Interesting info on our leadership and those who oppose them

[denny411]

Here are some varous items from the pool of stupidity that is the entertainment industry.

Larry Hagman had the nerve to state that Bush is not very well educated?

 

The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming

the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like "stupid" , "morons", and "idiots". Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American.

 

So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid", "ignorant" , "moronic"

leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:

 

President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an

F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy

industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other that Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a false story about his I.Q. being lower than any other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to URBANLEGENDS.COM and see the truth.)

 

Vice President Dick Cheney earned a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966, both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political

Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes to Capital Hill to meet with Senators and members of the House of Representatives to work on the Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America.

 

Secretary of State Colin Powell was educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country.

 

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: attended Princeton University on Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator ; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59; U.S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77

 

Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was raised in a working class family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to

Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U.S. House, and was overwhelmingly re-elected six times.

 

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. (Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in Political Science.) She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000

Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco

Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama. She resides in Washington, D.C.

 

So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also have all the facts on their educations and background:

 

Barbra Streisand : Completed high school

Career: Singing and acting

 

Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade.

Career: Singing and acting

 

Martin Sheen Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton.

Career: Acting

 

Jessica Lange Dropped out college mid-freshman year.

Career: Acting

 

Alec Baldwin Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal

Career: Acting

 

Julia Roberts Completed high school

Career: Acting

 

Sean Penn Completed High school

Career: Acting

 

Susan Sarandon Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America

in Washington, D.C.

Career: Acting

 

Ed Asner Completed High school

Career: Acting

 

George Clooney Dropped out of University of Kentucky

Career: Acting

 

Michael Moore Dropped out first year University of Michigan.

Career: Movie Director

 

Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High School

Career: Acting

 

Jennifer Anniston: Completed High School

Career: Acting

 

Mike Farrell Completed High school

Career: Acting

 

Janeane Garofelo Dropped out of College.

Career: Stand up comedienne

 

Larry Hagman Attended Bard College for one year.

Career: Acting

 

While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders.

 

These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed by freedom-hating terrorists while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest,

God-fearing Republican sits in the White House.

 

Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE,

FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons, in order to promote world peace. It is curious that now, even after we have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical, biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave him alone in his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even though it is certain that these deadly weapons will eventually be used against us in our own cities.

 

So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also determine the course of our Nation? That they can make viable decisions concerning war and peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing of the Nation when he recently thanked France, on our behalf, for being a "good enough friend to tell us we were wrong"? I know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from war? Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in more money per year than the average American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him clout?

 

The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!

 

It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation remains strong. We must make certain that those who would destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall them.

 

Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real. We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F. Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH.

 

 

 

 

 

 

They said it, now decide who much of your money you want to put into their pockets by purchasing their work...

 

Sheryl Crow: "I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies."

 

Richard Gere: "America has never paid any attention to other people, so it's absurd for Bush to say that it's all in the best interests of the Iraqi people."

 

Woody Harrelson: (On the Afghani war)"This is a racist and imperialist war. The warmongers who stole the White House (you call them "hawks", but I would never disparage such a fine bird) have hijacked a nation's grief and turned it into a perpetual war on any non-white country they choose to describe as terrorist."

 

Chrissy Hynde(from the Pretenders): "Have we gone to war yet?" "We (expletive) deserve to get bombed. Bring it on." Later she yelled, "Let's get rid of all the economic (expletive) this country represents! Bring it on, I hope the Muslims win!"

 

Janeanne Garofalo: "So when I see the American flag, I go, 'Oh my God, you're insulting me.'" "'We're here, we're queer!' -- that's what makes my heart swell. Not the flag, but a gay naked man or woman burning the flag. I get choked up with pride."

 

Ed Harris: "I haven't even been drinking, but, at all, but, you know, being a man, I've got to say that we've got this guy in the White House who thinks he is a man, you know, who projects himself as a man because he has a certain masculinity, and he's a good old boy, and he used to drink, and he knows how to shoot a gun and how to drive a pickup truck, etcetera like that. That's not the definition of a man, God Dammit!"

 

Danny Glover: "One of the main purveyors of violence in this world has been this country(USA), whether it's been against Nicaragua or wherever...I've been an advocate for peace my whole life. But one of the main purveyors of violence in this world is this country."

