, or a leftist or a peacenik. I think that there are options that were not exhausted

Name some

Here are three:
1] support a popular revolt. The Iraqis don't like Saddam and if united could throw the bastard out. Sure, this may not have a great chance of working, but we did not try very hard to bring such a thing about.
2] Coup d'etat. Again, can anyone claim we did all we could to help such a thing along?
3] Assassination. This would require Dumbya to issue a rescension of a previous presidential order, but he could do it secretly.
The opening strike of the war might have gotten Saddam had Bush been ruthless about it when he issued the order. He should have told them to first destroy the place, then reduce it to rubble, then reduce the rubble to dust. If press reports are true, a second and third strike might well have gotten rid of Saddam, his top commanders and at least one of his vile spawn. Like his daddy, he failed to follow through and it looks like we are going to acquire a California-sized West Bank of our very own.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[El Mudo]

1] support a popular revolt. The Iraqis don't like Saddam and if united could throw the bastard out. Sure, this may not have a great chance of working, but we did not try very hard to bring such a thing about.
2] Coup d'etat. Again, can anyone claim we did all we could to help such a thing along?
3] Assassination. This would require Dumbya to issue a rescension of a previous presidential order, but he could do it secretly.


1) They had a revolt in 14 provinces in the early 90's, and its kinda tough to fight with sticks against rifles. you could have us supply them, but the people in Iraq are more afraid of Saddam than of us
2) See 1
3) I believe he already has, but we can't even find the real Saddam, and even if we did, he usually has so many guards around him its impossible


Your teachers have agendas. Make up your own minds.


Best piece of advice ive heard in a while. I wonder how many of these kids have been changed by their wacky college professors. I remember hearing something where that chick at Manhattanville who turned her back on the flag was never political until she went into college

Trying to stop talking like a grizzled 1890's prospector..

[FiveB247]

Best piece of advice ive heard in a while. I wonder how many of these kids have been changed by their wacky college professors. I remember hearing something where that chick at Manhattanville who turned her back on the flag was never political until she went into college

So what's your point? That colleges shouldn't promote free thought and to just do and believe everything you are told? Sounds like you prefer creating obeisance rather then individuality.

[TheMojoPin]

There was an interesting op-ed piece in the paper yesterday that basically said that
there are two kinds of anti-war protestors - there are the Marxest ones, that are
against all wars (the true peace-nicks that actually protested going into Afganistan, or
even Clinton for getting involved in Bosnia.

Then there are the "realist" who are not against war, just this one. And not because
of a grudge against the President, but for the precident it sets, and for the dangers
that will follow.

But even that is trying to pigeonhole people on this issue. I'm just getting tired of people trying so hard to see complicated political issues in strict black and white terms...you're either pro or against war. It doesn't work like that! Everyone has their own reasons for coming to that decision! I support the current action against Iraq itself...I just have MASSIVE problems and doubt with the conflicting, contradictory and almost flat out untrue reasons we used to go into this war. I also protested the Clinton bombings in Afghanistan and Bosnia...but not the actions Clinton ordered aginst Iraq or our actions in Somalia or Hati. If I were old enough at the time, nor would I have had a problem with the Panama invasion...but I WOULD have taken issue with the Geneva conflict. So, yes, you're right, there ARE some people who want "no war", period...but that leads to the misconception on the part of those are AREN'T "anti-war" (Or whatever each person is) to think that ALL of us who have issues with the Iraq conflict are just "peaceniks" or "hippies", almost as so they can use those broad generalizations as an excuse to not even listen to "the other guy."

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[TheMojoPin]

He hasn't used nuclear weapons or time machines either. Oh wait, maybe that's only because he doesn't have the capibility.... yet.

But he HAD plenty of it in the 80's and early 90's...shit, he had bio/chem WMD's coming out of his ears! At best he has a fraction of the WMD capabilities he had then...why is he suddenly so much more crazy/insane/unpredictable now.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[The Blowhard]

I am really starting to miss the "evil empire", the former Soviet Union. At least they kept these little shit countries in line, and we knew we could have nuked Moscow anytime.
Ah, the memories.

