Call off the hounds, Jethro!

[The Fishing Geek]

Looks like ol' George W needed more terrorist hype to keep the embers of war burning over the holidays.

FBI says they have no proof that the 5 suspected terrorists are in the US, nor do they have any proof that they have links to terrorism at all.

This whole thing is shameless.

[TheRogue]

Well, the government is in a Catch 22 situation. There has been such an uproar over the whole "silence" and "secrecy" of this administration....and now when they release something, and don't have any proof, they get lambasted.

Personally, I have no problems with the warning, they wouldn't have the names if they didn't have something to connect them with.

I think the administration has been so focused on the war with Iraq that even some in the Rep camp have started reminding them that the war on terrorism is the reason we're involved (supposedly :whazzup: :whazzup: ). So, they had to get something out there in the public's eye.

[dogfishboy]

TFG, I share your feelings.

Also, what's with this new requirement that all persons entering and/or leaving the country must fill out some sort of form as to their intentions and it is then kept in a database? Seems like this is the latest in an ongoing effort to reduce our freedom in the name of freedom. Enough is enough. How long before the public sees just what the Bush Administration is trying to do.

[Silver Hilton]

Dogfishboy,

I don't think it should be a problem to ask for people's intentions. These are non-us citizens, remember, and it is a priviledge, not a right, for them to enter our country. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to prove identity, and to ask their intentions. Obviously, terrorists are going to lie, and a bit of scrutiny and research may expose that lie. They don't have to provide this information if they do not want to enter the US.

And, if you think about this, this is nothing new about this, nor is it unique to the US. I have been telling the border guards of whatever country I am entering what my business is for years.

Where we agree is when that standard is applied to US citizens. I am a citizen, and haven't committed acts of terrorism yet in my 44 years. I am a bit annoyed at the extension of the legitimate research on terrorists to cover the government's inpsecting my financial doings, which is what the latest act of tyranny from our government allows.

Anyone following Doonesbury on this topic.

[dogfishboy]

SH, I was under the impression it was for all. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Silver Hilton]

DFB, I don't know who it's for, to be honest. It may well be for all. My point is just that I don't think it's inappropriate for us to be questioning the incoming non-citizens, and I believe it's been standard policy for a while. It's also not new for customs to be looking at where you have been.

I also have been questioned as to my plans every time I've gone into another country. So I don't find it as threatening as many of the other things our enlightened government is trying to enact.

[Joe Schwab]

" Terrorist Hype?" How soon we forget.

[The Fishing Geek]

Originally posted by Capt. Hook:
" Terrorist Hype?" How soon we forget.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Forget what, Capt Hook? Sept. 11? That a president named Bush can use the Drums of War to further their agenda?

Please don't leave your comments open-ended, as I can fill in the blanks with some pretty crazy stuff.

[CATCH AND EAT]

Where is Jane Fonda now?????? [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

[Joe Schwab]

That you can, I won't disagree with you there.

Just remember, You said "crazy", I didn't.

[ 01-06-2003, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Capt. Hook ]

[SLEDDER]

Capt. Hook is correct in his thinking! In my opinion of course. We have to treat in-coming individuals a little differently. The USA is extremely vulnerable, more so than most people believe. I am speaking from a past military experience point of view. Some people need to wake up and look at reality. There is far more going on than the public sees, as far as evidence and reasons to do what we do as a nation. I am not saying I agree 100% with the Bushwacker, but then again I am back to being mister Joe public, I don't know or see everything. We only see what our Media wants us to see. Which in the past has not been didley squat. People open your eyes. Sept. 11th wasn't anything, compared to what they can do with one man. I don't think our Govt. is being strict enough about our borders, or about the illegals within our borders.

[ 01-06-2003, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: SLEDDER ]

[Dancin' Bear]

Originally posted by dogfishboy:
TFG, I share your feelings.

How long before the public sees just what the Bush Administration is trying to do.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Dogfishboy - In you opinion, just what IS the Bush Administration trying to do?? Enlighten me

[Ramstrong]

I'm with sledder on this one. Having been a member of the intelligence community that seems to be a target for the media post 9/11, I can guarantee that there is much more going on that Joe public doesn't know about. I'm sure much has changed in the 5 years since I've been out, but based only on the info I know from then. I have no problem with GW stirring up the embers of war to take care of a real threat to the US. I wouldn't have had a problem taking care of it when I was still in. As a matter of fact I wish we would've.

Is it personal for him? Sure, Saddam tried to kill his dad. Is it a mess that we're partly to blame for? Sure. But it's a world of lesser evils. Our lesser evils of days past can come back as greater evils today. The monster that we helped create has to be dealt with. Even if the american public doesn't know all the reasons.

[ 01-07-2003, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Ramstrong ]

[Joe Schwab]

I'm not here professing the virtues of GW. I do think though he has done an admirable job faced with the myriad of problems, 9-11, the economy, Iraq, North Korea. You can call it sabre rattling or beating the drums of war if you want, but that is what these tinhorn dictators listen to and so far despite the overwhelming support to do so GW has not gone to war with Iraq. I'm perfectly comfortable with what he has done and just maybe it will end without conflict. You can't make threats or back down tyrants without a show of force.

I spent my time in the military (8 years) during Vietnam and know from that perspective that the military respects and will follow a true leader. They will neither respect nor follow a spineless CIC.

I also recruited for the Air Force during that time and found hundreds of young educated men and women willing and ready to go and serve their country. This was at a time when the country was really split over an extremely unpopular war. Regardless of what eventually became the legacies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, they were strong supporters of the military and respected by those in uniform.

I see more dedication and willingness to do a job in today's military. Let's hope a strong resolve can break the back of these despots and no one will have to go to war.

Maybe then we can take care of our borders and solve the problems at home.

[ 01-07-2003, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Capt. Hook ]

[Gun Rod Bow]

Geek, Dogfishboy,

Are you the same guys that think as Hillary does...BUSH KNEW BUSH KNEW...

You can't be serious.

What about the outrage post 9/11 that we hadn't done enough? How much is enough?

It is healthy to be concerned about civil liberties and encourage discourse on the subject.

Personally if having my internet trafffic, financial dealings (overseas) and the like monitored means that we catch bad guys before they kill my neighbor...I'll bear all.

I'm with Sledder, Ramstrong and a large majority of the American public. Look me over if you want...just keep catching bad guys. I don't need all the details, just results.