 

Dustin Hoffman: "For me as an American, the most painful aspect of this is that I believe that administration has taken the events of 9/11 and has manipulated the grief of the country and I think that's reprehensible." "I don't think, like many of us, that the reasons we have been given for going to war are the honest reasons." "I believe - though I may wrong because I am no expert - that this war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil".

 

George Clooney: "I believe he thinks this [war against Iraq] is a war that can be won, but there is no such thing anymore." "We can't beat anyone anymore."

 

Susan Sarandon: #1)"We stand a chance of getting a president [G. W. Bush] who has probably killed more people before he gets into office than any president in the history of the United States." #2)"In the name of fear and fighting terror we are giving the reigns of power to oil men more interested in a financial bottom line than a moral bottom line. Oil men ready to expand their influence with new contracts on the soil our bombers have plowed…"

 

Sean Penn: "I think that people like the Howard Sterns, the Bill O'Reillys and to a lesser degree the bin Ladens of the world are making a horrible contribution [to society]. I'd like to trade O'Reilly for bin Laden. [O'Reilly] is a grumpy, self-loathing joke," Penn told the magazine."

 

Larry Hagman: "[bush is a] sad figure: not too well educated, who doesn't get out of America much. He's leading the country towards fascism... he wouldn't understand the word fascism anyway."

 

Peter Gabriel: "I think America has no experience with terrorism or even with war. In Europe, we know a little bit more about these things."

 

Michael Moore: #1) "the passengers(on 9/11)were scaredy-cats because they were mostly white. If the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes." #2)"Many families have been devastated tonight(9/11). This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

 

Russell Simmons:"We are threatened as Americans because of the way our president carries himself," Simmons said. "He's the biggest threat in the world." He added, "Don't misunderstand me," about Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "But Saddam is the Iraqi's problem. George Bush is our problem as Americans."

 

David Clennon: "I'm saying that the moral climate within the ruling class in this country is not that different from the moral climate within the ruling class of Hitler's Germany." "I'm not comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler - because George Bush, for one thing, is not as smart as Adolf Hitler. And secondly George Bush has much more power than Adolf Hitler ever had." "I'm saying that we [Americans] have sunk pretty low and I'm saying that you can look at the moral climate in Germany in 1933. We have to ask ourselves if we found ourselves in Nazi Germany, what would we do? Now I say, let the inspection process take its course."

 

Robert Altman: "If you asked would I live in London the rest of my life, yeah, I'd be very happy to stay here. There's nothing in America that I would miss at all."

[denny411]

I should note that I am NOT a Republican. I disagree with many of the views and opinions that this administration has, but I believe that national security and the war on terror MUST be based on fact and NOT feelings or opinions. My .02

[pparaska]

Denny, I just don't listen to these overpaid, CLUELESS, bleeding hearts. And I won't be buying any of their music or paying to see their movies, etc.

 

They are clueless, because only a few actually have all the clues...let me reiterate your point...

 

You are totally right about at least one thing - there's no way that the "artists" or any other person not hooked into the Intelligence community at very deep levels could know enough to say that Saddam's regime is NOT a threat to the West, Europe, Iraq's neighbors (remember Kuwait?), or even Iraq's people. Or that it should be ignored and left to fester. As unconnected citizens, we can't know those things, and we shouldn't. If we did, the methods and sources of our intelligence would disappear or be rendered much less useful.

[SleeperZ]

So if Saddam is such a threat, why has the US been unable to convince the international community, or any of Iraq's neighbors of that? Maybe it's Bush's shortcomings as a statesman, but it still seems strange to me. I think terrorism will rise, not fall, as a result of this action. Just MO.

[pparaska]

I think one of the reasons for Bush not being able to convince MORE of the international community is politics. The Russians, French, probably the Germans all have a stake in the Regime staying in power, or at least us not finding evidence of them aiding Saddam in obtaining things against the UN resolutions.

 

Another would be that many people truly believe that oil is the reason we are there. I don't believe that.

 

Another is that many believe that the US is at war with the Islamic religions. I don't believe that either.

 

Another is that Bush comes across as arrogant, which is already a stereotype that the US has. His delivery doesn't help matters, IMO.

