BS: Bush's Speech II

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: BH
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:30 PM

So much of the semantics used in any description of any person or event becomes loaded. Above was the comment"...Arab-Jewish problem". That denotes a religious aspect to something that should be considered political and perhaps a nationalistic issue. Arabs are not all Moslem--some are Christian. Many live in Israel and were asked to stay during the 1948 war that their brethren started to destroy the state that was mandated by the U.N and world opinion. I would add here that most of the land(then Palestine) was purchased legally from the inhabitants over many years. Many chose to leave at the urging of the aggressor nations with the promise of return. Some remained and are now citizens of Israel. Those who left ---the Palestinans as we now know them --were not then welcomed by the very parties who urged them to leave. Hence the tent camps, etc; And now the fruits of political war(s) are bearing their bitter fruit.

So, it cannot be put in religious terms. As to the terible events in NYC & DC---that has more to do with fanatical religious zealots who hate our way of life and our involvement in the Middle East--specfically Saudi Arabia.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 04:43 PM

Don't underestimate the power of lies to motivate the Islamic world to continue a campaign of hatred no matter what consessions are made.

Today I had to cringe four times as Bush stumbled on his new word "misunderestimateded" not once, but four times.

I have decided to post again despite the PM insisting that I better not post here again. (would administration send such a churlish message? I don't think so)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 12:33 AM

There doesn't seem to be a peaceful answer to the Palestine-Jewish problem does there troll? As I recall, the Clinton Administration tried to get approval from both sides for sharing control of Jeruselem, but it wasn't acceptable to either of them.

I don't think the answer lies in our abandoning Israel though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 12:12 AM

The drivel espoused by a cultist like Bin Laden is useless if the underlying culture stops providing a breeding ground.

The culture provides a breeding ground when there is no path to success, or recognition, or admiration, except by learning to be an extraordinarily ruthless business man who passes the hurdles of entrance by ingratiating himself with power players OR laying himself down for Allah.

The decision to seek _some_ sort of fulfillment for oneself, while living in a culture that teaches you every day that the individual is nothing, is the breeding ground of desperate men who will buy _any_ line of metaphysics that will give them some personal hope of success. That's how cults work, and Bin Laden's cult is no different.

It doesn't _matter_ what the religous invective used is -- because that is the rationalization of opportunity; the underlying decision that natters is to Be Something in a culture that requires you to Be Nothing.

If an economic shift were to occur which would enable the youth to succeed in moving forward and getting somewhere, for example, as entrepreneurs, building an infrastructure, selling plumbing, starting generating stations or whatever the nation would support as a prosperous business, and the theme of "You can become a success!" were tied to secular winsd instead of "..by jumping off to Allah!" you would see the cults of terrorism shrink away.

But that would require the iron fist of radical religous-based government be proed open a little first.

The Taliban has demonstrated on their way up they are more than willing to kill to acquire and preserve power, and they do not much care if the people they send to Allah are husbands, daughters, wives or mothers.

Given that sort of obsessive fanatic control AND a very low-grade economic environment, I'd join a gang, if I were a youth. I'd hope and pray to be tapped for a meaningful mission. Because how else would my life ever acquire any meaning?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 11:50 PM

Doug, don't underestimate the importance of Jerusalem to the Muslim world. The Dome of the Rock is the third holiest spot in the world after Mecca and Medina and it is now under the control of Israel who -as bin Laden sees it- holds it with our help. That makes us "enemies of Islam" and fair game for any good Muslim.
The sad thing is, Jerusalem is also the holiest spot in the world to the Jews, being the site of Solomans Temple (I've said all this before) and now that they have it, they aren't about to give it up.
What's the answer?
Making Jerusalem an international city under UN governance MIGHT work but I can't see any side in the conflict agreeing to it. And it wouldn't stop the likes of bin Laden. He'd just add the UN to his list of enemies of Islam.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 10:55 PM

Kendall: surely you jest. (not about Barry Goldwater) If the United States abandoned Israel there would not be a Jew left in the Middle East. Saddam, with the help of Iran, Syria, Pakastan, Afghanstan and other Arab countries would wipe out Israel without a fare-thee-well.

I think that, however, has less to do with the current situation than the fact (if you believe what bid Laden has written) that the goal of the terriorists is to kill every man, woman, and child in the United States. I for one do not want them to succeed.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 10:55 PM

Kendall, the world believes that if it ever got really bad for Israel in a war, the US would come in on her side. Remove that threat and the situation would be much different.
Israel has a superb defense force but without the massive aid sent by the US it could not be maintained for long. Modern equipment takes a LOT of maintainance. That requires time money and a safe place in which to do it.
Israel is small and modern artillery has pretty good range. An enemy could sit outside the borders and hit almost any place it wanted to. If Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq all attacked at once, coupled with an uprising by the Palastinian Arabs to disrupt things inside the country, I believe that Israel would fall.
For one thing, where would they get fuel if we were not around to insure that suppliers honored their contracts?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 06:28 PM

Troll, do you really think Israel would sink without us? What do we supply them with except weapons? Seems to me, they did pretty well against those terrorists at Entebbi, and that nuclear facility in Iraq without our help. How about we just turn them loose?

Doug, believe it or not, I respected Barry for being a man with strong convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 05:12 PM

We are on a tight rope. The balance between being able to rid every vestige of terrorism and having the cure turn out to be worse than the disease. Medical analogies work well in this new war scenario that we will be fighting from within and without.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: GUEST,CLETUS
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 05:03 PM

Dangit Donuel, me an Paw wuzza reely gittin our mouths set up fer thet salami. Iffen enny of yall ar tockin ta Bill Clinton, cudcha tell him thet weel take thet salami no matter whair itz been cuz it mite tayst even better or leestwize it cudent hurt it all too much. Paw sez lite on the Hilary an mebbee a dash of Chelsea mite be nice.

CLETUS

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 04:42 PM

So we kill off the current crop. Another one comes along, same thing.
IF a terrorist groups goals are politically based, there may be some area of mutual understanding upon which to base negotiations. But when the goal is the complete annihilation of the American people and it's allies wherever possible, I can see very little room for talk.
Yes, we could pull out of the Middle East, adopt solar power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, etc. And bin Laden might call off his Fatwa.
And we would have to live with the fact that we had abandoned Israel to his tender mercies. He would kill them all; man, woman, and child. They would put up one hell of a fight but in the end, the terrorists would win.
And then they might decide to come after us after all.
Better to destroy them now, if we can.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 04:38 PM

Nope, no fishing in Maine this season, McGrath. Maybe next year.

Why don't you make a singing tour out this way? Jed has cleared the way for Mudcatters by making two such tours, one with Emmons Kitchen! I'll show you Barry Goldwater's house! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 02:07 PM

The trouble with trying to eliminate terrorism is that you are only ever able to kill the current generation of terrorists, and in so doing you guarantee the next.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 01:59 PM

Sound a bit like Hell's Angels.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Deda
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 01:13 PM

One of the better short stories I recall was a society so paranoid that they attacked in every direction, and were quite successful at it. They didn't have many friends, but then they didn't have many neighbors, either.

Julius Caesar, in his account of the Gallic Wars, describes one of the many different tribes in Greater Gaul (France, Germany, Belgium, parts of Spain and Switzerland) as believing that it was a sign of strength to have no neighbors, to have wide areas of relative emptiness all around them -- it meant they had driven all their neighbors away. If I remember right (which I often don't--but I have taught this material), this tribe looked down on any kind of farming, and also on private property, and they moved around constantly. They thought that it would make them weak and effeminate if they became attached to land or to houses, or if they got too used to being warm in the winter, too comfortable.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 12:52 PM

Doug, I didn't mean to imply that they were the same. No. The PURPOSE is the same. Gather the troops, convince them that its kill or be killed. Works everytime.(Except in the case of those guys who moved to Canada rather than fight in Viet Nam. Surely you must see that Bush is lying when he says "They" hate freedom? and that Bin Ladan is lying when he says "America is out to destroy Islam"?

Fishing season is all over, and you didn't get to Maine. Too bad, maybe next year.?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 12:48 PM

Hmmm. I doubt Cletus will be interested in it once he learns what Clinton probably used it for.

I wouldn't want to presume to speak for Cletus, though, after all, second guessing isn't something one usually finds on the Mudcat, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 12:15 PM

Cletus , Clinton stopped by and spotted the salami. HE asked if anyone wanted to play hide the salami , whatever that means . I haven't seen the salami since but will let you know if it turns up.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: GUEST,CLETUS
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 12:12 PM

Donuel, I wuzza wundrin iffen ya had enny newz on az ta wen we mite be gittin the salami?

CLETUS

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 12:05 PM

Not that I could do much better but I have noticed anytime Bush lose's his train of thought we hear him say,"...and I,..er , Make no mistake about it.. we ..ah er..."

I suppose its better than saying "where was I?" Kennedy used to make fun of the times he would lose his place much to the delight of the audience.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: GUEST,Glenda (53 at work)
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 11:54 AM

DougR,

I am not really new to Mudcat, just don't share my opinions a lot, but I enjoy reading others. Yes, I will share my poem when I have turned it in and am free to pass it along. Or perhaps poetry.com will have it online then, with my others, under my full name - Glenda Atwater.

Thanks for the welcome tho'.

G

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 11:47 AM

Philip K. Dick wrote some great psychological science fiction stories and books in the 60's. One of the better short stories I recall was a society so paranoid that they attacked in every direction, and were quite successful at it. They didn't have many friends, but then they didn't have many neighbors, either. His point was that it was possible to have a condition we currently regard as mentally unbalanced to be also a survival indicator.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 09:17 AM

Maybe because I went to grade school in Denver while they had weekly nuclear air raid drills, maybe because my parents were well versed in the horror of war but I had this actual dream when I was 11 that remains vivid to this day.

"there was a brief simple warning on TV that a nuclear attack had been reported and there was less than 5 minures to prepare. Looking out my door I could see the neighbors doing the same. At first there was a silent disbelief but was followed in seconds by cries of outrage and blame. Neighbor blaming neihbor for an enemy unseen about to kill us all. The voices overlapped each other ,heated and wild, as to whom to blame while many scurried for cover until there was again only silence and a sudden bright light."

Having thought of that dream for many years the overall feeling I recall of the penultimate moment when all were arguing and blaming, is that we were all to blame in some way beyond our understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 09:13 AM

"Presumptuous, deluded, irritating"?
Moi?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Skeptic
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 01:18 AM

troll,

Condescending? I think not. Presumptuous, deluded, irritating? Undoubtedly.

(before you go getting all excited about me admitting you are irritating: a minor itch is also irritating. I put you in that class. I will leave it to others to figure out where the itch is.)

But fun all the same.

kendall,

I think what bin Laden has been doing is somewhat more profound and deep seated than what Bush is doing.

But I agree. In their mind, the attack was completely justified and ordained by Allah and if we try to Americanize their motives, we are probably headed for disaster. "Winning the minds and hearts of the Vietnamese" comes to mind as a failed example from our past. On the other hand, much of what MacArthur did in Japan after WWII may serve as a partial model. Before we can begin to affect change we need to know what we have to work with.

It may be comforting for some to mis-characterize bin Laden as a psychopathic criminal. Psychopathic he may be, but his actions (or his followers anyway) are motived by absolute religious conviction. Believing anything else would seem to be a prescription for failure.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 12:22 AM

Kendall, my friend, have you heard of the "Rape of Nanking?" I think your example of the Japanese troops raping white missionaries might not be a good example.

If it please you liberal folks to believe that Powell is "running things," okay by me. So long as we get the job done.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 02:11 PM

Guest nobody, I meant to add, We must deal with things as they are, not as we wish they were. Where they stand, they have good reason to attack us. The fact that you dont think they did is irrelevent. Disagree all you want, No amount of belief can create a fact. And the fact is, They DID attack us, and the fact is they had good reason to.(in their minds) That's what we must deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 02:03 PM

I SAY AGAIN...I HATE WHAT THEY DID, I DONT APPRECIATE BEING ACCUSED OF AGREEING WITH THOSE NUTS. WHY ARE YOU UNABLE TO HEAR ANYTHING BUT THE BLOOD POUNDING IN YOUR EARS?? DO YOU REALLY THINK THIS WHACKO GOT UP ONE DAY AND DECIDED TO ATTACK US FOR NO GOOD REASON? USING YOUR LACK OF REASON HERE, IT'S THE OLD STORY OF, iT ALL STARTED WHEN HE HIT ME BACK!