I'll rely on Geek to tell me when the Guvment is after me.

GET 'EM W!!

GRB

[dogfishboy]

DB,
I already broke one of MY two rules for participation on Ifish. If I answered your question I would be breaking it again. We could discuss it on Saturday, but that's not going to work because that would brake rule #2 when I'm fishing. Sorry , guess you'll have to draw your own conclusions. :grin: Seriously, these issues are obviously far too polarized and I'm just not interested in being sucked into a debate.

MY Ifish rules:
Rule#1. Stick to fishing and fish related topics.

Rule#2. Have fun.

My fishing rules:
Rule#1. Stick to fishing and fish related topics.

Rule#2. Have fun.

GRB, [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img] HRC in 2008! couldn't resist

[The Fishing Geek]

Capt. Hook,

As a person who served his country in Vietnam, how does it make you feel when Bush avoided the war by having his Daddy pull strings to get him into the Texas National Guard? He was nowhere near the top of the list at the time, but he got in anyway. Also, how do you feel about Bush going AWOL for over a year? There's no honor in that, and past millitary personnel that I've talked to always talked about soldiers who went AWOL as lower than scum.

How about how the rest of the Bush Administration avoided war (except, obviously, Powell)? Each of them dodged service in their own special way when their country needed them the most.

Just curious, not trying to be inflammetory at all.

[Joe Schwab]

Geek, I'm not into reading the National Inquirer. But you are dead wrong when you say joining the Guard or Reserves is dodging the draft. Where did GW go when he went AWOL? The Military is pretty thorough about prosecuting crimes, especially those committed against the military. I'd like to know the circumstances. AWOL is a relative term and can mean anything from not signing in on time to someone screwing up your leave orders.

You do a great disservice to the Guardsmen and Women when you call it (National Guard) draft dodging. Even getting a legal deferrment was and is not draft dodging. I had plenty of friends who stayed in college, got married and had kids to avoid the draft. I certainly don't hold that against them as it was legal and in their mind the thing to do. I consider myself very lucky to have had the experieince of the military at that time and also consider myself fortunate that I did not have to go to the jungles.

Marines considered the Air Force draft dodging in a tongue in cheek sort of way. I helped several young men and women get into the National Guard during the 60s because our quotas were full and they simply did not want to go the ground pounder route. Are you then implying I aided and abetted a draft dodger. Please don't say it is so!

[Dancin' Bear]

Dogfishboy - I am really looking forward to Saturday. Looks like we are getting lucky with the forecast because the rain is supposed to start coming down pretty hard late Saturday afternoon.

I like your two rules. I should start using them!! :smile:

See ya Saturday morning.

p.s. For some reason I don't know whose initials GRB are??

[The Fishing Geek]

Capt. Hook,

Please read this article and this article published by the Boston Globe about George Bush and his Guard record between 1972 and 1973. These questions remain.

Even Mr. Personality himself, Al Gore, served in Vietnam, even though his father was against the war. Sure, he was a journalist but he at least went over. Bush hid in the Guard, and compared to actually serving overseas the Texas Guard IS hiding.

[ 01-08-2003, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: The Fishing Geek ]

[Dancin' Bear]

This quote is taken from the Boston Globe article that Geek gave us a link to above...

"In interviews last week, Guard officials from that era said Bush leapfrogged over other applicants because few applicants were willing to commit to the 18 months of flight training or the inherent dangers of flying.


As a pilot, the future governor appeared to do well. After eight weeks of basic training in the summer of 1968 - and a two-month break to work on a Senate race in Florida - Bush attended 55 weeks of flight school at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia, from November 1968 to November 1969, followed by five months of full-time training on the F-102 back at Ellington.


Retired Colonel Maurice H. Udell, Bush's instructor in the F-102, said he was impressed with Bush's talent and his attitude. ''He had his boots shined, his uniform pressed, his hair cut and he said, `Yes, sir' and `No, sir,''' the instructor recalled.


Said Udell, ''I would rank him in the top 5 percent of pilots I knew. And in the thinking department, he was in the top 1 percent. He was very capable and tough as a boot.''


A lot of people on Ifish question Bush's intelligence. You can't skate by and fake flying an F-102 Fighter Jet. I had a buddy who was tops in his class at Notre Dame then went onto the Navy to try and fly fighter jets. He could not hack it. He requested a DOR (drop on request) and got out of the Navy. To be the top 1 percent in your class for flying fighter jets shows to me that GW is a lot smarter than people give him credit for.

As to this so called "mysterious 1 year lapse in his National Guard duty", what I took from that article is he ended his flying and concentrated on other things. If he showed up for his one weekend a month and sat at a desk shuffling papers, would that have satisfied you??

You grasp the only questionable piece of information from Bush's past and turn it into an internet urban legend story. The left media was so desperate to taint Bush back in 2000 that they took these rumors, poor memories from old, retired National Guardsmen, probably misplaced records (the federal government losing paperwork?? No Way!! ) and proceeded to speculate on such a grand scale that it is funny.

Just my .02 to this thread...

[AuntyM]

Mr Fishing Geek is an expert on military service?

So Dave, what branch were you in and what years did you serve?

[The Fishing Geek]

Geez, Dancing Bear. I had no idea that you worked for the motion picture advertising industry. Only someone who could take a reviewers comment like "It is astonishing that movie executives would give this piece of work the green light" and make it "an astonishing...piece of work" could take two long articles questioning how GWB got into the Texas National Guard as a favor of the Speaker of the House in Texas and where he was when he didn't show up for duty and make them look pro-Bush. You must have great faith in your colleagues in that they won't read both articles and find out what they say for themselves. Or you are so incredibly close-minded that the rest didn't register.

Maybe he didn't show up because he was suspended from flying because he refused to take a physical? I mean, there were Air Force flight surgeons in Montgomery, Alabama at the time who could have given him his physical if he wanted to take it. Instead, he went AWOL. And whether he was supposed to push papers on a desk (decidedly more cushy than fighting overseas, for sure) or run circles on a track, the point remains that he was AWOL. However, I'm sure that's excusable if you want it to be.

AuntyM:

So nice of you to join us in the conversation. How many years did you play football? What teams? What positions?

I never claimed to be an expert on the military. I merely stated what has been the opinion of the non-partisan (and a few partisan) military vets that I have spoken with, and that is serving in the National Guard stateside is a far cry easier than serving in the jungles of Vietnam. If anyone can debate otherwise I would love to hear it.

[AuntyM]

You've never served Dave, yet you are critical of someone else's service?

I thought so.

[The Fishing Geek]

Yeah, Marsha. And I've never been the president yet I find this one unacceptable. I'm just crazy like that I guess.

So, now you're going to tell me that serving in the Texas National Guard is just as hard and dangerous as Vietnam, or any other war, right? Go ahead. This outta be good.

[Silver Hilton]

I'll 'fess up.

I have criticized the management of Enron, and think Ken Lay should be in jail, yet I have never been a CEO.

I have criticized government waste, but have never worked for government.

I have condemned abuse of children, but have never molested any myself.

I have been so brash as think Edward Morris might have done wrong, but my wife and kids are still walking around.

I guess, by your standards, I shouldn't criticize these folks. No, I'm not suggesting that this is what GW did, I'm setting up extreme cases to show how silly your statements are.

C'mon, folks, do you really think that we can never be critical of someone unless our life path has been exactly the same? I'm all for being careful, thoughtful and doing your homework before reaching a decision. But I call BS on this notion that anyone who has served in the military is immune from criticism from anyone who hasn't.

Of course we can be critical of others if we have different experiences. It simply behooves us to be thoughtful and analytic about it, or we may not accurately interpret what we see.

Further, anyone who runs for public office, particularly of the highest office in the land, opens themself to exactly this type of scrutiny. That old saw about the heat and the kitchen applies.

For the record, I tried to join in 1982, didn't pass the physical (too nearsighted).

[Joe Schwab]

Geek, You are setting the bar way too high for Politicians in this country. Only a few would qualify under your standards. Holding anyone to standards set by someone who admittedly has "never been there" is not what 65% of the population wishes. There are a few, McCain, Kerry, Dole, Kennedy (John), Eisenhower and many more that simply do not come to mind that had been there and done that. Many others had never been there still made outstanding leaders. And some, well let's just say------.

I have an idea. Why don't you pay a visit to the Texas National Guard and tell them what you think of their service to the country?
Draft dodgers?

The Boston Globe reporting on a story that occurred years ago in Texas sounds a little like " Hey cub reporter, there's nothing going on in Massachusets these days. Martha's Vineyard has been really quiet. Go see what you can find out about Texas."



[ 01-09-2003, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Capt. Hook ]

[AuntyM]

If you want to criticize his politics, be my guest.

Was my brother's contribution less during Vietnam for being in the Navy instead of the Marines? Never mind that he spent two tours offshore there and was fired upon often? The Veterans Administration doesn't discriminate between the branches of service.

What should we do with our Veterans? Establish a "point" system to see who is more worthy? Guys who saw combat on land are more worthy than those at sea? I am sure the Drill Instructors who only did one tour in combat are not nearly as worthy of your respect as the Corporal who did two tours of combat?

Feel free to tell all the reservists recently called up that their service is a joke. I am sure the concerns they and their families have is of no no sweat to the some of you.

[The Fishing Geek]

You're grasping at straws, Marsha, and it's really silly. Let me say this again: George Bush had his Daddy pull strings to get his son into the Texas National Guard. I'm not downplaying the difficulty of what the average recruit goes through in the National Guard, I'm saying that during a time of war he avoided serving his country overseas and instead stayed back at home, and even THEN he couldn't bring himself to show up for over a year.

If he really wanted to serve his country during war, then why didn't he get his Daddy to pull strings to get him into the Air Force overseas? Why is it that the sons of Senators and other big-time politicians at the time usually went into the National Guard? Might there be a reason for that? Before you answer, remember that both Al Gore and John McCain served their country overseas, and had very influential fathers.

[AuntyM]

Who is grasping at straws? Had he been called up, how do you know what he would have or wouldn't have done? Your crystal ball tell you what his actions his daddy would have taken? Pure speculation on your part. Guess what, that's just pure silly.

You're insults never have won you any arguments and they never will.

We learned many lessons from Vietnam and one of those lessons is how to fight a war and limit our own troops exposure to fire. We can do this because of technology and FATHERS who don't want to see their sons die in a conflict.

Funny, some day it may be DJ's son going off to war. You wouldn't pull any strings to keep him safe DJ? Uh huh, that's what I thought.

Only DJ has a right to decide what is best for the rest of the world.

[Boedy]

I would like to point out to Geek that just because he was in the guard doesn’t mean he couldn’t be called up to go to Vietnam. In fact I know of many guards men that where called to active duty to serve in Vietnam. Officers especially fighter pilots are rotated out of a combat zone often and they need replacements all the time. I am sure we could find more them one pilot that was called up from the Texas air guard. Should he have volunteered to serve in Vietnam? Would you have?

Even if he went active duty there is a good chance you could have served in the USA or Europe and never seen combat. Maybe he didn’t want to make a life in the air force ether way when GW was in the guard good old Bill didn’t even do that he pulled in every favor he ever had to stay out of the draft (Coward). He spent the War smoking weed and bad mouthing his country in Europe instead.

I couldn’t see a great War Hero like George Bush pulling strings to insure his sons wouldn’t have to fly combat missions and from what I read he didn’t.

[AuntyM]

had his Daddy pull strings to get his son into the Texas National Guard

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">So let me get this straight.... only "Fortunate Sons" served in the National Guard during the Vietnam War?

I don't suppose it ever occured to Davey that anyone physically qualified and of legal age could enlist in the National Guard. :grin:

What is REALLY funny though, is that Davey choses to "party" over here on Ifish, but doesn't dare post this crappola on Steelheader.net where he is also a member. Probably due to the fact that there are many Steelheader.net board members that are servicemen stationed at the Naval Bases, Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base.

[Cool Texan]

Bush dodged stuff?? Damn, I bet that infuriates real servicemen like Powell, Schwartzkopf, and Clinton. Oh wait...

Besides...who cares what Bush did or didnt do in the military? It doesnt change how well he has handled the post 9/11 situations.

Who on this board never had their father get them out of a jam? I did...several times. Others, did your folks ever get your butt out of a sling for you?

Remember, sitting back and bit...um, complaining as an armchair quarterback is easy. Doing something about it is not.

Not taking jabs at anyone...just get tired of the armchair folk who think they can do better without being able to clearly outline what exactly they would do.

