Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 87
  1.    #1  
    I can't believe nothing's been said.....
  2. #2  
    I can't believe it either... especially with this group!

    Actually, I'm quite torn with the events of the past couple of days. I'm not an advocate of war and would really like to see a peaceful resolution. On the other hand, if the President feels it must be done, I will support him and all those troops who are in harm's way.

    The next few days are going to be very interesting to say the least.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  3. #3  
    It can be a touchy subject thus, perhaps, the low response. Is peace too much to ask?
    (But I agree with you, Mark, that in time of crisis we need to support each other regardless of our viewpoint.)
    I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
    -Mark Twain
  4. #4  
    I believe if the French had not talked about a veto the weight of the UN may had been able to avoid war. I hate to think of the loss of life. That said I support this country and the but kicking we are about to give.

    P.S. I won't even french kiss anymore.
  5. #5  
    ..."what is it good for?"...
    wow, it's been awhile.....things have REALLY changed...why is my Visor Edge still in my hand? Will a Treo fit better?
  6. #6  
    Hoser_back_home said: ..."what is it good for?"...

    "Absolutely nothing"
    Jonathan
  7. #7  
    Originally posted by BADFLHT
    I believe if the French had not talked about a veto the weight of the UN may had been able to avoid war. I hate to think of the loss of life. That said I support this country and the but kicking we are about to give.

    P.S. I won't even french kiss anymore.
    I find it difficult to believe anyone gives that much credence to the French in the first place that their comments carried that much weight.

    By the same token, the French bashing needs to stop. After all, they weren't the only ones insisting they would use their veto power.
  8. #8  
    I watched the President the other night with an overwhelming feeling of "Lord, I hope we know what we are doing."

    But I do agree with the point that if those nations (including and primarily France, no offense Madame Ali) had not taken the "we are going to absolutely veto" stance, there still might have been a chance that the USA could have gracefully accepted more time being given.

    Just as I think President Bush probably shouldn't have let himself be talked into taking the absolute position he took, I don't think the other (supposedly) "peace-wanting" countries should have taken the positions that, in the end, backed President Bush into a corner he could not get out of without totally losing credibility of the US.

    That being said, I sincerely believe that Saddam is an evil man, with evil intents and actions. I do believe that he has had and does still possess weapons of mass destruction. I believe innocent people have been tortured and killed under his regime.
    ("Saddam, this country ain't big enough for the two of us.")

    But, like MarkEagle said, I'm pretty torn about this situation. I can see the logic in both sides and don't like the absolute of either position.
  9.    #9  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    I watched the President the other night with an overwhelming feeling of "Lord, I hope we know what we are doing."
    I get the feeling that at least some of us do. I am fairly confident the president does, thus all the talk about sacrifice.

    Here's my summary of this war. This war is like the case of a brutal murderer caught on tape but who gets off because of a technicality. A few years later, another brutal murder happens on the other side of town, and the police and prosecutors are so bent on righting the wrong of the past aquittal they do whatever it takes to convict and execute the brutal murderer. Of course they have little or no evidence linking him to the crime for which he is executed.

    In that light, it's hard to really agree with anyone. The prosecutors (and thus society) are out of line, but to a large degree the person paying the price deserved nothing more.

    That, in short, is my analysis of the pending conflict.
  10. #10  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    [...] That, in short, is my analysis of the pending conflict.
    Personally, I'd compare it more to if O.J. Simpson got married again, and his wife started showing up in public with bruises or something like that and filed for divorce. Sure, it's possible that he didn't beat her, and if he did it's possible he won't kill her, but...
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #11  
    Originally posted by Alli


    I find it difficult to believe anyone gives that much credence to the French in the first place that their comments carried that much weight.

    By the same token, the French bashing needs to stop. After all, they weren't the only ones insisting they would use their veto power.
    I agree.. with or without france's veto (and russia's btw why is everybody forgetting that and just bashing the french) Bush seems to be heading to war anyhow...

    check this out:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030318-4.html
    "
    Q Will U.S. troops enter Iraq, no matter what, at this point? In other words, even if Saddam Hussein, in some off chance, takes this ultimatum, leaves the country with his sons, will U.S. troops, nevertheless, enter Iraq?
    MR. FLEISCHER: The President addressed that last night. And the President made clear that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours to leave, beginning at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time last night. The President also made plain to the American people that if Saddam were to leave, the American forces, coalition forces would still enter Iraq, hopefully this time peacefully, because Iraqi military would not be under orders to attack or fire back. And that way Iraq could be disarmed from possession of weapons of mass destruction.
    Q So the bottom line is, Americans are going to occupy Iraq, no matter what, at this point?
    MR. FLEISCHER: The bottom line is, a coalition of the willing will disarm Saddam Hussein's Iraq, no matter what.
    "

    So the ultimatum really says: leave Iraq in 48 hours or we will invade. If you will leave in 48 hours we will invade anyway...
    I dont think the french veto has had much influence on bush, except maybe accelerating his plans...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  12. #12  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I get the feeling that at least some of us do. I am fairly confident the president does, thus all the talk about sacrifice.