[TheMojoPin]

The Heckler...fan of M.A.D. since day one!

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[The Blowhard]

Back in the 60's and 70's during the Viet Nam War Construction Workers beat on the Hippie Protesters with pipes.
I guess it's true. You can't go home again.

[Bestinshow]

Some of you better open a can of "wake the fuck up". First of all, colleges don`t promote free speech and it is common knowledge they promote and only allow leftist thinking. Speakers who think from the right are commonly booed at college events and not allowed to speak and students grades have been lowered for speaking out against the political views of their professors.
Next, a revolt, a coup or assassination. Are you for real. If you have been paying attention we have been backing and encouraging opposition groups for some time now. But there is only so much you can do without coming under attack by Iraq`s forces and being accused by the left wing community of bullying around other countries and "thats why they hate us". Assassination? What do you think we are trying to do. what do you want to do? Sneak up on him while he`s sleeping and than run out of the country. And reduce the area to rubble? I thought we were supposed to reduce collateral damage. We couldn`t have hit that complex any harder than we did. You can`t keep bombing until you do, but than if we did, we would be immoral.
The reason they hate us is our military presence in the middle east? Our support of the Saudi Royal family? Our placement of an Iranian dictator? First of all, what do we have to do with who is running Iran? These are the successors of the Ayatollah. There was no coup
in Iran. And what does our support for the Saudi Royal family have to do with anything? There is no more hatred for the Saudi Royal family than all those countries have for each other. At a recent Arab union conference, these countries couldn`t agree on anything to unify on because they all wanted to kill each other at the meeting! And our presence in the middle east? It`s a fucking powder keg and we are trying to find the fuse. Should we not have liberated Kuwait ? Should we not have protected Saudi Arabia from being Sadaam`s next target? And what about Israel? Or are you one of those who feels this whole thing is because of the influence of the Jews? I guess we should just sit back and do nothing , kind of like what everybody did before WW2. That worked out well. Yeah, I guess we deserve to die.
And to be anti-war because Iraq has not attacked us? Because they have not used WMD on us yet? Because they are not behind 9/11? Who ever said they were behind 9/11?
They said they believed there were links between Al queda and Iraq. Links as in financial transactions, training bases and weapon trade. Do you really feel we shouldn`t hit Iraq until they hit first? Let them build their WMD, use them on us or give them to someone who will, and then we can respond?
I guess if we would have hit Al Queda before Sept 11 you would have been against that too because obviously you are against preemptive strikes. We don`t have to answer to the international community if the international community is wrong. If they wanted to get rid of these factions, we wouldn`t be here in the first place. The problem is they don`t. The UN has Libya in charge of Human rights and Syria in charge of disarmaments.
They are in bed with these factions. We did not put Sadaam in power, even if we backed him against Iran. But just because we made a mistake then, doesn`t mean he gets a free pass now. If you think this regime wasn`t gunning for us and wasn`t one of our biggest enemies than you are naive and to allow them to build an arsenal is suicide. We are not arbitrarily gunning for governments. These decisions are based on what our intelligence deems is a threat to our security, not what the socialist governments in Europe think is appropriate.
Oh, and by the way, Iraq also finances homicide bombers in Palastine. But I guess we don`t give a crap about israel. We shouldn`t pick on poor Iraq because they haven`t killed a few thousand Americans yet. Lets wait until they do first. then it wont be OUR FAULT that terrorists are born. But of course the innocent regime in Iraq would never do something like that. Gee, I guess 9/11 was our fault.


<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/m

[The Blowhard]

http://www.buttafly.com/originals/sf_protest.htm


I posted this once before but it's so damn funny I had to bring it back.

[silera]

I've agreed to disagree.

I fail to see the clear threat, and I fail to be convinced that these are preemptive actions.

We're already at war, whatever the reasons for it may be.

Mock me if you will, but I don't see this war ending in the near future, and I feel great sadness when I hear of losses on either side. As a parent, I wonder if 10 yrs from now, we'll still be fighting this war, and whether my children will be required to engage in it on our country's behalf. I wonder if, we'll look back and think that our government could have supported the UN in their search to disarm him over the last decade, or the rebels that our former President Bush promised we would aid during the Gulf War if they rose up against Saddam, or not helped Saddam into power two decades ago during the Iran-Iraq War.

I wonder if my children will have to bear the burden of these decisions we've made, like we now bear the burden of the wrong decisions our previous elected officials made.

Hopefully I will be proven wrong, and my children will benefit from the fruits of this war. Unfortunately, I have no faith based on what history has taught me.


<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

<font size=3><font color=red>I can't stand myself either.</font></font></center>
<font color=white>

[shamus mcfitzy]

Apparently not.

We don't need the world's support to do that which is reasonably necessary to safeguard ourselves against a clear cut threat.

Or are we going to argue that point as well?


Who's to say that Iraq can't make WMD's so that they can protect themselves. The technology gap between the two of our countries is obvious, so this war amounts to a linebacker kicking the crap out of the kicker in a football game. I actually think it is fair that Iraq can defend itself from the threat of the US.

There is a lot we could do to reach out and communicate with the Arabs. That is where I fault the Bush admistration the most.


Well which Bush administration? And what about Clinton? And what about Reagan? And what about Carter? It's not just Dubya, it's America in general that pisses people off. And when our senators start re-naming cafeteria items i can't say I blame other countries for hating us. Technically I think i should hate "us".

Some of you better open a can of "wake the fuck up". First of all, colleges don`t promote free speech and it is common knowledge they promote and only allow leftist thinking. Speakers who think from the right are commonly booed at college events and not allowed to speak and students grades have been lowered for speaking out against the political views of their professors.


that has to sound crazy to even you yourself. Ever think that maybe this generation is one that has leftist thinking. And the fact that you pretend like political thinking is independently created is mind boggling. I don't care what anyone may say, political beliefs are influenced by one's enviroment. I do believe that some people are easily influenced by their college professors, but to say that even most college students are drones is to create some of the conspiracy theories that leftists are "always" making up.

[curtoid]

Chilling lil quote I stumbled on this evening...

"Naturally the common people don't want war, but after all it is the leaders who
determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It
works the same in every country." Hermann Goering, 1939


[KOP]

[Bestinshow]

I find it scary that people can go through life, drawing the conclusions that they do. sometimes I get the feeling that people just want to think what they want and will ignore any facts that dispute their groundless argument.
Sure, Iraq is entitled to create WMD so they can defend themelves against the US......and Kuwait....and Saudi Arabia...and the Kurds...and anyone in their country who is against them..and the generals who lost the first gulf war.Poor little saddaam, trying to squeeze out such a noble existence and everybody keeps bothering him. I would sleep well at night if he was left unchecked, wouldn`t you?
And you think the problem with the Arabs is our fault? You think you should hate us? Maybe you should go live in one of these nice environments where these people you respect so much are so fair. The only problem is which one are you going to pick. They all hate each other.They can`t communicate with each other and they constantly have violent wars between one another but I guess thats our fault also. And by the way, why do we have to practice tolerance, and Israel has to practice tolerance but your friends the Palestinians don`t have to practice tolerance. These nice arabs that we wont communicate with have triggered off most of the friction in the Middle East because they wont share their sand with the Israelis. There are Palestinians living in Israel. Why can`t Israeli`s live in Palestine? I guess they don`t have to practice tolerance. Imagine if we told a specific people they couldn`t live here. Israel told Palestine they would give them their land if they would stop the murder. But they don`t want Israeli`s living on their land. Why do they get that right?
So that justifies blowing up teenagers on buses and people at weddings. By the way, your friends the Iraqi`s finance these murders.
maybe somebody should go talk to them.
And it is a fact what is going on at college campuses. You are the first I have ever seen to dispute this. The educational machine routinely only teaches the left side. But you have explained your conclusions. You think political thinking can`t be independently created. I find that "mind boggling". Speak for yourself. You were obviously easily influenced
by your college professors, absorbing their propaganda. Thankfully, not everybody is.
No, all college students aren`t drones but obviously you are.

As to that chilling little quote,I guess you feel that the threat of danger is propaganda, just a ploy by the government to back the war.
And why are they making this up? Is our intelligence lying or incompetent? And you know this on what authority? What access to secret information does the left have that noone is privy too. I have yet to hear the case on the left disputing the findings of our intelligence. But I guess liberals just believe that they are naturally smarter. Yeah, right.
Finally, now I am hearing that stupid "Our West bank" bullshit on the radio. What the F is that? Do you people understand the significance of the West Bank? Are we going to use Iraq as a buffer? Are we trying to justify homicide bombers? Somebody explain this
to me because it sounds like stupid bullshit.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[FiveB247]

College teaches the left? What school do you go to. Colleges promote free thought, understanding of different perspectives as well as a wide variety of areas to get involved in whether it be politics or any other field. To say they promote one way or the other is incorrect.

It's beginning to become apparent to me through many of your posts that you believe everything should be taught and stated in terms that coincide with your particular view and perspective.

Things like 9-11, its causes and it's effects aren't understood or even looked into by most.

[Bestinshow]

Yeah right, and George Washington had wooden teeth. You tell me, who has had more sucess speaking at colleges, Shawn Hannity or Leonard Jeffries? And if my memory serves me, wasn"t Farakan accepted with open arms at some colleges? I don`t know what school you went to. Most people don`t undrstand 9/11, its causes and effects? Really? I guess only you
and the geniuses on the left understand.
Sounds to me like you believe everything should be taught and stated in terms that coincide with your particular view and perspective

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[Se7en]

I am not a Saddam lover, or a leftist or a peacenik. I think that there are options that were not exhausted, and I think that this war is putting us in danger.

Here's what I really want to know, from the anti-war crowd.

If those options, as you say, HAD been exhausted....

....and we went to the U.N. and asked for a 2nd resolution, which they didn't give us.....

....and we acted against Iraq "unilaterally".....

Would you then support the war in that fact pattern?

See, my problem is, I think a lot of the anti-war crowd would be unwilling to back up a war no matter what.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

[JiZ]

Back in the 60's and 70's during the Viet Nam War Construction Workers beat on the Hippie Protesters with pipes.



I'm a protester and I wish someone would try and beat on me with a pipe...lol. I support the troops but hate the war. Hell, I hate most of the things this country does. I'd love to leave the country. Though if I did leave, how would some of you get to hear RnF?

"Peace will come only when Palestinians love their children more than they hate Jews"
Israel's Former PM
Golda Meir

[curtoid]

The anti-peace crowd wanted this war no matter want - it was going to happen. The
rest of the world be damned. Their smugness gives them away. They would shove
democracy on those godless heathens, or kill them trying.

If they had had the goods to convince the rest of the world, I would have been with
them 100%. My problem has always been about the way it has been handled - the
fact that President Bush, and the puppet masters with The Project for the New
American Century behind this, have now made the world a very dangerous place in the
span of one week.

[KOP]

[silera]

Yeah right, and George Washington had wooden teeth.

Yes, he did.


<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

<font size=3><font color=red>I can't stand myself either.</font></font></center>
<font color=white>

[Bergalad]

There was a rush to war by the Anti-Peace crowd

This was the most idiotic quote from a retarded ramble. Get out more.

[Bestinshow]

Ah.....oh yeah right. By the way Silera, I agree with you about the education and Insurance thing but I figured I`d stay out of that one. I seem to be fighting about everything else on this board.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[The Jays]

Some of you, whether radical or not, make such generalizations about politics, groups of people and issues.




Maybe FIT should stick to fabrics and run-ways.


What a nice generalization.