Heres a few names that I want to share.

Robert P. Gardener - KIA 7-69 My brothers best friend
Dennis R. Estes - KIA 6-66 Our hometown high school football hero
David Gilmore - KIA 3-71 My next door neighbor

These young men's families wish they could have kept their sons out of harms way in VietNam. Ask yourself this! If you could keep your son from combat by pulling strings or using your influence would you?
Something to think about....

[RichH]

Shane,

Absolutely!!!!!

I wouldn't blink an eye about going myself but I want much better for my kids and I will do anything in my power to achieve it.

[The Fishing Geek]

Originally posted by AuntyM:
Funny, some day it may be DJ's son going off to war. You wouldn't pull any strings to keep him safe DJ? Uh huh, that's what I thought.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Sure, Marsh. I'll give a call to the Speaker of the House for the State of Oregon when I need a favor and I'm sure that he'll pull through for me. Please!

It's sad that so many people see this abuse of power as acceptable. Al Gore went off to war even though his dad was very much VOCALLY against the war. Could he have shuttled his son off like George did into a safe harbor? Probably, but at least Gore had the cajones to serve when his country was at war.

If we were at war when I was younger and single and my country needed me, I would have served my country with pride. If we are at war when my son or daughter are of age and his country needs them, then I would expect that they serve as well. I would only hope that if they do go off to war that it's an honorable one, and not one motivated by corporate greed.

Yes, Marsha. It DID occur to me that anyone of age and fitness could join the Guard back then. As a matter of fact, so many did that there was a waiting list about 500 long. Thanks to string-pulling, George got pushed to the top of the list. Must have been his grades.

Boedy:

Sure he could have been called up. It's quite possible that is the reason why he chose to get himself grounded from flight and then disappear for a year. Maybe too many of his buddies were getting called up? Hard to know why someone would do that, but last I heard being grounded for failing to get your physical completed and then going AWOL wasn't the most noble of choices.

Shane:

Nobody in their right mind wants their child to go off to combat. However, if I was a public official and many of my constituents sons and daughters were going to war then it would be abuse of power if I made it so that my kids didn't go do their service as well. They should be treated no differently.

Lastly Marsha, my reasons for drastically scaling back of all posts over at steelheader.net have nothing to do with this "crappola", as you so eloquently put it. If you'd like to know why, then ask me in email where it belongs. Actually, I'll extend that to anyone who wants to know, as I've already had people ask me in private.

With that, I'm done with this thread.

[AuntyM]

TFG, you just posted there yesterday.

[Dancin' Bear]

I just have to reply to some of these statements by Geek... My responses are in capitals.

Originally posted by The Fishing Geek:

Yes, Marsha. It DID occur to me that anyone of age and fitness could join the Guard back then. As a matter of fact, so many did that there was a waiting list about 500 long. Thanks to string-pulling, George got pushed to the top of the list. Must have been his grades.
HERE IS A DIRECT QUOTE TAKEN FROM THE BOSTON GLOBE ARTICLE THAT GEEK GAVE US A LINK TOO "In interviews last week, Guard officials from that era said Bush leapfrogged over other applicants because few applicants were willing to commit to the 18 months of flight training or the inherent dangers of flying." WELL TO ME THAT SOUNDS LIKE BUSH WAS WILLING TO TAKE ON A DUTY THAT WAS VERY DANGEROUS THAT MOST WERE NOT WILLING TO DO. IT IS INTERESTING HOW YOU IGNORE THESE STATEMENTS AND DIRECT QUOTES FROM SOMEONE THAT WAS THERE, BUT ZERO IN ON THE SPECULATION AND RUMORS FROM THE ARTICLE.


Sure he could have been called up. It's quite possible that is the reason why he chose to get himself grounded from flight and then disappear for a year. Maybe too many of his buddies were getting called up? Hard to know why someone would do that, but last I heard being grounded for failing to get your physical completed and then going AWOL wasn't the most noble of choices. WERE YOU THERE? WERE YOU IN HIS HEAD? I HAVE READ PAST THREADS WHERE YOU HAVE LAMBASTED PEOPLE FOR SPECULATING LIKE YOU JUST DID ABOVE. YOU DEMAND "PROOF AND FACTS AND ARTICLES". HMMMM....

[/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">

[Boedy]

Geek,

Was he (GWB) charged with AWOL? Cant see how he wouldn’t be if he was gone as long as you say.


As you have never served your country I guess all you have to go on about the military is what you see on TV and in the movies. Let me assure you that it is not like you think. You don’t just disappear for a year and pretend that you never where in. His Chain of command would not sit by no matter who his daddy was and let him blow of a flight physical and run away. Sounds to me like you are calling GW a coward and a liar with out the proof to back it up. You are also saying that his father pulled strings for him to stay out of combat I would like to see the proof of that as well and not just hear say.

Lots of people served in the guard during the war and there where enough patriotic pilots volunteering to go that I doubt they had any problems filling the slots. He was not some enlisted private in the infantry that was taken off the plane on route to Vietnam. The fact that he didn’t go active duty does not make him a coward………………..like Bill Clinton.


Show me his medical records where he faked an injury or let his flight physical lapse to get off flight status.

I would also like to see the courts marshal paperwork for his AWOL conviction. No one just stops going to guard for a year and walks away free and clear. His DD 214 would shed some light on the subject as to his full military record.

the last people who should be calling GW a coward and draft dodger in the first place.

You should just thank him for serving his country in the military and for protecting your freedom doesn’t matter if he went to Vietnam or not.

And until you have some proof other then hear say that he cheated his way out of a tour in Vietnam respect him for doing more then most of your pot smoking flag burning hippie buddies where willing to do then..

[ 01-10-2003, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Boedy ]

[Silver Hilton]

Boedy,

I really think we would do better in these discussions if we didn't label each other, as in "left wing ******". The following paragraph is how the discussion proceeds if I use the same tone and tactic.

&lt;INSULTING TONE&gt;You really don't get it, do you, you? Left wing ******? I'm sure it looks like it to you, because you probably think Attila the Hun got too moderate in his old age. The wealthy of this country use you know-nothing ignorant knee jerk wannabee-middle-class republicans as cannon fodder to protect the system that preserves their superwealth. It's amazing - you don't have any of the money, you're never going to get the money, and yet you're willing to die for the people who do have the money. They've even got you convinced that if you put yourself at risk in the military, that you're special, rather than being stupid. You're nothing but modern day serfs and you don't even know it! I bow in awe at the success of the propaganda, though your mental insignificance certainly makes the job of convincing you easy. Why don't you go back into your trailer, twist the baling wire so the door will stay closed and turn WWF back on!&lt;/INSULTING MODE&gt;

I'm now going back to respectful mode. That was fun, but I'm not by nature a rude person. In the previous paragraph, I applied a label to you that was putting you down (know nothing ignorant, etc), insulted you without responding to the argument (you don't have the money, etc), and condescended to you (go back into your trailer, etc).

None of these points had much to do with your argument, and they prove nothing other than I could probably be a jerk with a keyboard, should I choose.

If you call someone a left wing ******, it's clear that you think that's derogative, but you haven't done anything to refute the arguments presented. All that is clear is that you've called someone a name. And if the person you've directed the name at is not a left wing ****** and has never laid eyes on a person who would think about burning an American flag, they just shake their head. And write lengthy posts.

Now, to your points,

"Protecting our freedom"? In Viet Nam? You'll have to pardon me while I shake my head sadly. Viet Nam was nothing more than a travesty where a series of mistakes, miscalculations, lies and lack of guts on the part of our countries leadership caused 57,000 young men to be sacrificed for nothing. I mean absolutely no disrespect to those who fought there, and those who dies there. The historical record is clear, however, that we blundered into viet nam, we blundered through it, and thankfully, finally, we blundered our way out of it. And it had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with our national interests.

There hasn't been a significant threat to this country's freedom since WWII, and its questionable to what degree even WWII was a threat to our citizens and soil. Hilter needed to be dealt with, but that's someone else's freedom, not ours.

The rest of the wars have been about protecting our economic self interest and ability to continue to be the dominating force in the world. Even the war on terrorism is not about our freedom. There is no way that Bin Laden is going to take over this country. The war on terrorism is about preserving our ability to act and preserve our presence overseas, which serves mostly to protect our economic interests, and the interests of our allies. And, to be sure, it's about the safety of our citizens as we maintain those objectives. These are important goals, and I agree with them. However, if all we were concerned about was the safety of our citizens, we could retreat to within our borders, quit supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia, and the odds are good that terrorism would cease. I'm not recommending that, just observing it.

But words like 'protecting our freedom' are propagandistic BS. These are great, hot button sound bite phrases that excite the passions. They do a great job of rallying the troops. If your goal is to have troops that are excited, rallyed, and ready to fight without thinking about what they are told, these phrases work well.

But if you sit back and think for a moment, you might come to the opinion that your passions have been stirred, but your mind hasn't been reasoned with.

I for one, get annoyed when someone thinks he can manipulate me that way. If the case for action is strong, it can be made with facts, no need for slogans.

And when people throw slogans at me, my first reaction is they are not comfortable with the facts.

[ 01-10-2003, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[Sea Nymph]

I was once in the National Guard. One Saturday I got mixed up on the date and didn't go to drill. Sometime around 9am, two hours after morning formation they were calling me threatening to press charges unless I was there in uniform within an hour.

I was never late up to that point either.

The unit I was in sure seemed to be quick at handling potentian AWOL's.

I knew a guy who's time was up so he got out. Somehow the paperwork got lost and he was considered AWOL cause' his platoon had a new LT that had the old roster.

I was a cav. scout in a combat unit. When Desert Storm started my unit was activated but the war was over before our departure date. I was in the NG and preparing to go to war and do what I swore to do.

SN

[ 01-10-2003, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Sea Nymph ]

[AuntyM]

Silver Hilton,

I don't give a darn HOW civilized you are. Trying to slant the facts is wrong. How wrong?

There hasn't been a significant threat to this country's freedom since WWII, and its questionable to what degree even WWII was a threat to our citizens and soil. Hilter needed to be dealt with, but that's someone else's freedom, not ours.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Umm, last I heard, there WAS a significant threat to US soil. It was called Pearl Harbor. I am sure the thousands of sailors who died Dec. 07, 1941 are looking down on you right now and now they are very ashamed of your statement. We did not JUMP into World War II to defend others from Hitler. We were forced into it by a merciless attack on our sailors on our soil.

I am thinking you don't know nearly as much as you profess to know if you would forget such a fact. If you did NOT forget it, then you were attempting to make your point with false information. In other words, your propaganda is NOT supported by the facts. Either that or you flunked US and World history.

So your credibility is now ZIP.

[Boedy]

Name calling is out of line and I am sorry that you assumed I was speaking about you. So I will go back and will edit it out.

[ 01-10-2003, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Boedy ]

[Silver Hilton]

Oh, geez, Aunty, fer crying out loud. In addition to bombing Pearl Harbor, they also threw a few in Alaska.. They had subs off of LA, too.

Do you really think they had a chance of occupying, or conquering our soil? They bombed Pearl Harbor in an attempt to short circuit our abilities to contain them in the pacific. Not because they wanted to invade. Though if we were weak, that position might have been different. They wanted to take out our ships, so they could move forward, plain and simple. They bombed us once, and it was tragic.

Now, do you think we took on Hitler because the Japanese bombed us? Does that make sense? Or are there maybe other factors there?

Further, as to your statement that "we were forced into it by a merciless attack on American soil", there is abundant evidence that Roosevelt had significant information that an attack was pending, and sat on the information so that the attack would happen, galvanzing the peasantry into supporting the upcoming war. If that is true, and there are multiple opinions on that, then it's arguable that we were manipulated into it. If you read history, you will remember that the American populace was of an isolationist bent in the late 30's, and was largely against war outside of our borders.

Does that sound familiar?

Anyway, if you look at the statement that you so carefully quoted, I said "since" WWII, and merely observed that WWII itself was debateable, which we have just demonstrated. You think it is, I think it isn't. If you pull out a dictionary, you find that that is what a debate is.

As to my credibility, well, hell, I'm a fisherman. What do you expect?

[Silver Hilton]

Boedy,

I was gonna respond, but I'm worried that we're past the point of discussion, and into making each other mad, and that's not my goal. I'm sorry you think I'm an unpatriotic coward that hates his country, the people that live in it, and all that makes us great. I wish you would remember your dad, who used to **** you off, only because he cared.