    Here's my summary of this war. This war is like the case of a brutal murderer caught on tape but who gets off because of a technicality. A few years later, another brutal murder happens on the other side of town, and the police and prosecutors are so bent on righting the wrong of the past aquittal they do whatever it takes to convict and execute the brutal murderer. Of course they have little or no evidence linking him to the crime for which he is executed.

    In that light, it's hard to really agree with anyone. The prosecutors (and thus society) are out of line, but to a large degree the person paying the price deserved nothing more.

    That, in short, is my analysis of the pending conflict.
    Its more like:
    "Here's my summary of this war. This war is like the case of a brutal murderer caught on tape but who gets off because of a technicality. A few years later, another brutal murder happens on the other side of town, and the police and prosecutors are so bent on righting the wrong of the past aquittal.
    Some arm bearing citicens decide they dont have the patience for the officials to work it out and decide to form a vigilante and go kill the guy themselfs..

    I'm torn on this issue too, I feel Saddam should be taken care of, probably need to use some force to make that happen.
    However I'm against the coalition of the willing acting on their own..
    And yes the UN has been too weak, but that doesnt make it ok to attack yourself..

    I'm afraid this war will break more than it will do good...
    I can think of many worse case scenario's...

    I really hope they invade iraq swiftly, get Saddam and dont kill to many civilians (and military too, but to a lesser degree) in the process..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  13. #13  
    ToolkiT --
    Is this the official opinion of VisorCentral? Just curious...
    I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
    -Mark Twain
  14. #14  
    Originally posted by m00se
    ToolkiT --
    Is this the official opinion of VisorCentral? Just curious...
    nope, this is my personal opinion...
    not sure if there is an 'offical opion'.

    Most of us are volunteers anyhow...
    The opinions I post in off topic (except for the ones that handle my moderating job) are purely personal.. And I am happy that I get the opportunity to post them..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  15. KKenna's Avatar
    Posts
    418 Posts
    Global Posts
    419 Global Posts
    #15  
    Like everyone, I'm torn as well. France has every right to disagree with America. But France has moved from simple dissent to active hostility toward America. French President Chirac warned East European nations that if they side with America, France will oppose their membership in the European Union. This week, William Safire reported in the New York Times that France has been secretly helping to arm Iraq -- and has been helping Iraq build long range missiles. These same missiles may soon be used against American soldiers. Just as France is exercising its right to disagree, Americans can exercise their right to boycott -- and avoid helping companies and countries that do no stand with America. French Products and Companies to Boycott The following companies are subject to boycott:

    Air France
    Air Liquide
    Airbus
    Alcatel
    Allegra
    Aqualung
    AXA Advisors
    Bank of the West
    Beneteau
    BF Goodrich
    BIC
    Biotherm
    Black Bush
    Bollinger
    Car & Driver Magazine
    Cartier
    Chanel
    Chivas Regal
    Christian Dior
    Club Med
    Culligan
    Dannon
    DKNY
    Dom Perignon
    Durand Crystal
    Elle Magazine
    Essilor Optical Products
    Evian
    Fina gas stations and Fina Oil
    First Hawaiian Bank
    George Magazine
    Givenchy
    Glenlivet
    Hennessy
    Houghton Mifflin
    Jacobs Creek
    Jameson
    Jerry Springer
    Krups
    Lancome
    Le Creuset
    L'Oreal
    Louis Vuitton
    Marie Claire
    Martel Cognac
    Maybelline
    Méphisto
    Michelin
    Mikasa
    Moet
    Motel 6
    Motown Records
    MP3.com
    Mumms
    Nissan
    Nivea
    Normany Butter
    Parents Magazine
    Peugeot
    Pierre Cardin
    Playstation Magazine
    ProScan
    Publicis Group
    RCA
    Red Magazine
    Red Roof Inns
    Renault
    Road & Track Magazine
    Roquefort cheese (all Roquefort cheese is made in France).
    Rowenta
    Royal Canadian
    Salomon
    Sierra Software and Computer Games
    Smart & Final
    Sofitel
    Sparkletts
    Spencer Gifts
    Sundance Channel
    Taylor Made
    Technicolor
    T-Fal
    Total gas stations
    UbiSoft
    Uniroyal
    Universal Studios
    USFilter
    Veritas Group
    Veuve Clicquot Champagne
    Vittel
    Vivendi
    Wild Turkey
    Woman's Day Magazine
    Yoplait
    Yves Saint Laurent
    Zodiac Inflatable Boats
  16. #16  
    Originally posted by KKenna
    This week, William Safire reported in the New York Times that France has been secretly helping to arm Iraq -- and has been helping Iraq build long range missiles.
    Wow, I had no idea.

