Archive: January 2003 - July 2007
The Lev Forum: General Discussion: Current Events - Politics and Government:
Archive: January 2003 - July 2007
The Case for War against Iraq
an editorial by Houdini.
It is said that evil wins when good men do nothing. The simple truth is the world is a much safer place without Saddam in it. He is a tyrant and a dictator who has on countless occasions murdered and oppressed his own citzenery. In addition he and his puppet government have funded terror groups such as Hammas who routinely murder
Isreali citzens in sucide attacks going so far as to create widow funds for the spouses and families of suicide bombers.
Much talk has been made about the weapons of mass destruction issue. That to me is merely icing on a very big cake of reasons to light Saddam up.
The best reason I can think is actually to help the Iraqi people. Saddam and his bath party cronies have a tight grip on that country and her people. He rules with a iron fist and fear. Getting rid of him and invoking a marshall plan style recovery with legitimate democracy at the end of it would be a very good thing indeed.
I see a new american diplomacy emerging, and I like it.
Any government or terror group that does harm or even wishes to harm American lives and the lives of our alies, will see uncle sams boot up their arse.
Don't like it Saddam? Don't piss us off. Give up now while you still have a chance. We may even let you live in nice 8 x 10 cell with Cable tv.
I want to mention that many of my friends are against a war in iraq, and some are aginst war in general. I respect them and the viewpoints they hold. All of my friends on both sides of this issue are cool. The great thing about America is the fact that we have room to express our views and even protest when we feel it is necessary.
Someday we will have the utopia of Vaxlandia and the Lev commune, but I fear it can't exist in the macro scale untill some of the forces on this earth that wish to destroy peace are they themselves removed from a place of power.
Anyway...
President's State of The Union Address:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/sotu_transcripts_bush.html
Here is the Democratic party response to the state of the union address:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/sotu_democrats.html
I received this email from a coworker this morning. While containing no obscenities it does use some strong language and accusatory tones. I would like to point out that while I agree with the general message, I know several individuals who are pacifists and do not want any of them to feel that I am posting this as a personal attack on them. That being said:
By: Ed Evans, MGySgt., USMC (Ret.)
I sat in a movie theater watching "Schindler's List," asked myself, "Why didn't the Jews fight back?"
Now I know why.
I sat in a movie theater, watching "Pearl Harbor" and asked myself, "Why weren't we prepared?"
Now I know why.
Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil people.
On September 11, dozens of capable airplane passengers allowed themselves to be overpowered by a handful of poorly armed terrorists because they did not comprehend the depth of hatred that motivated their captors.
On September 11, thousands of innocent people were murdered because too many Americans naively reject the reality that some nations are dedicated to the dominance of others. Many political pundits, pacifists and media personnel want us to forget the carnage. They say we must focus on the bravery of the rescuers and ignore the cowardice of the killers. They implore us to understand the motivation of the perpetrators. Major television stations have announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying devastating footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers.
I will not be manipulated.
I will not pretend to understand.
I will not forget.
I will not forget the liberal media who abused freedom of the press to kick our country when it was vulnerable and hurting.
I will not forget that CBS anchor Dan Rather preceded President Bush's address to the nation with the snide remark, "No matter how you feel about him, he is still our president."
I will not forget that ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings questioned President Bush's motives for not returning immediately to Washington, DC and commented, "We're all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington."
And I will not forget that ABC's Mark Halperin warned if reporters weren't informed of every little detail of this war, they aren't "likely -- nor should they be expected -- to show deference."
I will not isolate myself from my fellow Americans by pretending an attack on the USS Cole in Yemen was not an attack on the United States of America.
I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic terrorists and their supporters with the world's most sophisticated telecommunications equipment and encryption technology, thereby compromising America's ability to trace terrorist radio, cell phone, land lines, faxes and modem communications.
I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like those perfected by the previous administration.
I will not be comforted by "feel-good, do nothing" regulations like the silly "Have your bags been under your control?" question at the airport.
I will not be influenced by so called,"antiwar demonstrators" who exploit the right of expression to chant anti-American obscenities.
I will not forget the moral victory handed the North Vietnamese by American war protesters who reviled and spat upon the returning soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines.
I will not be softened by the wishful thinking of pacifists who chose reassurance over reality.
I will embrace the wise words of Prime Minister Tony Blair who told Labor Party conference, "They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000, does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it?
There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must!"
I will force myself to:
-Hear the weeping-feel the helplessness-imagine the terror-sense the panic-smell the burning flesh
-- experience the loss
-- remember the hatred.