May all of us prosper in the coming year,

Andrew

[AuntyM]

Nice back pedal... In case you forgot, Hitler fully expected to conquer us after he finished with Europe. Germany declared war on the US, remember?

But words like 'protecting our freedom' are propagandistic BS.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Hey, SH, you be sure and share that opinion on Bob's board and Marty's board where all the active duty and retired servicemen post. Since many of them are dedicating themselves to that propagandist BS, I am sure they'd like to be set straight.

What really bothers me is that some of your post is right on. But you resort BS to "try" and support your point of view that simply isn't necessary. When you alienate people with comments like the two that stood out to me, you don't force me to think, you just **** me off, and make sure I will lean further to the right. :tongue:

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by AuntyM:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helv">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv"> But words like 'protecting our freedom' are propagandistic BS.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Hey, SH, you be sure and share that opinion on Bob's board and Marty's board where all the active duty and retired servicemen post. Since many of them are dedicating themselves to that propagandist BS, I am sure they'd like to be set straight.
[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Of course they'd be offended. They're the targets of the propaganda. As are you. They're been sold a bill of goods. The people of the world used to be convinced it was flat. Didn't stop it from being round. Propaganda is a well developed, effective science, has been since before WWII.

Why would I concern myself what a bunch of other people believe, if I have have good data to support my beliefs? If a thousand people raise their voices to the heavens that the earth is the center of the universe, does that make it true?

What is happening here is denial. Actually, if you want a really accurate theoretic model, Neuro-linguistic Programming covers it really well, with the concepts of deletion and distortion. See Amazon or your local library for titles if you're interested.

Everything I have said, you have rejected as not fitting your mental model. Part of your mental model appears to be the fact that other people have the same mental model. In order for what I have said to be even partially true, your mental model would have to be partially false, so you have either deleted the message or distorted it. Just ask yourself, if you can, what if the guy on the other side of this screen were: honest, sincere, intelligent, and aware of something I wasn't aware of yet.

What would that imply?

We all operate under a mental model that is inaccurate. That's OK. That's what all of us do, with regards to something, every day. The question is whether you recognize it and try to improve the model as time goes on.

Do you? Or do you believe that the one true world is the one that you currently believe?

My mind can be changed. Can yours? I changed my mind on the Laffer curve earlier today. Have you changed your mind lately?

Ever?

[ 01-11-2003, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[AuntyM]

Can my mind be changed? Considering that is has yet to be made up, I would have to say yes. There is much I don't know and you don't know either. The "intelligence" stuff.

For all we know, this could be a very smart thing to do if it prevents a biological attack here on our soil that would kill millions.

On the other hand, if we are doing this to further the economic well being of some oil barons, I want to know that for certain, so I can use my very limited political ability to try and stop it.

But to use a 35 year old short military career of a very young man to base my opinion on is ridiculous. It is also just as moronic to base my current opinion on World War II.

All we really have here is a bash the President thread. Pretty stupid. I want to be a well informed person and all I have learned here is that there is NO limit to the absurd statements some liberals are willing to make to further their hatred of conservatives.

I don't get into these things to improve my faltering male ego like some of you. I want other boards members to recognize the BS being spouted in this forum.

Like I said, you no longer have ANY credibility no matter how "flowery" you write your statements. Ignoring the facts of history and the truth to influence a topic has been your undoing. Funny, I discussed this whole thing with a "liberal" board member here, and he doesn't seem to think you all are doing very well.

Please keep up your propaganda though. I imagine the silent readers are being very much swayed AGAINST the liberal point of view. :tongue:

[Silver Hilton]

I'm sorry that you're mad. That's always the risk in discussions that touch on politics.

There are still, unfortunately, no fish in Snoqualmie.

[Trophy]

Well, the flame has nearly died out, but I’ll add my two cents here.

I must say that Silver Hilton usually presents well-informed political and financial opinions that I have read in the last few weeks. He’s dead-on when he states that much of the sound bites and rhetoric are propaganda designed to persuade most of us uninformed citizens to embrace their agenda. This is often a necessary evil in having the citizens fully behind what the government is doing. But this “fight on terror(ism)” is clearly politically driven, in my opinion, as the government has gone overboard the needed boundaries to protect us from terrorism while maintaining our freedom and civil rights. This administration (as most) does not want any blame or dissent on their policies on terrorism, so they have retched up the fervor and most have become fearful, yet uninformed.

The start of this thread is a good example of where we are now. Another clear example of over-reaction is the fact that none of the over 900 people captured after 911 have been charged with any crime. While the administration has scared most of the public to death with their constant WMD threats, the fact is that those threats are extremely unlikely to happen. Most chemical and biological experts will testify that pulling off a massive attack requires extensive knowledge and manpower, not to mention being extremely dangerous to the perpetrators to implement. And there is no credible evidence that Al Queda or Iraq has a nuke bomb nor is about to get their hands on one.

This is not to say that we should not try to prevent a possible attack, but it’s beginning to sound like there’s been a few too many ‘cry wolf’ episodes which were completely false. Most of these policies do not hurt most of us who are not of Arab descent, but I empathize with those whose lives have been turned upside down because of the overreaching policies. Hundreds have been imprisoned without a shred of evidence of guilt, and hundreds are still being taken under custody, simply for being suspicious. I just think that Secy. Ashcroft’s overly heavy-handed approach to “prosecuting the war on terror(ism)” is going to backfire and just alienate the people who we need to persuade to be on our side if we are truly going to win this long-term war.

Again, I think Silver Hilton does present many facts regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor, our reluctance to get involved in the war, and the feasibility of them actually invading the USA at the time. In my opinion, we were in danger of eventually being attacked after Germany gobbling up the Europe and Africa, and the Japanese conquering the Asia and Australia. If it wasn’t for the Pearl Harbor, we may not have awakened in time to push back the tide. So we definitely needed to jump in when we did.

As to AuntyM’s assertion that some are being swayed against the liberal point of view, I say that more and more people are deciding against the administration’s positions on the war and demanding a peaceful solution until there is clear evidence. It’s my belief that more people will soon find out that there isn’t an acceptable justification to a bloody war and the Saddam isn’t as much a threat to us as the administration has us believe.

[sinker]

Let's not forget that Japan and Germany were pretty chummy in WWII.