    RE: boycotting French products.
    Many South Carolinians work at the Michelin plant here. Are those products really French?
  17. #17  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    Wow, I had no idea. [...]
    Really? I find it funny that it's not more commonly known. Even Scott Ritter took issue with it when he was on the Donahue show on MSNBC a while back. America gets blamed for aiding Iraq at one time, but according to Scott Ritter, the worst we did was send them money designated as 'Farming subsidies', with the implication that it wasn't used as such, but was actually used to purchase weapons knowledge and technology from... wait for it... France, Russia, and China. Strange that those who would make our motives purely mercenary and all about oil ignore the potential for the same from those on the 'other side'.

    That being said, I think the reasons for the backlash against France is somewhat historic and taken from the perspective of a longtime ally who hasn't seemed to be much of an ally for a while. The perception is that we've bailed them out a lot within the last century and get nothing but derision in return. We don't have nearly the same history with the other countries who are most vocal in their opposition (and one could make the argument that they've been far less activist in their opposition as well).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #18  
    Why do you focus on France, that's just silly. A clear majority of the UN security council was against Bush and Blair, and also Russia and China had announced a veto. Don't try to persuade yourself it is only France, the great majority of nations, let alone their population, is clearly against this violation of international law. So feel free to add Swiss (my home country), German, Italian, Swedish (you name it) companies to your list. The list will be very long, but don't worry, just go ahead.

    We all agree that Saddam is a cruel criminal who has to be controlled, removed, killed, whatever. But in this war (like in the last) children, women, men will be killed who did not chose to be ruled by him. And don't forget: Saddam only is in power because of the US - they thought he would be usefull against Iran - but that's another story.

    Here a few questions:

    - In the last war the water supply of Iraq was a prime target of the allied forces. US scientists have revealed a detailed plan of the US administration to weaken Irak by preventing the delivery of certain chemicals used for water treatment before and during the embargo. Because of this, approx. 500'000 children have died in Iraq due to infections (UN estimation). Is that fair?

    - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby and others (unfortunately now part of the Bush administration) have never made a secret out of the fact that in their opinion, US Forces should control the Middly East (read http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...sDefenses.pdf, a product of the think tank they were part of) due to the strategic importance (oil!!!) of the region. Do you really believe Bush's target is democracy for Iraq? If so, why is the US Administration constantly on the side of dictators like the King of Saudi Arabia and other leaders of Arabic nations, none of which are democracies? If the people of these countries would vote, the would definitely vote anti-US, tough ****, wonder why? Maybe because they feel the US government acts arrogantly and exclusively supports Israel?

    - Powell claimed that UN inspectors have only found the tip of the iceberg. US intelligence has been observing Iraq von decades now, if there really are icebergs (weapons of mass destruction), why can't they bring up ANY evidence apart from some tapes and pictures of factories which were later shown to be empty, destroyed or whatever by UN inspectors. That was a very poor show, not convincing at all, but any excuse for war was ok, obviously.

    - Is a christian fundamentalist (in the way Bush seems to be one) any better than any other fudamentalist?

    - You want to be a superpower, but you don't have health insurance for a major part of the people?

    I am aware of the fact that the Bush administration is not USA in general, but the way Bush acts, the US will be a lonely place in the world soon.

    Regards,
    clulup
  19.    #19  
    Originally posted by clulup
    We all agree that Saddam is a cruel criminal who has to be controlled, removed, killed, whatever. But in this war (like in the last) children, women, men will be killed who did not chose to be ruled by him. And don't forget: Saddam only is in power because of the US - they thought he would be usefull against Iran - but that's another story.
    What would be an acceptable number? How many civilians are you willing to let die to remove Saddam? There has to be a number. It may be 0. It may be a billion. What is it? As for the argument "Saddam is only in power because of the US," you rightfully dismiss it because it is irrelevant. The best we can do now is what is best for the world now. Why past mistakes (indeed I've never seen proof the region would be better off without outside influence) should weigh on present decisions is beyond me. That's like saying we shouldn't send aid to starving kids because we didn't send them aid last year, and thousands of children died because of it. It's not sound logic.
  20. #20  
    If there is no other way, as a last measure it seems acceptable that some people die if a greater number can be saved. But we had not arrived at this point now. The threat Saddam was under control right now (inspections in progress), there is no proof he still has weapons of mass destruction, and even if, the inspectors were progressing.

    Remember anthrax? There the Bush administration claimed it came from Saddam, too, until it was just too obvious that it was home-made US anthrax. Any excuse is ok for him, but who believes him, outside of the US?

    Regards,
    clulup
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions