You wanted to say...:

minyoo - 2003-07-18 04:49:48
Can't wait for 2004 to come. I now do believe that we can take the Fat Oil Frat Boy down.
-------------------------------
eyesopen - 2003-07-18 19:52:07
Soon, hopefully, most Americans will know the obvious: (1) that Bush and Cheney, et.al. had plans to invade Iraq before they even stole the election. (2) that their reasons were to control middle eastern oil, and to establish a US empire, as documented on the PNAC website, but that (3) they couldn't disclose these plans as Americans would never buy them, (4) so they had to wait for any excuse to invade Iraq, and (5) that 9-11 gave them the "Pearl Harbor" they were hoping for, so (6) they immediately tried to blame Iraq, but had to go after Afghanistan first, then (7) raised the drumbeat and twisted the intelligence to tie Iraq to the "war on terrorism" so (8) they could invade and take over the oil fields, under the guise of "liberation." This is no conspiracy theory, but merely stating the obvious, which will eventually make it into the mainstream media, we hope. Thanks, Ravyne for helping people to open their eyes.
-------------------------------
Bill F. - 2003-07-18 19:55:55
I think you are oversimplifying things. Don't kid yourself, there are WMD's over there in Iraq and it may take years to find them, after all, they're hidden. If you want to make an issue about lies in speeches well you'd have to fire every one who ever held office. And there's questions about if the reports are accurate or not. It is a fact that Saddam's people have been trying to get their hands on Uranium, plutonium, etc for years. The only question is, was this report accurate or not. Would you care to dispute the evidence unearthed, literally, of the use of Nerve Gas to execute political prisoners in the Desert in 1995? He had a program of WMD, he used them repeatedly and he had a rocket booster that could reach far in excess of what he was allowed by the UN, who in the words of one pundit, "Couldn't break up a cookie fight at a Brownie Meeting." I have children, I don't want them to die in some war, but I for CERTAIN don't want them to die in their homes or cars either. Some things are worth fighting for. You may choose to like him or not, I'll bet you voted for his opponent which sort of makes you... hmmm.... not exactly neutral in this does it? Well, good, because who needs neutrality? Its all about opinions and expressing them, but we should also try to make sure we are not just looking for justification of a position instead of evaluating one. Peace!
-------------------------------
Ravyne - 2003-07-19 07:15:07
Actually Bill F. No, I didn't vote for Gore, so you just made an ass of yourself for assuming anything about me. I actually voted for BUSH and believe me, if I could take back my vote and have it matter, I would. Next time ask before making assumptions.
-------------------------------
ExodusNights - 2003-07-19 11:45:50
Bill F., your comment about "firing everyone in office" was rather disconcerting. Is there no such thing as an honest leader? What is wrong with humanity, then? And, incidentally, there are more than one kind of lie. Not all are firing-worthy. Nixon and his Watergate? Definately worthy. Clinton and his penis? None of our damned business. Bush Jr. and his waste of life? Definately worthy.
-------------------------------
tigerknight - 2003-07-20 07:02:26
Regarding the 1st Amendment freedoms and soldiers, one of the things that our system has successfully achieved (a very rare triumph) is a separation between the military and the political branches, so that military commanders cannot second guess the commander in chief (or take over the country directly). A soldier, while serving as a soldier, cannot publicly condemn a superior officer (recall MacArthur's criticism of Truman, which led to his removal despite successes in Japan and in the Korean War). Were the system otherwise, a popular general with battlefield successes could threaten the democratic processes (recall Julius Caesar doing exactly that, and thus ending the Roman Republic)...this is not to say that I don't welcome criticism of Bush, or soldiers participating in the political processes as voters, but believe it or not, Ravyne, if our military were permitted to exercise completely free speech, the danger to the military and to the political branches would be considerable, potentially destroying the Constitutional order and harming both structures.
-------------------------------

so tell me...:

who are you?:
where can I email you?:
do you have a URL to share?:

Ahhhh...thanks, I needed that!

back to the entry - Diaryland