Not to mention the fact that the reason Japan bombed us was we had ticked them off over oil supplies. It wasn't to "slow" us down. They thought they were gonna stop us.Their mentality then is like North Korea's today. Reminds me of those little football dogs that go up and pick a fight with a Rottweiler. Little football dog is gonna get it's head ripped off.

There's alot more thats going on behind the scenes than anyone else knows about. Some people call this "propaganda". I call it someone making up for lost time.

As far as finding a peaceful solution I think someone just tried that for 8 straight years.

[Thumper]

How terribly sad this discussion is. How soon so many forget. What will be their flippant comments after we awaken to find CNN's cameras focused on the smoking hole that was Manhattan. It will happen.

[GutshotApe]

That's right - this isn't a game that we can play using the same old rules. The radical arab terrorists want to kill us and eliminate our civilization and they aren't going to go away any time soon. Americans seem to have very short memories but I have the vivid image etched on my memory of people jumping out of 110-story buildings rather than be burned alive because of Islamic terrorism.

Sure, the terrorists may not be able to wipe us all out at one stroke - but they will try. Ricin (sp?)may not be the most deadly chemical agent but it will do the job and is apparently something the terrorists know how to make for could use in urban areas. Remember the sarin nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway a few years ago?

Yeah, going to war in Iraq is an unpleasant option - but would you rather fight the war here?

[Silver Hilton]

Thanks for the vote of support, Trophy, it can get lonely when you're trying to think for yourself.

I have to disagree with your assessment however, that there is no evidence that Iraq or Al Qaeda (how do you spell that, anyway) is close to getting a nuke. We've seen a lot of evidence this past week that shows N. Korea spinning up the reactors to do produce bombs. N. Korea has a long history of selling missile technology to unstable regions. I am deeply worried that we have not heard the last from that region. I think it is quite credible that Al Qaeda could end up with a bomb that will have korean instruction manuals.

If we're not very careful in the region, N.Korea could easily see the advantage of supplying a bomb to Al Qaeda, to use as a disruptor to the west. Now, I'm sure that Colin Powell can do this math faster than I can, and is already there. The risk is that the difference between Hussein and Kim is that Kim lives in a fantasy land, while Hussein has shown that he is very smart, and very grounded in reality. Hussein, I think, can be managed with credible threats of force. Kim, I worry, is too much of a nut case to be expected to behave rationally.

The further worry is that we get distracted with Iraq, while N. Korea emerges as the greater risk.

Oy, what a time we live in.

History shows that generals have a tradition of preparing to fight the last war, and then running into trouble when rising powers or insurgents refuse to play by the rules. The French Maginot line comes to mind.

Our military strategy in the past has been predicated on the belief that overwheling force, delivered through a combination of technology and the best trained troops in the world, will win.

In Vietnam, we had the opportunity to learn many things. One of those things is that overwhelming force doesn't work well on a dispersed insurgent force. Al Qaeda is a dispersed insurgent force, far more so than the situation was in Vietnam. They have better communications than our old enemy, and it is difficult, perhaps impossible for us to intercept those communications.

Our current miltary strategy seems to be based on the notion that we can go somewhere, kick some behind, and that that will bring this to an end.

I beg to defer. If we knew where to go, that strategy would be great. When Hussein was in Kuwait, it was a great idea, and it worked. I wish we had gone to Bagdad then. We wouldn't be having this discussion. But we didn't.

Now, we are arguing is if the march to Bagdad will have something to do with our risk from Islamic terrorism, when in fact all the evidence available to the common man is there isn't much of a connection. Reducing bagdad to a glowing pit isn't going to change the risk of Manhatten, Seattle, or Portland becoming a glowing pit. It arguably increases the risk, as we run the risk of adding to the ranks of Muslim suicide warriors.

BTW, if I were going to strike terror into the ranks of America, I wouldn't bomb Manhatten. I'd bomb Portland/Vancouver, or one of the Great Lakes ports. What better way to strike fear into middle America than to take out a small, inland port, where the common person could see themselves living? They also have incoming container based freight, the easiest way to smuggle goods into the states. Unload one of those on Swan island, it goes off by timer, and boom!

I'm not against doing something about Hussein. I think we, as a world, have to do so. It's a mistake, however, to think that solving that problem has anything to do with our internal safety. Hussein is a threat to our ability to project force and acheive our economic and political aims in the middle East. He has shown, in the Gulf War, that he can be deterred by threats of massive force, when we told him that use of chemical weapons would result in Bagdag becoming a sea of glass.

Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is a group of people who are very different psychologically from Hussein. Al Qaeda's motivations have little to do with Hussein's. They are religiously motivated, he's a sociopathic meglomaniac. They have a powerbase spread around the world that is based in the teachings of the Loran. He has a geographically narrow powerbase and rules by fear. Al Qaeda's troops are able to and motivated to operate independently without control by their charismatic leader. Hussein's forces are driven by command and control relationships, and have shown little desire to continue to fight when separated from their commander.

The tactics that are valid for Iraq, are likely to be useless for the Al Qaeda. In particular, Hussein doesn't want to die. Radical Muslims are not only not afraid to die, they are explicily taught that it is better to die in pursuit of the betterment of Islam than in any other way. (BTW, Islam and the Koran is not monlithic on this point. Rather, like the bible, the Koran is a document that is capable of beig read many ways. The radical mullahs have plenty of ammunition there, however, to pump up their troops.)

Yet, the American people are being led to believe that the war on Iraq is going to reduce or risk of new terrorist attacks. Since I don't think Rumsfeld and Rice are dumb enough to believe this themselves, this simply an insult to our intelligence.


Some folks have put down the points I am making with the epithet, 'liberal'. My sunday paper had an article describing the resignation of Philip Gold from the conservative think tank, the Discovery Institute. See the article, here.

He thinks much as I do. We have a lot to be proud of, and I'm not one to, as he puts it so well, to blame America first. That doesn't mean, however, that our policies become thoughtful and effective, simply by their being American policies. We still have to try to be smart - it clearly isn't something we're just born with.

He says two things which I think are on point.

"Conservatives have lost their soul. I can't find the core principles anymore - limited government, commitment to civil liberties. These younger conservatives have lost their connection with reality."

and,

"You don't get greatness by pushing people around. You get it by doing great things."

He also disagrees with some of the directions that the Bush government is taking. Did he become a liberal by doing so?

[TheRogue]

trophy.....

