Dick Gephart/Tom Daschle' Party Defeated...New Day for America
TV ClubHouse: Archives: Dick Gephart/Tom Daschle' Party Defeated...New Day for America
Hillbilly | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 12:16 pm     At least Al Sharpton seems to be getting what others can't seem to. Anything related to Clinton/Gore is tainted. The best way for anyone to survive is to run as fast and far away from the Clinton/Gore <mod> as they can. Don't look for anyone to be pursuing Hilary for running mate or endorsement. Also, I predict that soon Hilary will be dropping the Clinton name and will go by her maiden name: Hilary Rodham. Remember, you heard it here first folks! (M) |
Hillbilly | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 12:35 pm     Allow me to correct then...the Clinton/Gore scandals and immoral, unethical conduct. And that is substantiated by Judge Susan Webber. |
Calamity | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 12:39 pm     Hi Cricket: I agree with you that it would be better if the Iraqi opposition could remove Hussein and re-establish their country without any military intervention on our part. But we have a poor track record in choosing sides. More often than not it seems as if whatever dissident group we aid turns out to be as bad or worse than the rulers that we helped them get rid of. There's been warnings that since most of the leadership of the Iraqi opposition are minority Sunni Muslims that they will not be able to stabilize the country post-Saddam (which is primarily Shiite Muslim - sigh - why do we stupid humans keep dividing ourselves up?). Goddessatlaw: Sorry, I hadn't seen your reply to me before. My prayers are with your brother. I do understand that most people who support a military strike against Iraq are not happy that it may come to that. It is those who are eagerly anticipating this war as a way to not only get revenge against Hussein but to showcase our might to the rest of the world that I truly worry about. Our power may have once made us too dangerous to attack but because of decades of careless foreign policy that power has now made us a target. While conflict may be inevitable, I do not want a war against Iraq to distract us from doing what is necessary to protect our own borders. And not only does this include improving security at nuclear energy plants and stockpiling smallpox vaccinations, but living up to our American ideals of justice and freedom for all. What hope is there for the future otherwise? |
Nimtu | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 12:55 pm     <nimtu runs into room, looks around and runs out screaming..MOM!! HB got <moded> hee, hee I'm telling> Seriously though folks, I have not heard nor seen any "gleeful" hope of war no matter what one's opinion of the situation is. I would like nothing more than a peaceful solution to this, however, do not believe that it is possible to in any way trust this man. Many people had hopes of a peaceful solution to Hitler and it did nothing more than enable the man to spread, unchallenged, while many innocent people were killed. I would hope that we learn from history and particularly from our history with Saddam. |
Hillbilly | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 01:01 pm     Well said, Nimtu. Congrats. |
Maris | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 02:02 pm     It is all about perspective isn't it. Only last month the Russian Government who is now our friend used an unidentified biological weapon against the terrorists and hostages in a theatre and over a hundred people died. There is some thought that it was an anestetic but nobody knows for sure. The Russians didnt seem to have much problem unleasing biological warfare in any case. They are also in possession of small pox and France has small pox as well. Yet it is acceptable for friends (including ourselves) to be in possession of these chemical weapons. I am not defending Hussein far from it, but the problem with our policy is that it might be ok for Country A and ourselves to stockpile weapons of mass destruction but we go after Country B. We back off North Korea and go after Iraq. We back off China for extermination of its dissidents but scream loudly when it is Iraq. The problem is our foreign policy is dictated by the greenback and whichever party is in power at the time. It rings hollow when we stand on morality with some countries and do a nudge nudge wink wink with others. This whole stance against Iraq is taking care of unfinished business. It is a personal issue between George W and Hussein and I dont want to see any American's die because of false pride. |
Nimtu | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 02:14 pm     HB, check this out, the picture is pretty distasteful (for goodness sake, it's a memorial!) but read the last part about the name change (note: I read it from you 1st): http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101021118/mc1118.html |
Calamity | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 02:15 pm     Hello Nimtu: Well, seriously, I have heard, read, and seen gleeful expectations of war. And 100% of the time those sentiments were expressed by someone who sure as heck won't be participating in the action. Unless, of course, the military has super-secret plans to create an entire brigade of bombastic talk show hosts, press pundits, and their fans. (Where's the draft when you need it?) They've been killing American brain cells for years, why not unleash them on the world and see what real damage they can do? And *I* would hope that we learn from history that violence and hatred only bring more of the same. Life is fragile and precious. How many more innocent people will have to die in the name of peace before we figure that out? One other thing to consider, ridding the world of Hitler wouldn't have meant much if we hadn't had the vision and generosity to develop the Marshall Plan. We had actually learned something there - Hitler had been helped to power by the world's ostrarization of Germany after WWI. Perhaps if we had followed a similar path with Iraq we would not be in this situation today. |
Calamity | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 02:29 pm     By a similar path, I meant foreign investment in Iraq. It certainly would have made democracy and capitalism seem much more palatable than Hussein's dictatorship. |
Wiseolowl | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 02:46 pm     Maris good to see you posting - we agreed about Big Brother so much I thought I had found a soulmate - but alas have to disagee with your last posting - Is it really fair to say that the Russians used "biological warfare" to deal with the terrorists? Not sure that warfare is the right word. The results were horrible - over a hundred lives lost - but it seems to me the alternative - losing seven hundred in a bomb - gun fest would have been worse. You know full well that invading Korea would bring the Chinese in and invading China would start WW3. You do what you can do to keep the world safer. Hussein has demonstrated time and again that he is a menace to his neighbours and to the West. He is unstable and likely to use his weapons to threaten us. That's why we are going after him. I daresay that if the French started using their nucs and smallpox against their neighbours they would be next on the list. I do agree though that Western policy towards China is too soft and hypocritical. They have perpetrated more crimes against their own people than Stalin and Hitler combined. They should be ostracized by the world community. Their power while considerable is overexagerated. I don't know the latest figures, but as of a couple of years ago , my country, Canada , with 30 million people had a larger GNP than China with a population of 1 billion,three hundred million!! Having said that , we don't need any more McDonald franchises here , although would appreciate a few more Taco Bells!!! |
Nimtu | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 02:54 pm     Calamity, Dear me, Hitler rose to power on a whole lot more than the world shunning Germany after WWI. If I remember my history correctly, a large emotional component existed as well..the Germans were shamed to some degree by the edict after WWI that they needed to break up and not rebuild their military (gee, sounds like something I have heard about lately). Obviously, there was an economic problem which Hitler capitalized on as well..blamed that on the Jews and with the strong feelings of anti-semitism in Europe he had himself a real audience. In any case *I* do not believe that "violence and hatred" are the answers, however, my point was how many innocent people died while the world pacified Hitler, how many Shiites and Kurds have fallen under Saddam? History teaches many lessons it is our duty to learn them. JMO |
Karuuna | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 03:06 pm     Nimtu, do you really believe we are going to war with Iraq in order to stop the deaths of innocent Shiites and Kurds? In fact, many innocents will die *because* of our actions there, even more than in Afghanistan. Saddam has been murdering folks for years. That's not the current administration's beef with him. They'd be happy to walk away if Saddam would rid himself of the weapons he might use against us. So we're clearly not going there on some humanitarian concern. IMO, there are lessons we have not yet learned. One of them is that the lives of our own are no more or less valuable than the lives of others. |
Nimtu | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 03:18 pm     Kar, Hi The current administration has not sat by for 8 years while the killing has been going on. They are addressing it. And yes, I really do believe that the crimes against humanity are part of the reason that this administration is taking such a firm stance. I agree with you that there are still lessons to be learned and unfortunately always will be hard lessons yet to be learned. I also agree with you that the lives of our own are not more or less valuable than the lives of others...however, sometimes the lives of our own are at risk unless we take a stance that may risk the lives of others. |
Calamity | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 03:50 pm     Nimtu: I understand your point - in fact I asked a very similar question in the Iraq thread just last week. Why did we not protest or do anything when Hussein used bio-weapons on Iranians and Kurds in the 1980's? Couldn't our inaction at the time be considered as appeasement or even approval? All I have been saying is that we have not helped our cause by being inconsistent with our foreign & domestic policies. And we have been far too willing to resort to military action to clean up problems. These measures have not proved to be that successful in making the world a better, safer place. Might we not consider some alternatives - Third World debt relief, stop selling weapons to war torn nations, and so on? These problems are just as important, if not more so, as controlling dangerous people such as Saddam. No hard feelings, I hope, Nimtu. I respect your opinion but feel I have to support mine, too. |