I sat in a movie theater, watching "Private Ryan" and asked myself, "Where did they find the courage?"
Now I know.
We have no choice. Living without liberty is not living.
-- Ed Evans, MGySgt., USMC (Ret.) Not as lean, Not as mean, But still a Marine.
Keep this going until every living American has read it and memorized it so we don't make the same mistake again.
America and Old Europe's Communication Problem
A Veterans Day Proclamation by the
President of the United States of America
The willingness of America's veterans to sacrifice for our country has earned them our lasting gratitude. On this, our Nation's 50th annual Veterans Day observance, we celebrate and honor the patriots who have fought to protect the democratic ideals that are the foundation of our country.
When the armistice ending World War I was signed on November 11, 1918, more than 4.7 million Americans put down their arms and turned to the work of strengthening our Nation. The end of that first global conflict was initially commemorated as Armistice Day. In 1954, the Congress renamed the day as Veterans Day to recognize all those who have served in our Armed Forces.
Throughout our history, loyal citizens from every corner of America have willingly assumed the duty of military life. And time after time, in conflicts across the globe, they have proven that democracy is mightier than tyranny. From World War I and World War II, to the conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf, to the recent battles in the war on terror, our military has built a great tradition of courageous and faithful service. Our veterans
have helped bring freedom to countries around the world. Free nations and peoples liberated by American troops are grateful for the long, distinguished line of American veterans who have come to their aid.
Today, our veterans inspire new generations of Americans as we work to defeat terrorism and advance peace. In respect for and recognition of the contributions our service men
and women have made to the cause of peace and freedom around the world, the Congress has provided (5 U.S.C. 6103(a)) that November 11 of each year shall be set aside as a legal public holiday to honor veterans.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim November 11, 2003, as Veterans Day and urge all Americans to observe November 9 through November 15, 2003, as National Veterans Awareness Week. I encourage all Americans to recognize the valor and sacrifice of our veterans through
appropriate ceremonies and prayers. I call upon Federal, State, and local officials to display the flag of the United States and to participate in patriotic activities in their communities. I invite civic and fraternal organizations, places of worship, schools, businesses, unions, and the media to support this national observance with suitable commemorative expressions and programs.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth.
GEORGE W. BUSH
Damm, its official. It looks like Howard Dean
doesn't have much of a chance to secure to Democratic party nomination. What a shame too, it would have made for such a intresting general election race.
So sad, so frustrating it must be for Mr. Vermont to be beaten by a bowtox injected Vietnam vet.
In the imortal words of Doctor Dean.. "RAAAAHG!"
I was hoping Liberman would have faired better. He would have had my vote. I'm half tempted to vote for Bush now. Dear god, I'm turning into a republican! Save me!
Gad, no! Could you really imagine having to listen to that whiney voice for a years worth of speeches? Better to nominate someone with dulcet tones.
Who cares? Not I. Because Bush will win again AS HE SHOULD since he is doing such a good job running things, cleaning up the horrible mess that Clinton left behind.
Heh. I don't hear about people switching TO Bush much on TV news. That'll be quite a surprise if that's what wins him the election.
I'm switching to Bush...
And no I am not joking. Liberman was the only one who backed Bush in the war, and he wasn't quite as "neo-socialist" on all the other issues like some of the other Dems were. Which is why I would have voted for him. But since Kerry is going to be the one running for election, I wanna run the other flippping way. What is WRONG with the democrats these days? They just pushed me over to the other side of the fence.
Little miss liberal who was screwed over by the system is finally growing a sack. 9/11 of course helped me make this step, I wanted war, and I like it damnit. Osama had it coming, and the Taliban were just as guilty for harboring that rich twat. Stupid democrats and liberals thinking Saddam would pack up his bags and leave if we used diplomacy. HA! I got a bridge to sell those people.
If only Bush weren't so anti-abortion and so iffy on separation of church and state I'd be 100% happy with voting for him.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That's all it says. Nothing else. You can have a Christmas tree or manorah on the court house lawn or a nativity scene in the public park without being unconstitutional.
Just like:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
never mentions Under-auto mounted anti personel missiles.
A shameless repost of an editorial I ran across in the NY times:
Al Qaeda's Wish List
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: March 16, 2004
I am trying not to think harshly of the Spanish. They have suffered a grievous blow, and it was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre. Nonetheless, here is what seems to have happened:
The Spanish government was conducting policies in Afghanistan and Iraq that Al Qaeda found objectionable. A group linked to Al Qaeda murdered 200 Spaniards, claiming that the bombing was punishment for those policies. Some significant percentage of the Spanish electorate was mobilized after the massacre to shift the course of the campaign, throw out the old government and replace it with one whose policies are more to Al Qaeda's liking.