If you need to believe that we are lilly white and they are diry black, go ahead. Live in your dream world. ONCE MORE THEY FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT WE ARE THE ENEMY. bIN lADAN IS LYING TO HIS SUPPORTERS BY TELLING THEM THAT WE ARE OUT TO DESTROY iSLAM. bUSH IS LYING TO US BY TELLING US THAT THEY HATE FREEDOM. iT'S A CLASSIC CASE OF "STIRING UP THE TROOPS."

I remember during WW2 seeing a film that showed Japanese soldiers raping white missionaries. Nothing but propaganda. I dont believe anything my government tells me anymore. I am glad to see that Bush is using Powells head in this. My fear was that he would bomb Afghanistan. Sure, we could make a radioactive parking lot out of that whole area. What would that do besides make many more people hate us?

Someone should tell Bush that Afghanistan doesn't have any ports, being landlocked and all, so, it would be hard to blockade them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 01:39 PM

Condescending?

Interesting word that. My dictionary gives three meanings:

1)To behave with humility, by consenting to perform offices, or accept positions, of a more lowly character than those to which one is entitled by one's merits, attainments, etc.

2) To stoop to unworthy actions, to lower oneself, demean oneself by undignified or low conduct.

3) To behave with affability in one's social or intellectual relations with inferiors, although retaining and to some extent expressing in manner, a full consciousness of superiority.

I wouldn't say that's Troll in any of those senses. A degree of irritation maybe, but that's not the same thing at all.

(And my "exception" wasn't anybody posting on the Mudcat. Someone a lot less articulate than that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:45 PM

Bush tried? Who, Donuel, determines whether or not he succeeded, Donuel?? You? I do think not mentioning Canada in his speech was a goof, but I don't think Canadians favor starting WW3 over it.

Troll: No. My experience (which has been considerable over the years) with Greg F. is he is not the easiest person in the world to discuss things with...unless you agree with him. However, one also has the right to be disagreeable, I suppose, just as one has a right to say anything they want on a particular subject.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:03 PM

Bush tried to make up for the Canadian ommission today by appearing with the prime minister of Canada and blames politics for twisting his words (or lack of them).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 11:53 AM

Ahh... good point Kendall. Freezing thier assets may make them do something horrible, possibly costing thousands of lives. Oh... wait... they have already. Funny, I don't see how those people that died started anything. Oh... that's right... they live here. And of course anyone who lives in America is guilty. Hmmmm... sounds pretty much like you agree with Bin Ladin...

just disgusted, this has nothing to do with political actions, this has nothing to do with sanctions. Bin Ladin has stated his hatred for our country, he needed no reason to do what he has done to this country. But if it makes you feel better that we deserved it... I suppose that is how you deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 11:32 AM

kendall:

I don't agree that we started it, anymore than we started Pearl Harbor. We had and have policies that not everyone agrees with, but there are other means of response, such as ceasing rather nasty agressions which they (The Taliban, the PLO, Hamas) are taking on their own people and their neighbors. Going back to Pearl Harbor, Japan was invading its neighbors and angling for a 'Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere'. Now its a surge of the same thing with a conceived base in Islamic Middle East. If you want to play tit-for-tat, then let's just agree that Life's been a Bitch since Cain and Abel.

The day after, I feel that my comments stand.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 11:14 AM

NO.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 10:19 AM

Peg, I didn't intend for it to be condescending but you apparently found it so.
Why?
Did anyone else on the Forum find my statement to be condescending?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 10:02 AM

I don't understand how people can be marching for peace at a time like this. We did not start this thing but we will finish it, and THEN we'll talk peace, hopefully shape it. We did a decent job with Japan in the 40's but it didn't happen overnight.

Awful things happen, and they don't come much more awful than what happening on September the 11th. People have to try and prevent them happening again. Nobody is disagreeing about that. The thing is, there are some thing people can do that help, and some thing they can do that don't help and make things worse.

And that's what peace vigils and marches are about. Trying to avoid the mistakes that will make it worse. There is a lot of room for disagreement, and discussion about what need to be done, and we've had the Mudcat full of it for days now. It's no different in the outside world. It's important for people to listen to the points of view of people they disagree with because it's terribly easy to make mistakes that can't ever be set right.