 

I agree with you that more terrorism from Islamic terrorists. Small children watching the US bomb and invade a country with mostly Islamic people, and then being brain washed that the US was trying to kill people there because of their faith will produce more terrorists. That's why I think that Saddam's regime should have been taken out with only covert methods. Probably not possible, definitely not easy, but I think the terrorist aftermath in the years to come would be much less.

 

BTW, as soon as this thread gets ugly, it's gone. We've been down this road before on HybridZ. I'm not sure the thread should even stay. The issue is that many come here to get away from controversy and talk about Z's. If you don't like the thread, the best advice is to just not read it. So if it's going to stay (I'm not the judge of that, BTW), let's keep it friendly and only speak rationally, not get emotional or personal. Just a reminder...

[Guest ProfessorRog]

The problem I have with most people protesting for peace is that they are accomplishing nothing more than someone who stands on a corner and clangs a pair of bells together. It is well known that war is a terrible thing that results in the loss of life, so instead of standing on a corner telling everyone what they already know give viable alternatives that can be acted upon to remove this source of evil and suffering from power.

 

It works the same on the other side of the fence; to sit back and settle for the quick fix of warfare without exhausting all resources available to you that would result in fewer innocent casualties than battle is akin to short-sighted self-righteousness.

 

I can't say whether our leaders are right in their actions since I have not studied the Iraqi political climate in depth. I don't know whether a combination of aid, sanctions, and tariffs would have accomplished the necessary return of power to the people of Iraq. All I can do right now is have faith that our leaders have chosen the right decision since it is their job to decide such matters, it is what we elected them to do. All we can do is hold them accountable after the fact.

[Mikelly]

Funny thing about the people protesting war is the fact that they don't understand that this Jiihad is not against anyone supporting the republican party or the federal government of the United States of America. The people we fight in Iraq and elsewhere in the world hate Americans, Even self absorbed, peace loving liberals like the actors and performers listed above.

 

The futility in protesting a war... Lets SEE how much attention WE can attract to US. It has nothing to do with the war. It has EVERYTHING to do with face time.

I say BOYCOTT these people and the media entertainment they produce!

 

Mike

[Guest livewire23]

The problem I have with most people protesting for peace is that they are accomplishing nothing more than someone who stands on a corner and clangs a pair of bells together. It is well known that war is a terrible thing that results in the loss of life' date=' so instead of standing on a corner telling everyone what they already know give viable alternatives that can be acted upon to remove this source of evil and suffering from power.

 

It works the same on the other side of the fence; to sit back and settle for the quick fix of warfare without exhausting all resources available to you that would result in fewer innocent casualties than battle is akin to short-sighted self-righteousness.

 

I can't say whether our leaders are right in their actions since I have not studied the Iraqi political climate in depth. I don't know whether a combination of aid, sanctions, and tariffs would have accomplished the necessary return of power to the people of Iraq. All I can do right now is have faith that our leaders have chosen the right decision since it is their job to decide such matters, it is what we elected them to do. All we can do is hold them accountable after the fact.[/quote']

 

right on. I agree wholeheartedly. I'm trying to stay out of this whole discussion because I don't feel that I'm informed enough to make any decisions about it. That having been said, I feel there are many interesting points to think about regarding the whole matter.

 

1. Saying that bush is the best anything since nixon seems a bit ridiculous to me. We all remember what a great president nixon was.

 

2. Most celebrities live in their own idealistic dream world. The money allows them to build a little imaginary world around them.

 

3. Its true that europeans have more experience with war and terrorism than us americans do. You would have a hard time convincing me that Americans know more about war and terrorism than they do. We're relatively safe in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. Even in our early days as a nation, the biggest and baddest army/navy in the world twice tried to kick our ass and came up unsuccessful. Not to discount the efforts of the militia, but we have a bit of a natural military advantage.

 

4. I'm not certain about this one, but hans blix (the top weapons inspector) hasn't seemed very pro-war. Unless he's being paid some enormous sum to conduct inspections, I find this a bit curious. He should know better than 99% of the world what Iraq has and doesn't have. I also feel the U.S. Intelligence community (which is very good at what it does), should share whatever info it has on Iraqi weapons with the inspectors. Why keep the inspectors in the dark? If the inspectors do know everything that the US knows, why are they not bigger proponents of the war?