FIT is a design school. Here are their programs..
Associate Degree Programs
Accessories Design
Communication Design
Display and Exhibit Design
Fashion Design
Fashion Merchandising Management
Fine Arts
Illustration
Interior Design
Jewelry Design
Menswear
Patternmaking Technology
Photography
Production Management: Fashion and Related Industries
Textile Development and Marketing
Textile/Surface Design

Bachelor Degree Programs
Accessories Design
Advertising Design
Advertising and Marketing Communications
Computer Animation and Interactive Media
Cosmetics and Fragrance Marketing
Direct Marketing
Fabric Styling
Fashion Design
Fashion Merchandising Management
Graphic Design
Home Products Development
Illustration
Interior Design
International Trade and Marketing for the Fashion Industries
Packaging Design
Product Management: Textiles
Production Management: Fashion and Related Industries
Restoration
Textile Development and Marketing
Textile/Surface Design
Toy Design

Graduate Programs
Cosmetics and Fragrance Management and Marketing
Gallery and Retail Art Administration, MA
Museum Studies: Costume and Textiles, MA


Now, let's debunk this generalization.

At FIT, a commitment to a broad education underlies our career-focused curriculum. Liberal Arts courses are a required and integral part of an education at the Fashion Institute of Technology. They are designed to broaden students' understanding of the humanities, to strengthen critical thinking and communication skills, to develop their knowledge of the natural and social sciences, and to prepare them to function effectively in a culturally diverse world.


I myself studied architecture, a design major . I was required to take general electives in areas of science, math, art, literature, social and behavioral, and history. In addition to my studio courses and architecture courses, I was studying Shakespeare, learning sociology, studying the genre of electronic music, and taking 20th century Europe and the World.

This is a philosophy that is held in regard at all design schools; that there must be a core of liberal studies education to build the design education upon.

And the teachers that teach these courses are experts in the areas that they teach. Even at design schools, there are departments for each of the areas of liberal arts study.


US News and World Report Ranks FIT the #1 Public Comprehensive Bachelor's College in the North Region


Thank you for your generalization, though.


<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS" size=-2> Fuck what you heard.</font>
<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS" size=-2> That cab has a dent in it.</font> [center]
[center]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morecoolestgroup/files/house.gif

[Se7en]

Mock me if you will, but I don't see this war ending in the near future, and I feel great sadness when I hear of losses on either side. As a parent, I wonder if 10 yrs from now, we'll still be fighting this war, and whether my children will be required to engage in it on our country's behalf. I wonder if, we'll look back and think that our government could have supported the UN in their search to disarm him over the last decade, or the rebels that our former President Bush promised we would aid during the Gulf War if they rose up against Saddam, or not helped Saddam into power two decades ago during the Iran-Iraq War.


Okay, I mock you.

TEN YEARS???

It won't last another 10 weeks. Things get really sticky, we just unleash a shitload of bombs.

The only reason we've suffered as many casualties as we have is because we're trying to avoid civilian casualties. Otherwise we'd be carpet-bombing the entire country by now.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

[FiveB247]

Quote:
Associate Degree Programs
Accessories Design
Communication Design
Display and Exhibit Design
Fashion Design
Fashion Merchandising Management
Fine Arts
Illustration
Interior Design
Jewelry Design
Menswear
Patternmaking Technology
Photography
Production Management: Fashion and Related Industries
Textile Development and Marketing
Textile/Surface Design

Bachelor Degree Programs
Accessories Design
Advertising Design
Advertising and Marketing Communications
Computer Animation and Interactive Media
Cosmetics and Fragrance Marketing
Direct Marketing
Fabric Styling
Fashion Design
Fashion Merchandising Management
Graphic Design
Home Products Development
Illustration
Interior Design
International Trade and Marketing for the Fashion Industries
Packaging Design
Product Management: Textiles
Production Management: Fashion and Related Industries
Restoration
Textile Development and Marketing
Textile/Surface Design
Toy Design

Graduate Programs
Cosmetics and Fragrance Management and Marketing
Gallery and Retail Art Administration, MA
Museum Studies: Costume and Textiles, MA

I stand corrected ...I see about 5 other degrees either in marketing, advertising, design and media (all with correlation to fashion and business). Yeah....I was way off in my guess about FIT making remarks about World Politics. They're political whiz's, except they don't even offer a degree relating to the subject. It's fairly obvious that someone with a "toy design" degree will pursue a government job to make weapons....right?