Nimtu | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 03:54 pm     Absolutely Calamity!! I enjoy a good debate and respect your opinion. |
Maris | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 04:03 pm     Hey Wise, any use of chemicals whether by friend or foe has to be wrong. When is it ok for a government to use chemical/biological weapons against a people? Sadaam has used them against the kurds, we used napalm in vietnam, the Russians used them against the chechnyans and I believe if we were still in the cold war we would be screaming about Russia's stockpiles of smallpox. I really believe the motive in all of this is to finish George senior's job and nothing else. I dont believe it is worth a single American life. I think Sadam should be ousted but not by us. Why do we have to be the world's policeman only to be kicked in the teeth by the people we are trying to protect. Where are the Saudis? They are saying you can't use our airfields and harrassing my friend Maureen Dowd which is a bigger crime. If you didnt catch her piece in the NY times yesterday give it a read it is a riot.(http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/opinion/10DOWD.html). I dont consider Sadaam a bigger threat to us than he is to Iran, Saudia Arabia or the Israelis. Let them deal with him and let us concentrate on protecting ourselves. |
Calamity | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 04:04 pm     Thanks, Nimtu! I'm signing off for tonight. |
Goddessatlaw | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 04:10 pm     Now Maris, didn't Rush Limbaugh just get through advising us that Maureen Dowd gargles with bourbon? Don't you think she should put down the bottle and put on the veil if she truly wants the respect of the Saudis? (LOL - sorry, but he really did say that while the two of them were in a whizzing match. I shudder to think what she said back). |
Maris | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 04:13 pm     Well maybe she had the DTs Goddess which prompted the morality police to "notice her shape" and almost arrest her. You would be pleased to note though that she said when she was in Saudi Arabia she missed John Ashcroft. |
Goddessatlaw | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 04:14 pm     LOL. I haven't been able to call up the article yet - I'll have a look. |
Ocean_Islands | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 04:58 pm     Ok I've read this whole thread now. It's sad how some people were so injured by Clinton's moral failings that three years later they are <mod> As far as the election goes, a great president does not need a majority in the senate in order to lead the nation. For the record, 'Dubya' is just the Texan pronunciation of "W". It has no other meaning. Democrats down and Republicans up? Wait two years and it'll change all over again. It's a seesaw. And you never saw a kid who was 'up' on the seesaw who thought it would last forever. That's politics and to get wrapped up in being on the high side of the seesaw is <mod>. |
Hillbilly | Monday, November 11, 2002 - 05:53 pm     ..... The initial strategy for the Democrats, from before the 2000 presidential election and on through this midterm election, was to portray Bush as a dunderheaded lightweight. A political buffoon whose daddy and Cheney did all the thinking, and a man who mangles words as if his brain takes the dictionary and tosses it into a woodchipper every time he opens his mouth. The main problem for the Democrats is that their sales pitch is getting old. Willy Loman would shake his head in empathetic pity at the likes of Terry McAuliffe, who for some reason continues to use the increasingly discredited approach of insulting the intelligence of the target Democrat voter to win their support. The tactic is employed constantly, often failing embarrassingly for the Democrats. This explains why Paul Wellstone, whose casket must now suffer the eternal indignity of being plastered in "Mondale 2002" stickers, had a memorial service that made the <mod>. ...... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29619 |
Nimtu | Tuesday, November 12, 2002 - 09:26 am     For Ocean:
 |
Sadiesmom | Monday, November 18, 2002 - 06:35 pm     Like opinions on the Homeland Security Riders that swelled the document from 35 pages to over 500. Most Senators and Congressfolks have not had a chance to really read, not just understand, it. What do you think of the rider to allow states to declare an emergency and confiscate property and possessions, isolate people and force vaccinations. That goes hand in glove with the provisions limiting law suits against pharmacuticals to 250,000 for adverse reactions to vacinations. Such as, if you have a child vaccinated and they are paralyzed, the maximum you can receive in damages is 250K. I find some of these provisions frightening. Add to it that the anthrax killer is still out there. |
|