 

5. Umm, the U.S. is a great country, kinda, but its not head and shoulders above the rest of the world. I've lived in the US, I've lived out of the US. So far, IMO, the US hasnt proved itself to be all that great. please dont start shouting at me to love it or leave it now though. The US still does have the best institutes of higher education in the world right now. And don't get me started on how some of us americans got brought over here. One stupid argument begets another.

 

I've said my peace. At the moment, I'm not really for or against the war in Iraq. I do think it needs a new name. Operation Iraqi freedom? c'mon, how unoriginal is that? We didn't call Operation Overlord "operation french freedom", and we didnt call desert storm "operation kuwaiti freedom". the list goes on. However, I dislike bush because he is putting a lot of emphasis on Iraq, a country that, if it does have weapons, wouldn't be able to hit the USA with them. However N. Korea could hit the west coast (so I've heard), and the economy still blows. I would like to have the resources to work on my Z. I don't really care too much if I get blown to smithereens while doing it, but I want to be able to work on the Z while I'm alive.

 

Interpret what I say how you want, but lets all get along, eh? Y'all are some great people, knowledgable and talented, and there's not reason to not get along just because of politics that are mostly out of our hands anyway.

[Guest livewire23]

oh, and one more thing.

 

I support the troops, now that they're there I wish them the best of luck. Hopefully they will return home safely, the POWs will be treated with respect, and all goes according to plan. The less casualties on all sides the better. I sincerely wish the iraqis surrender so that we can get on to the next phase. If they don't surrender, hopefully the pentagon's got a good war plan in store for the iraqis. Yesterday was a bad day, hopefully today will be better.

[Georgia Flash]

Support our Troops, but more importantly Support our President and the Cause!

 

We should let these actors and peace protestors go to Iraq to live. I served a little over four years in the Army from 86-91 ((called back to duty after I got out, for Desert Storm)) I am proud of our military and our will to fight.

 

This country that we live in has a lot of spoiled brats running around talking about our president. Why aren't they talking about Saddam and how terrible he has treated his people over the years? You guys heard about the "rape chamber"? Supposedly Sadaam will use this when he wants information from someone. He will subject a man's wife to brutal rapes and if the man still refuses to give information his children will be forced to have sex with Sadaam's goons until the man finally talks!

 

Yes we live in a very bad place I guess.

[Tim240z]

Support our Troops' date=' but more importantly Support our President and the Cause!

 

We should let these actors and peace protestors go to Iraq to live. I served a little over four years in the Army from 86-91 ((called back to duty after I got out, for Desert Storm)) I am proud of our military and our will to fight.

 

This country that we live in has a lot of spoiled brats running around talking about our president. Why aren't they talking about Saddam and how terrible he has treated his people over the years? You guys heard about the "rape chamber"? Supposedly Sadaam will use this when he wants information from someone. He will subject a man's wife to brutal rapes and if the man still refuses to give information his children will be forced to have sex with Sadaam's goons until the man finally talks!

 

Yes we live in a very bad place I guess.[/quote']

 

I agree with what you're saying, but I disagree with the tact being taken by the White House.

"Operation Iraqi Freedom".....let's be real!! There are other countries doing far worse than Iraq......but they don't have any oil reserves.

"Weapons of mass destruction".....again let's be real!!! Many other countires pose a much greater threat of using nuclear or other such weapons.....

 

China, Pakistan, India, Iran, North Korea, etc etc. What's the missing link: Oil!!

 

Just my opinion......

I don't make a stand either way because I am just not informed enough to make such a stand. I just watch the $h1T fly and hope everything turns out for the best.

 

Tim

[jeromio]

I find it interesting that most people (at least those who talk about political things) on automotive related boards (the ones I frequent) are mostly conservative, pro-government types. There must be some correlation there.

 

I find these kinds of discussions difficult to resist. Yet I also find that discussing things on internet boards is an entirely futile effort. Something about the remoteness and relative anonymity of it I think. People talk about things, but invariably they only further reenforce the beliefs they held before the discussion.

 

I do agree with alot of what livewire said. I also think that as a general rule, people should absolutely question the motives and policies of the government. That's one of the primary foundations of this country.