What is the Spanish word for appeasement?
There are millions of Americans, in and out of government, who believe the swing Spanish voters are shamefully trying to seek a separate peace in the war on terror.
I'm resisting that conclusion, because I don't know what mix of issues swung the Spanish election during those final days. But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable. I don't care what the policy is. You do not give terrorists the chance to think that their methods work. You do not give them the chance to celebrate victories. When you do that, you make the world a more dangerous place, for others and probably for yourself.
We can be pretty sure now that this will not be the last of the election-eve massacres. Al Qaeda will regard Spain as a splendid triumph. After all, how often have murderers altered a democratic election? And having done it once, why stop now? Why should they not now massacre Italians, Poles, Americans and Brits?
Al Qaeda has now induced one nation to abandon the Iraqi people. Yesterday the incoming Spanish prime minister indicated he would pull his troops out of Iraq unless the U.N. takes control. The terrorists sought this because they understand, even if many in Europe do not, that Iraq is a crucial battleground in the war on terror. They understand what a deadly threat the new democratic constitution is to their cause. As Abu Musab al-Zarqawi wrote in his famous memo, where there is democracy, there is no pretext for murder. Where there is liberty, there is no chance for totalitarian theocracy.
Perhaps Al Qaeda will win new recruits as a result of this triumph. But even if it does destroy Afghanistan and Iraq, it still will not stop. Retreating nations like Spain will still not be safe. For Al Qaeda's mission is not about one country or another. It is existential. "You love life and we love death," the purported terrorists said in the videotape found in Madrid.
There will be other aftershocks from the Spanish election. The rift between the U.S. and Europe will grow wider. Now all European politicians will know that if they side with America on controversial security threats, and terrorists strike their nation, they might be blamed by their own voters.
Many Americans and many Europeans will stare at each other in the weeks ahead with disbelieving eyes. For today more than any other, it really does appear that Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus.
If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party? Does anyone doubt that Americans and Europeans have different moral and political cultures? Yesterday the chief of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, told Italy's La Stampa, "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Does he really think capitulation or negotiation works better? Can you imagine John Kerry or George Bush saying that?
Nor is America itself without blame. Where was our State Department? Why hasn't Colin Powell spent the past few years crisscrossing Europe so that voters there would at least know the arguments for the liberation of Iraq, would at least have some accurate picture of Americans, rather than the crude cowboy stereotype propagated by the European media? Why does the Bush administration make it so hard for its friends? Why is it so unable to reach out?
This is a watershed event. It will change how Al Qaeda thinks about the world. It will change how Europeans see the world. It will constrain American policy for years to come.
E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com
I like to think that the 'coverup' by the previous administration claiming it was not an al Qeada attack was a reason for the 5 point swing that changed the Spanish election. Regardless, it is a PR win for terrorists. The same was true for the Cole, or the ebassies or Clinton's pullout in Somalia. When the US does nothing or, even worse, retreats from terror, it makes the country look weak.
People think Bush is crazy, a warmonger. Europe considers him a cowboy and a man unwilling to compromise. They thought the same thing about Reagan. And like Reagan, Bush's enemies find him formidable. I like that just fine.
The Spaniards scare easily, thats why they voted their old president out. There's no other reason as far as I can see.
It wasn't farfetched to blame the ETA at first. From what I understand they had arrested several ETA members transporting a few truckloads of the same type of explosives as used in the train bombing a few months prior. At first the only thing that didn't fit was the overall coordination of the shebang. Then the tape popped up later on, then the van with the detonaters, etc, etc, etc. The clues eventually lead to Al Queda, but I don't think it was unreasonable to suspect ETA so much in the beginning.
The Spanish people are cowards, but they can run their own country as they see fit... Even if that means their country willingly negotiates with terrorists,(democratically speaking)I guess they really don't like to take a stand for themselves. I just wonder how well they sleep at night without their souls.
Well you see it wasn't the recent stuff the terrorists were pissed about anyway...it was payback for Ferdinand and Isabella driving the Moors out of Spain only 600 short years ago...thats what got their knickers in a twist....
Man, they know how to hold a grudge.
http://66.113.211.237/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=SFNT&Store_Code=0CP
Well, they certainly have refined Hatred into an artform.
COMMIES GO HOME!!!!
I am upset over the protesters in NYC this weekend. They have already started and they are in MY neighborhood. Now I'm sure you're gonna say "they are only exercising their constitutional right". Yeah well, you say that when they are trashing a park down the block from YOUR house.
Union Square Park was recently renovated with multi-million $ project that I- your NYC tax payer- helped pay for. I went to the grocery store last night to see these protesters littering like there was not tomrrow and URINATING NEXT TO THE NEW STATUE OF GHANDI!!!!!
I am NOT jokin', how ironic and provincial. Not only are they defecating IN MY DAMN PARK, they are doing it under the watchful, brass gaze of GHANDI!
I wanna kill them... I wanna kill them all- every last man woman and CHILD. Only animals and bums defecate in public, I'll be DAMNED if I Am paying for the NYPD security detail to keep those hippies and commies safe from the BEAT DOWN THAT THEY DESERVE.
Vote Bush.
*BLINK* *BLINK* >rubbing eyes< *BLINK*
Ummm, has hell frozen over or something? Did I just hear Nat utter the words "Vote Bush"?
Nat, sorry I dinna return your call, I was busy in da midst of moving. I have witnesses. They will vouch for me. I won't get my DSL service back up till sep. 9th tho, so I am in the throes of internet withdrawal. Thank God for work...
Cool so how do ya like yer new digs?
Yeah hell froze over. I am voting for Bush this year. I'm sick of the liberals being pussies about the war and trying to slap comminist/socialist-style policies on everything- they give liberals a bad name and have pretty much destroyed the party, which isn't a bad thing considering where things were going.
Perhaps I'm one of the few libs who relaized that war is sometimes the best moral decision one can make. I could go on and on, but it suffices to say I have a conservative streak in me about certain issues as well as extremely liberal views on other things.
The place is nice. 3 bedrooms, a basement area, a backyard with a deck, a screened-in patio, maybe 1/4 mile from da beach. You needa check it out sometime.
So, like, how would I get there by train and stuff?
forgive my delayed responses, but DSL is giving me a royal run around and I still am not online. You know how you used to take the train to Elizabeth? well, just stay on it longer until it stops at middletown. Then just give a call to my cellphone or whatever and I can come get you. Middletown station is only 4 miles from the house.
I for one am glad George W. Bush won a second term as president.
Kerry showed great class in his concession speech.
What's next Rudy vs Hillary in 2008?
;)
Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!
Rudy will wipe the floor with Hilary. I can't stand her, the woman has made her polical career out of letting men walk all over her. It makes me sick. Unfortunately, a lot of women will vote for her simply because she's a woman. Bah, sorry, no feminist worth her salt would vote for that sniveling Clinton.
Yes, Nat! Well said. Considering who is out there under the flag of feminism I would be reluctant to hitch my wagon to theirs anyway. I'm the founder of onyourfrickingkneesbeforemeism. It is a much more interesting political platform anyway ;)
Sounds like more fun too
I would like to suggest to the parties that they should consider something.
Senators make lousy presidential candidates. And that means Hillary can run, but she's not going to win. People loved Bill (as much as you can love a president who never got 50.0% of the popular vote) but he was a governor. GWB? Governor. Reagan - governor. Carter - governor.
VPs have a bad history as well. Bush Sr. - 1 term running on Reagan's record instead of his own. Al Gore spent all his time in Florida and still couldn't pull it out. Ford (a represtentitive turned VP) failed miserably in his short stint. Nixon lost (by only 0.5% to a Senator) the first time and then went on to win twice and resign.
I think for both sides, the best bet is to pick a governor. For The GOP, likely Jeb Bush. Yep, a third one. If the Democrats were smart, they'd pick Bill Richardson to get back some of the south.
What was Jimmy Carter's excuse ?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041129/D86LLUG80.html
Voting fraud in the Ukraine.
I guess the K is Ukraine is for Korrupt.
or is it K for Kremlin?
Corruption in the Ukraine is ooooooooooold news, real old. It's been corrupt since the USSR breakup, the Ukrainian people aren't too bright in general and so many of them have been effectively "Rusified" that they are far from Ukrainian- they don't even speak the language, instead they speak russian. Their screwed up, pathetic culture makes it worse. The only thing gong for them is that the ones who haven't been entirely brainwashed by the russians actually have a strong work ethic. I hate Ukrainians in general, can't ya tell? I have distanced myself from my culture and I couldn't be more happy.
I was listening this morning to WHAM and the commentator was talking about this RatherGate debacle. I guess CBS is in deep trouble for releasing that false report about Bush's miltary service. The radio commentator also discused some survey that (zogby poll?) that said more people trusted the Internet as a valid source for news (including spam/false urban legend stories) then network broadcast news. They seemed to think this represented some turning point in the public's faith in the news media in general and they pined for the good old days of respected journalists like Walter Kronkite.
What do you all think about this?
Has network news lost it's credibility?
Do you even care?
I kinda care, but I also have little power to change the siutation so all I can do is shrug my shoulders.
Both the media and the internet are crappy places to look for accurate info. The media will do anything to get you to watch their news shows, even if that means lying to your face. Also the liberal media seems to be trying to turn their newscasts into leftey-re-education centers- not that the conservative right doesn't have theirs too, but I would like to have an unbiased news source for once.
The internet is full of idiots who don't know that they're talking about putting up websites on all sorts of crap. Some sites make an effort to give accurate info like WebMD, but most don't.
Sometimes I find "The Onion" to be the most read-worthy paper, even if that's fictional news with a sarcastic spin.
I never trusted network news-casters. Even Kronkite was largely biased, but he had the ability to portray his personal bias as "trusted fact". however you get your news, never, NEVER let somebody else think for you and decide for you--this is essentially what modern media does. They try to make the majority believe that the minority belief is widespread. If they are successful, then they just influenced the majority of people to believe something that only a few actually believe; ie, the Media attempts to MAKE you think what they WANT you to think.
Make your own decisions.
This is why I refuse to read the newspaper or watch televised news. Sometimes ignorance is bliss, yet being fat, lazy and stupid is no way to go through life.:P
but, you seem to be pulling that one off just fine...
(I know that was mean, but you opened the door right up, my man. I had no choice but to walk through it!)
Now THAT is more like the Fred I know, and I maybe fat and somewhat lazy but I leave the stupid to you as you well know, or did you forget that again?
Now THAT is more like the Fred I know, and I maybe fat and somewhat lazy but I leave the stupid to you as you well know, or did you forget that again?
Damn it I hate when I do that ok I'll take back the comment.
I went back and read the 911 archive today.
It's interesting to re-read how each of us felt about what happened back then. We are coming up on the 5th aniversary of the attack on America and the images and the sadness of that day is still burned in my mind.
With all the crap that has been happening lately; the Post war Iraq mess (i'll get back to that in a minute), Isreal vs Hezbolla brought to you by Iran inc, and now this foiled teror plot that was some evil hybrid of 911 style attacks mixed with the plotline of the first batman movie.
In a word. It just sucks. We have these ahole islomofacist terrorists that want to literally kill us and destroy western style civilization.
What pisses me off is our government has not the will to implement either solution that would actually work to deal with these nut jobs.
1. Get rid of our depndance on oil. Guess what happens if the entire world (or at least the united states) started using something other then oil? You think we would care about the middle east at all? Nope. What do they got that we want other the oil? Sand? I'm not even saying the oil companies have to go away or that they have to stop making an obnoxious profit, just replace product and sell us something home grown that doesn't require dealing with crazies who think women should be in burkas. Corn ethonol anyone? But the greed of these short sigheted oil companies have so much power... its never going to happen.
Which leaves option 2.. and its not very lev.
2. Fight this war on terror (including these iraq insurgents who are nothing more the bin ladden's iraqi lackies) like an actual war.
You know how in WWII we bombed the crap out of Japan and Germany?
Sure we tried to not kill civilians. But we did. I'm sure we had folk in the news and in politics who cried foul (and yeah, it is). However,
if the enemy is holed up in a hospital using civilians as human shields. I would say, send in a sweeper team to try and first take the hospital back and surgically eliminate the enemy from that stronghold. If it fails, or its too dangerous to attempt. Bomb it. It sucks, but that's why its called WAR. "But houdini, if we do that we are no better then the terrorists."
Wrong. The difference between us and them is that we do try to avoid hurting innocents often at great risk to ourselves. We value human life. This enemy thinks nothing of killing innocents to achive their goals.
What do you think?
I think you got it in one.
I've just got 2 words:
Molten glass.
Ok, maybe I've gotten a little bitter and cynical over the years...
Politics just suck right now.
I really don't have much faith in either political party to do the right thing anymore.
Time to throw the whole lot of em out and start over. And no, I don't like any of the canidates running for president in 2008 on either side of the isle. They all suck.
Maybe Fred Thompson will actually run, then at least we could have an actor in the white house again. We didn't do so bad with the last actor we elected to the white house. Regan kicked arse.
Bush is no Regan. Neither was Bush Sr.
But I fear Hillary has a good shot at 08. Umm.. run for the hills?