I was required to take general electives in areas of science, math, art, literature, social and behavioral, and history. In addition to my studio courses and architecture courses, I was studying Shakespeare, learning sociology, studying the genre of electronic music, and taking 20th century Europe and the World.

This is a philosophy that is held in regard at all design schools: that there must be a core of liberal studies education to build the design education upon.

And the teachers that teach these courses are experts in the areas that they teach. Even at design schools, there are departments for each of the areas of liberal arts study.


First off, you just described EVERY college that offers liberal arts classes and degrees. They all have general requirement classes that cover the same material. It's the foundation of almost every college education.

Secondly, aren't these the 'experts' and college professors that teach everyone 'leftist' beliefs as some of you put it?

Ps..Best in show...everyone in this country could draw a picture of Bin Laden and hate him for obvious reasons. How many of the US citizens do you think would be able to tell you a generic reason why 9-11 occurred? Not my version or your version...a simple stated reason. Probably about 1/2; and that's on a good day. 70% of this nation supports a war in which most of them can't even find where we're fighting on a map.

[TheMojoPin]

Wow, what a mess.

Hey, Bestinshow. Here's why I think the way I do. Saddam had 100 times more of a WMD arsenal then he does now in the 80's and early 90's, when he was at his most aggressive and pro-active. Yet they were only used against Iran (As we originally wanted him to...NOT a bad thing, mind you) and the Kurds, which we didn't really care too much about, since he gassed a few thousand fiercely Anti-American Iranian refugees that were living along with them in the same region. He could have rained death down on us and Kuwait and pretty much all of the Middle East during the first Gulf War with the mountains of bio/chem WMD's he had...but he didn't.

This is NOT to say he wouldn't ever use them if he had the chance...BUT why is it so damned certain he's going to use them NOW? When he's made NO aggressive motions in the last 12 years, his country is falling apart, his millitary is in shambles, and he doesn't even control the northern and southern portions of his nation? Don't get me wrong, the world is a better place with him gone...but at BEST he'd have a tiny FRACTION of the WMD program he had 12-20 years ago...why would he sacrifice the tight control he has on his country that he's so greedily hung onto for the last few decades?

NOTHING he's done indicates he's an extremist...yes, his actions DO indicate he's an evil sonuvabitch, but he's no terrorist. And odds are an alliance with his mortal enemies in Al Queda would likely bite him in the ass. I know everything wants to think they'd toss aside their differences to fight us, but do you honestly think Saddam is stupid enough to give WMD's to nutsoid extremists who have pledged to destroy him? Odds are they'd take him out after attacking us, or even before striking us!

Basically it comes down to this: I actually support the current action and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I just don't believe for a second he's a direct threat to us, needed to be taken out now, and we couldn't have waited to garner more international support. Look, France probably would have been against us no matter what, but if we weren't pushing to "rush-rush-RUSH!!!" without presenting any real evidence to do so, we probably would have eventually brought over countries like Russia, Germany and maybe even China. It's the politcal and international bridges we're burning now that's going to be the REAL direct threat...and not even millitarily! Face it, America IS linked to the rest of the world, and we can't just start cutting of ties with countries that we've been allied with politcally and economically for decades now. It's just doesn't seem wise at all...

But that's just me.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bestinshow]

Many of your arguments would have applyed to Al Queda on Sept. 10. They had never done anything in America either. I think the administration learned their lesson from that. If you recall there were tip offs about these people, odd behavior, not wanting to learn how to land in flight school, but everyone dismissed it, as you are with Sadaam as no threat and never followed it up. To say Sadaam is no terrorist is naive. Even his tactics
in this war are guerrilla tactics, ambushes, phoney surrenders,etc. Don`t forget, he has been backing the Palestinian terrorists for some time. He hasn`t used his weapons for three reasons. He hasn`t had to, we have had a thumb on him and international opinion. It wasn`t worth the downside yet. Don`t forget we were worried about him acquiring new tecnologies. Dirty bombs, Drones,etc. These are inexpensive and difficult to trace. Do you really believe with the Islamic antiamerican movement growing and actually spreading into Europe he was going to sit around and not jump in. Believe me,Bush is not enjoying this. He did not take this hugh step and Butt heads with all these countries and risk his reputation unlesshis intelligence told him something. Don`t forget, a President`s legacy folows him
forever through the history books.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[TheMojoPin]

Many of your arguments would have applyed to Al Queda on Sept. 10.

No they wouldn't have, because they had already bombed the two American embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, and numerous sites around the world (Especially in SE Asia) where Americans had been killed. Their operatives had already infiltrated America as well. Our intelligence forces were aware of all this to varying degrees.

And comparing fighting Al Queda to Iraq isn't really feasable. This is currently a "formal" strike against a legitimate nation. We CAN'T fight the two the same way. Also, Al Queda DID strike us at the height of their power. Saddam did not. Again, I ask, why would he be so eager to use his WMD's now that he's basically beaten before this strike began?

Also, Saddam very much is NOT a terrorist. As I've stated over and over again, it's easily proven that he pays restitutuon to Palestinian terrorists. This does NOT mean he will behave like a terrorist. He hasn't in the past...why is he going to now? Yes, his army is engaged in guerilla tactics...but that only began once we invaded. It would be terrorism if his guys began infiltrating our forces OUTSIDE of his country and started raining down suicide attacks and sabotage on us. If what he's doing now is "terrorism", then Vietnam was nothing BUT "terrroism."

Where is the implication he'd ever use "dirty bombs?" He's NEVER engaged in activity similar to that. If he engaged in activity like that, he'd be bombed into the ground the second we found out, or even nuked. His nation would be levelled, period. All of his behavior in the last few decades indicate he's desperate to hold onto power...what gives people the idea he's going to suddenly throw that away in support of an attack that would probably kill only a few thousand Americans at best? It's simply not consistent with his own behavior and mentality.

And it's not an "Islamic Anti-Americanism" sweeping over Europe. It's plain ol' anti-Americanism, period. But these European countries are not going to support Saddam or protect him if he engages in the kind of activities you think he'd happily use (Drone attacks, dirty bombs, chemical strikes against the US). THAT'S a pretty naive assumption. If he were actually a direct threat to us, he'd be a direct threat to them. But he's NOT a direct threat to us, or them. He's only a direct threat to the region around him. Hence why I'm very baffled and frustarted with the continual "hinted at, but not declared...implied but not proven" notion of "if we didn't attack Saddam TODAY, he'd be striking US soil TOMORROW!" It's nuts.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-25-03 @ 12:48 PM

[A.J.]

Again, I ask, why would he be so eager to use his WMD's now that he's basically beaten before this strike began?


Because he has nothing to lose?

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

[TheMojoPin]

Because he has nothing to lose?

Except his life...his money...his palaces...his power...

Based on ALL the evidence we have of dealing with Saddam over the decades, THAT'S the kind of shit he values...because he's a shallow, petty, greedy, evil dictator. Where is the extremism? Where is the fantacism? I just can't honestly believe people look at bin Laden and Saddam and think the two are so similar. It's mind-boggling.

I mean, by this logic, France might nuke us because they "have nothing left to lose" in the current world environment. They've basically cut off all ties with America, the teet they've suckled for so long...why not? Because it doesn't make any sense! As evil as Saddam is, his actions have obviously always been planned and calculated...

I support the current action.

I just will never support the notion that Saddam is, has the mentality of, or is even similar to a terrorist. We don't need to build him up into some uber-crazy supervillain! He's bad enough as it is...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[A.J.]

Mojo you're right -- but he's never been threatened with being killed or losing those things before. Now he is. My point is that if I'm Saddam and the end was imminent, why not use the WMDs I've been hoarding?

1) It may do some physical damage to the advancing Coalition forces. It may kill a significant number of troops and it will slow the advance in order to plan to deal with the WMD contamination.

2) It will DEFINITELY have a psychological effect on Coalition troop morale and American public opinion. Saddam knows that Americans won't tolerate heavy losses.

3) It may provide enough of a distraction for him to flee Iraq.

Granted, this is all speculation on MY part but why not at least consider the worst-case scenario?

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

[TheMojoPin]

But AJ, I agree with you in those regards...I've always said from day 1 that he's most likely to end up using his few WMD's on our troops as they invade...THAT would be the desperate move of a desperate man in a desperate situation. Makes sense to me. So it is a Catch-22 situation...don't invade, and odds are he WON'T use the WMD's...but you never know. Invade, at ANY POINT IN TIME, and it becomes almost a given he'll use them on the troops. Not a fun decision to make, and I don't envy Bush and co. for having to make it.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[A.J.]

THAT would be the desperate move of a desperate man in a desperate situation.


And my point was simply that it has to be taken into consideration in the warplanning. That's all.

Christ, I really hope the UN was right and he doesn't have any of that shit. I doubt they were but I hope.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

[TheMojoPin]

I just hope that if he DOES have WMD's (And I think he does, dammit), he still has enough of a shred of human decency to not use them. Or he at least hesitates long enough so we can knock him or them out before it's too late. Christ, the former notions were all that kept us from mutually assured nuclear slaughter for a good 40 years...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-25-03 @ 1:35 PM

[Bestinshow]

Per the Ny Times this past weekend there is a growing Islamic population in Europe and that is affecting their sympathy in this war. Besides,
Europe, besides England, wasn`t any good to us during WW2 either. Who gives a shit what they think. I don`t give a rats ass about France or Germany, socialist bastards.
Also, France are a bunch of weasles but you can`t equate that with Sadaams torturous regime.
Finally , I guess I just have faith in our intelligence. If they feel that scumbag is a threat, they know shit we will never know.
I feel Bush would not be doing this unless his back was to the wall. It would have been a lot easier to do nothing and take up a cigar fetish lot Clinton. I wish this crap was over already.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[silera]

Europe, besides England, wasn`t any good to us during WW2 either. Who gives a shit what they think. I don`t give a rats ass about France or Germany, socialist bastards.
Also, France are a bunch of weasles but you can`t equate that with Sadaams torturous regime.

The Gulf War cost the US 7 billion dollars because its allies defrayed the total 60 billion in costs.

We may not need their approval, but their money would be nice, considering that our country will have to assume a 100 billion dollar debt for this war, and our coalition of the willing are all getting hefty international aid packages for their "support."

http://wb11.trb.com/chi-0301230284jan23,0,4465898.story


<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

<font size=3><font color=red>I can't stand myself either.</font></font></center>
<font color=white>

This message was edited by silera on 3-25-03 @ 8:41 PM

[The Jays]

I stand corrected ...I see about 5 other degrees either in marketing, advertising, design and media (all with correlation to fashion and business). Yeah....I was way off in my guess about FIT making remarks about World Politics. They're political whiz's, except they don't even offer a degree relating to the subject. It's fairly obvious that someone with a "toy design" degree will pursue a government job to make weapons....right?


FIT isn't making the remarks, Mark Goldblatt is.

Just because they don't have a degree program in an area doesn't mean they don't have experts teaching in those areas.

You seem to be under the assumption that because this is a design school, the author is just some fashion designer who dabbles in politics on the side.



MARK GOLDBLATT, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Educational Skills
Ph.D., City University of New York

Mark Goldblatt is a nationally recognized columnist and book reviewer whose work has appeared in the New York Post, The New York Times, USA Today, American Spectator Online, the Daily News, Newsday, Commentary, Reason,and the webzine Ducts. He teaches developmental English and the Old and New Testament in the History of Ideas at Fashion Institute of Technology of the State University of New York.


You asked not to generalize people, yet you jumped to generalize Goldblatt because he teaches at FIT.


<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS" size=-2> Fuck what you heard.</font>
<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS" size=-2> That cab has a dent in it.</font> [center]
[center]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morecoolestgroup/files/house.gif