[Guest livewire23]

I find it interesting that most people (at least those who talk about political things) on automotive related boards (the ones I frequent) are mostly conservative, pro-government types. There must be some correlation there.

 

I was wondering about that too. But then I figured that I am automotive boards, and Im not very conservative, so I guess there's always exceptions to the rules.

 

I find these kinds of discussions difficult to resist. Yet I also find that discussing things on internet boards is an entirely futile effort. Something about the remoteness and relative anonymity of it I think. People talk about things, but invariably they only further reenforce the beliefs they held before the discussion.

 

hey, it gives us all a place to vent. It's important for people to vent without having to worry about others taking them too seriously and getting offended and so on and so forth. My point wasn't to sway anyone's position, I just felt like voicing mine. I haven't dont much voicing of my opinions on this war because when talking to someone face to face, I prefer not to argue with them unless I am well armed with all the facts of the matter, and possibly a baseball bat for backup. And recently, I havent had either.

[Guest ON3GO]

ya but just because they might not beable to hit us with there weapns doesnt mean they wont try it on countrys near them.

WE are here to protect not only us but the whole world....

now am i PRO war? no, am i against it? NO, i wish things didnt come to this but i knew it would and i do believe that we are doing the right thing by going to war.. remember we are only bombing places that we know/think hold and carry things that can hurt ppl and ppl who are bad, we are trying to set the iraqi ppl free from that mad man.

and i am not buying nor listening to any of those ppls work!!!! they do have a right to say what they want but good taste and some smarts is something they dont have.

now im only 19 and i truly want to join the air force or army to help out in this war, because i truly believe we are doing the right thing, and our troops and every other man and women from all countrys that is fighting this war to make this world a better place are the TRUE heros to me.

and i would love to know what these actors and singers would like to do about this whole thing, how would they like to stop these murders and attacks!

we should all pray for our troops and ALL troops fighting for right side, and for our leaders also.

 

mike

[Mikelly]

Lets not lose site of why we are there...

 

Fact: Saddam claimed not to have chemicals and bombs that have since been located, and or used against our troops.

 

Fact: Saddam sent representatives of his Government to the UN to claim they had no such chemicals or munitions.

 

Fact: Saddam has repeatedly tried to put this whole thing back on the US and Bush, saying it is about oil, Not weapons and support of terrorism.

 

Fact: The Anthrax that was propegated to facilities in the USA came from one of only three possible locations in the world. Iraq was one of those possible locations, and the US is another...

 

Fact: Saddam's money and resource trail leads DIRECTLY to supporting terrorist activities to INCLUDE the attacks on 9/11 and the Bombing of the USS Cole.

 

Fact: Saddam signed agreements back in 1991, 1994, 1998, 2001 and has since gone back on EVERY SINGLE resolution or agreement, outright lying about what he would or wouldn't do, in hopes of gaining relief of the embargos against him.

 

Fact: In 1989, 1990, and 1991 Saddam authorized the use of bio/ chem weapons on his own people, and on UN and US troops within the region. Unfortunately for me, I was working a watch office during one of those attacks and got to witness the initial reporting from UN personnel on the ground during the attacks by Saddam on a Kurdish Village. Those reports and images will go with me to my grave.

 

Fact: Our own federal government allowed ALL of this to go on until the attacks of 9/11/01.

 

I simply DO NOT understand how anyone could deny that this effort is justified in ANY way. So to anyone out there in Web-land, I respectfully say to you that we'll have to agree to disagree. When you can refute the points I've brought up, all of which have been reported in the media, I'll pour out some more... The REAL evidence is classified, but proved to me three years ago that we would be here today watching this unfold again. This dictator has created this situation, been given over a decade to do the right thing, and now the USA is being labled the bad guy Yet again...

 

And what about our Allies in the UN?? The French??? They have a MAJOR stake in keeping Saddam in power. There are multimillion dollar contracts at stake that the French Government have on paper with the Government of Iraq, combining to total into the billions. Those contracts include providing ALL of the infrastructure for the Iraqies once embargos are lifted, but ONLY if the current government is left in place. Communications, Water and sewage, desalination plants, power grids, roadway engineering, railway engineering, you name it, the French have a contract on it. The French interest in the Iraqie people has NOTHING to do with their wellfare and everything to do with economics. The Russians would have backed us if we had gotten our heads out of our asses and given them the support they needed with the Chechen rebel issue, which by the way is their OWN version of a terrorist take-over. Had we given support, Russia would have troops on the ground right now supporting us, make no bones about it. The Germans and Australlians are tapped. Their issues are simply that they have been stretched too thin. Yet, even though the Ausies are strapped, they sent what they could with the intent to send more re-enforcements because they know if they come under fire, we'll save their bacon!

 

Should we focus on other areas of the world? Sure we should. Korea scares all hell out of me. But guess what? They already have nukes and HAD them before they stopped further developement, only due to the presure we put on China to get them to comply with UN resolutions in the first place. The media is pissing in the wind on that one. Yea, they could potentially hit us. They won't. We allow India and Pakestan to have nukes, and THAT should worry those in the heartland equally as much.

 

So, now that you guys got me on my rant, lets just not forget that Republicans put us in there in the first place, Clinton let Saddam treat us like his "Monica" for 8 years, and now the Son of the man that drug us in there (*Which I believe we should have been in the first place and should have FINISHED IT*) is gonna finish up. This isn't politics boys and girls. This man is a terror, a doer of evil for ALL of the world and he is solely responsible. Those of you who have to blame someone... Go out and protest... Protest SADDAM.

 

With WAR will come Peace!

Mike

[Mudge]

Damn good post Mike.

[Georgia Flash]

Could not have said it any better Mike.

[pparaska]

Actually, I'm hoping to learn more from this thread. My mind is not closed.

 

livewire wrote:

I also feel the U.S. Intelligence community (which is very good at what it does), should share whatever info it has on Iraqi weapons with the inspectors. Why keep the inspectors in the dark? If the inspectors do know everything that the US knows, why are they not bigger proponents of the war?

 

Why not give it to them? It gets back to our (or anybody's) Intell communities gathering methods and sources. If we give everything we know about Iraq to an international organization like the UN security council, then we give away just about everything to do with how we obtain the Intell (which would soon be rendered useless) and/or the sources that get it for us. I'm not just repeating what Rumsfield said, that's true with ANY Intell topic. Much of what is kept classified is done not because the info itself is damaging, but because if it weren't kept classified, there'd be no more Intell that could be gathered - because your sources and methods would be inferred or directly compromised.

 

So I disagree, for that reason. No, I don't think the UN should have ALL the Intell info the US has on Iraq. We gave them some. I don't know how much, but I'm sure that the "sources and methods" issue was in the minds of those who declassified the info. You would hope that they were able to give enough irrefutably damning info to help the inspectors actually find it. But that Intell may not exist...Intell is hardly ever all hard, irrefutable facts, while much of it is. That's why there are analysts who have to take what info they have and make assessments.

 

What's scary about Blix is that some who have read some of the reports say that they are pretty damning about what was found, the amount of cooperation they got, etc. But Blix always seemed to put a nice spin on it to the Sec Council, in the favor of Saddam. I think politics had something to do with that. The pictures in the media of Blix standing with Chirac before the last briefing to the Sec Council with a BIG smile on his face as they were talking was quite unnerving. I question whether he was unbiased. Conjecture, etc. I know, but something smells fishy to me.

 

Tim, I sincerely hope it's not about oil. If that were the case, the US would never live it down. That would be a horrible thing, not only for Bush and his administration, but for the US in general, politically, and otherwise. The adminstration has other countries (e.g., PRK (North Korea)) that are also worrisome to the US and world security. It's just that Iraq has a good bit of their attention at the moment. Be assured that possible threats from everywhere are being looked at constantly, by many countries. It's part of being prepared.