To say the North Korean leader is stable appears to be really stretching, at best. Most all of the press reports, including briefings given by the Bush administration, point to the signs that show that while he's not necessarily a fruitcake, he is out of touch with the world.

Please check out this link: Kim Jong

It's been shown that Kim has absolutely no cares for his people...the only thing on his mind is power. You can bet that someone in his circle has suggested the possibility of selling nukes to the highest bidder.

Silver Hilton makes some extremely important points. Rather than people throwing rhetoric at those points, how about refuting them with some sort of factual information.

Sadaam is playing his cards as well as can be imagined. He is forcing the US and Britain to back up their accusations with proof, and, for apparently many reasons, they have chosen not to. IF so much is known about the Iraqi weapons programs, why haven't they given the UN inspections teams access to that intelligence?? Why have the UN teams waited WEEKS for helicopters, when we have 100's within the region?? What does this say to an intelligent person with an open mind??

Personally, I believe that he likely does have some nasty stuff over there, and it's just very well hidden....but why are the US and Britain playing these games??

As for Hitler being "chummy" with Japan....do you honestly feel that the Japanese would ever fit into his "ideal world"?? They were just another pawn, and there were likely some people figuring out how to deal with them as well.

TR

[soozy]

I believe that you liberal folks are naive in the extreme. Either North Korea or Iraq now has, or shortly will have, one or more primitive nuclear weapons. Primitive --- yes. Able to fit in an ocean-going shipping container --- yes. About 20 kilotons --- enough to level any American city and kill millions. Your friends, neighbors and kids.

We can likely assume that either country would sell such a primitive weapon to those (Al Quaeda or others) who would not hesitate to use it against us. We saw how 19 crazies with boxcutters brought down an American institution (the WTC) and zeroed in on the Pentagon. If they had not been thwarted by some true American heroes they would have likely put that fourth jetliner into the White House or the Capitol building.

Do you honestly believe that, given the capability to do it, those same crazies would now hesitate to detonate a nuclear weapon in America? To kill millions rather than thousands? They would delight in doing so. This is no longer a logical world.

My scenario is that such a weapon will be very easy to place aboard a container ship in a harbor proximal to one of America's great cities.

We must take every step necessary to keep that from happening. Every step. That simply means getting rid of the Iraqi threat milatarily and the North Korean threat diplomatically (if possible) or militarily if necessary.

I'd like to ask the liberals --- where is my thinking in error?

Thumper --- using Susan's computer.

[ 01-12-2003, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: soozy ]

[GutshotApe]

Soozy/Thumper - Your logic is impeccable.

[ 01-12-2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[TheRogue]

I agree.....but what about the multitudes of ex-Soviet nukes that are scattered across Eastern Europe and Asia?? Many still believe that will be the easiest way for a terrorist organization to get one.

Guess we need to invade that area as well! :whazzup:

[Silver Hilton]

Trophy,

Your points are fair, but I think they can be addressed.

No, I haven't heard him speak, and I don't speak Korean, anyway, so it wouldn't matter. Is he a nut case? For some documentation on Kim's behavior, see this last week's Newsweek, among other sources. It paints a picture of someone who, while very much in touch with his world, has a long history of erratic, excessive, perhaps even obsessive behavior. For example, when he finally quit smoking cigarettes, he made all of his army officers quit. He subjected an imported chef to what was described as 'brainwashing' on the subject of not putting capers on pizza. He's afraid of flying.

This sounds to me like someone who could easily not be hitting on all cylinders.

But more to the point, has he, or will he sell nukes to Al Qaeda or Iraq? There isn't any data yet that suggests he has already done so, and we all certainly hope that there won't be. But the data we do have is not good:

- much of his foreign exchange comes from missile technology sales, to countries such as Syria and Pakistan. This was done in spite of pressure from others to not proliferate this technology.

- his country is hurting for money. His people are literally starving

- he has acknowledged taking the steps towards making more bombs

- He has just repudiated the non-proliferation treaty.

So, yeah, I think it's a credible threat that he might sell arms to our enemies.

Now, it's also possible, and even likely, that N. Korea is just saber rattling to try and improve their aid program, or to meet some other goals. But it would really stink to be wrong on that point.

[ 01-12-2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[Trophy]

TheRogue,

I didn’t say he’s stable, just not a nutcase. With the amount of pundits we have, just about any unpopular stiff can be described in the most unflattering way, with documentations to substantiate it. Heck, even some of our presidents can be described as sex-crazed, liar, cheater, illegal weapons seller, power-hungry, dogmatic and racist among other labels. My point is that it’s easy to demagogue someone you don’t agree with, much less like. Tell me if anyone of us who doesn’t have quirky, erratic, and excessive behavior in our past? TheRogue, I am certain that if I can assign a couple of capable investigative reporters to dig dirt on you, they probably can come up with far more damaging assessment than that you may wear a four-inch lifts or that you might love to drink $630 a bottle cognac. For starters, I don’t know how you go out in public in those “pants”, but I won’t tell other ifish members about it. I’d much rather be caught dead wearing four-inch lifts than wearing them “pants.” But that’s just me!


Silver Hilton,

My question to you is, are you hitting on all cylinders, all the time? Or is there something I might be able to characterize about you as erratic, excessive, and obsessive? I guess it’s hard for us to describe terrible dictators as merely bad and morally wrong, but it seems obligatory to add myriads of other personal defects that could also easily be attributed to any average person.

This is not to suggest that Kim is a model of a benevolent world leader, but that he’s a dictator who’s desperate enough to use blackmail to get what he needs. His record of selling conventional weapons can’t be compared to possibly selling a nuclear bomb to a terrorist (country). Your fear of being wrong about N. Korea’s potential proliferation of nuclear weapons is no different than this administration’s scare tactics to preemptively strike Iraq without proper justification for it. We definitely want to stop any kind of nuclear weapons from getting into wrong hands, but the reasons you cite just are not valid indications that they’re about to make a such move. BTW, they said that they’re reactivating the plutonium program for electricity generation, and have not acknowledged taking any steps for bomb making.

My opinion is that Bush is going about it in a completely wrong direction by his hostile and provocative foreign policies where they have unnecessarily raised everyone’s tension. He needs to work with other countries and send the right signals, instead of act menacingly with a threat of military attack. We’re only buying resentments from the vast majority of the world due to our government’s attitude. It’s time to act like we’re a part of the global community, instead of acting like a bully.