 

Mikelly, I just read your post. For the FACTS behind this situation, I will always defer to Mike. He knows things I can't. That means he has more FACTS to base his views on, more than the average joe, more than the actors, musicians, directors, college students, etc. that make up the "protestors". They don't have the nearly as many FACTS to base their views upon, and to me they are an uniformed lot that are making alot of noise. I wish the media would not report on them. When it is reported, I just see numbers and slogans. No indepth REASONS why they are against what's going on with the coalition and Iraq. Many of the facts they need are in the media - they just are looking at it from an idealological point of view - war is bad. Well, not always. What if the US had LISTENED to people from Europe in the late 1930s and stomped Hitler's regime earlier? Many people would not have died, that's what. I see the attack on Saddam's regime (not on the Iraqi people, BTW) as the allied coalition doing the right thing BEFORE another Hitler type tried to do more inhumane harm, in his country, near it or abroad.

[jt1]

Mike, that was a fine job. Well spoken.

 

John

[Mikelly]

...Damn, how did I miss the "Oil" issue... Riddle me this one kiddies... If this is a war about oil, why is it that:

 

1: We never TOOK OVER Kuwait after liberating THEM from Iraq's terror in 1991???

 

2: We have NEVER tried to take over the single largest exporter of oil to the USA, CANADA?

 

3: Why haven't we told the liberal press and their pundits to take a hike and start drilling and taping into or own resources, many of which reside on national park lands???

 

If WE the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, the strongest country in the world, were so hell bent on controlling the worlds oil supplies, Why on gods earth would we start with Iraq when we have these other options (and I was joking about our friends to the north, but the oil question begs these answers...)

 

It is ever so easy to look away from the cause of this and point blame back onto the USA. Why? Because we are a big target. Also, because we want to believe, as a nation of do-gooders, that everyone else in the world will do the right thing. Momamar didn't, Osamah won't, and neither will Saddam. Blame Washington if you must, but if you do, you are being emotional and not logical.

 

Now, I am NOT a republican. Never have been. I am not a democrat. Never have been. I do not want war anywhere where it isn't needed. Kids the deal is that this guy and other bad guys around the world WON'T play by reasonable means. Reality is that bad people elsewhere in the world get into positions of power. It sucks, but so does a cracked block and thrown rod on startup.

 

The UN would have come running to the USA to "DO SOMETHING " if a large scale attack had happened in Paris, Quebec, Stokholm, Frankfurt, you pick the MAJOR CITY around the world. We would have been pushed into this. It didn't. It happened right here, with people from every walk of life being impacted. This particular effort is ABSOLUTELY about 9/11 and if anyone thinks otherwise, they are wrong. Pick your nationality and I can post a name of someone from that country that was either in the towers or on the planes. I can go back to the archives and pull up some of the sentiment from the hours and days that followed the attacks. The American public and the world have short attention spans, and shorter memories... Make no bones about it, the French would have been looking for cheese to go with that whine had it been on their soil.

 

Those of us who do or have in the past worked with intelligence agencies have insight to a world that the general public will never get to see. We see material and technology that will never exist outside of the confines of the respective state and federal agencies that house those technologies. I wish Powell would have shown more damning evidence, but unfortunately the briefing materials he used were strong enough and THAT info was over the heads of 90% of the people in the room. They, like the American "Protestors" don't get it. They want so badly to dislike Bush. Intelligence methods weren't worth the sacrefice to proove a point to people who wouldn't have listened anyway. So now we'll show what we knew all along.

 

Don't get me wrong. I am not 100% for Bush. His economic policy and his domestic policy scare me. We all spent that check they gave us last year, claiming that it was surplus that belonged to the people, for the people, and should be given to the people. He should have sat on it. We all spent it on toys for our cars, kids, or significant others, and we spent it with joy, thinking "Yea it's MY MONEY afterall!" and we went on with our lives... Now where are we??? I didn't need the $300 given to me. I'd have rather had it put to use in areas of social reform, unemployment benefits, medical system overhauls, or better yet, get some of the truly needy here at home back on their feet. No, President Bush, I didn't need that little bit of jingle in my pocket, and most of us could have gotten by with it sitting where YOU needed it. I'll likely vote for him again, only because I'm a contractor in the federal government pool, and when Republicans are running the Whitehouse, I typically have a much happier time getting and keeping work.

 

It's what I do, and likely why I won't leave the federal circle. I'm good at what I do, and I've been asked to stay with my company for a while longer. so I guess I'll stay at ringside with the best possible view of history unfolding yet again, all just so I can keep on saying... See, we knew... We knew.

 

God Bless us all...

Mike