Preventing terrorism is one thing. Justice is one thing. Vengeance is something else, and though it's a natural enough response to feel vengeful, it is never right to direct our actions by that desire. Never.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Peg
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 09:59 AM

Troll, I am afraid referring to yourself as a "teacher" in this context is in itself condescending...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 09:57 AM

Robomatic, I'm afraid we DID start it. Those bastards just upped the ante.

I see the prez just announced that he is freezing the assets of anyone doing business with the terrorists. I hope it works this time. One of the things FDR did was to freeze the assets of Japan, they responded by bombing Pearl Harbor.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 09:33 AM

Peg, Greg is condescending to me and I am condescending to him so it balances out. We never use profanity and we try to avoid being vulgar or outlandishly rude to each other. We disagree on a great many things and tend to be rather vocal (in a manner of speaking) when responding to each other.
To answer your question, I am only condescending to those who are condescending to me or who make what I consider to be totally fatuous statements. Especially those who are old enough to know better. With the young, the inexperienced or the ignorant, I do not.
The condescending teacher is highly ineffective.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 01:00 AM

Oh,children, settle down. Or there will be no recess!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:36 AM

Sub-title: Time to Give War a Chance

I am a registered Democrat who felt pretty low after the election, and I'm not totally at ease with the Prez we've now got, but he IS the Prez we've now got and he has a team that says all the right things. Now we'll find out if the American mind for tackling hard tasks has retained its ability to innovate.

I think the Afghani people have been enslaved and brutalized by these Taliban thug-mullahs and we have been empowered to tackle the bastards. Maybe we could enlist the Vietnamese as advisers, after all they liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge and fought off the Chinese, pretty impressive accomplishment. Realistically, we have to entrain enough locals on our side to get this done. The how of it will be quite interesting. The fact that Afghanistan has been a graveyard of British and Russian military pretensions in the past is a factor to consider, but this is now, and history does not have to repeat itself unless you are ignorant of it.

I don't understand how people can be marching for peace at a time like this. We did not start this thing but we will finish it, and THEN we'll talk peace, hopefully shape it. We did a decent job with Japan in the 40's but it didn't happen overnight.

Bush delivered a good speech and delivered it well. We'll soon see if there is reality behind the rhetoric. (I think he's learned to avoid the word 'crusade' by now).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Peg
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:11 AM

Troll, do you ever have a desire to relate to other humans in a way that does not include condescension?

The middle school analogy is certainly accurate in your case...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 11:31 PM

Argumentum ad Homienum. Discredit the man, and you discredit his argument.
The fact that I discent and that I state my position in a forthright and forceful manner doesn't mean that I think I'm always right, Greg. I am aware that there are gaps in my knowledge and blind spots in my world view, as Skeptic so often reminds me. I try to take this into account in my dealings with the world outside.
I said: "No, I don't need you to think for me, but it is the height of arrogance and conceit for anyone to assume that only they (and others of like mind) have all the answers. I will utilize data from any source."
What I meant of course, was that I know I don't have all the answers., and my second line; "I will utilize data from any source." reinforces this.
That you chose to interpret it as refering to you is unfortunate but thats your problem.
As to your final statement, that's the sort of thing one hears at lunch at a Middle School.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 09:33 PM

Glenda. I don't know if you are new to the forum, or I just haven't seen your posts. If you're new, welcome!

Good posts, and good thoughts. When the competion is behind you, will you post your poem?

McGrath: don't keep us in suspense, man!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 07:36 PM

Sometimes the Atlantic seems like a stream, and sometimes like the gulf between planets.

I've watched a lot of Americans speaking this week. Mayor Giuliani, General Powell, all kinds of real people, and I've found what they've said moving and sometimes reassuring. There's been only one real exception to that...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: 53
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 06:55 PM

Amos, I understand, and I believe in each person having the right to speak his or her mind. That is why I decided, after several days, to make my own comments in this thread. I do not usually make my thoughts public - except thru poems and I have just written one that says some of what I felt. I suppose my poem says it far better than my post. But I am entering it in a contest and it must remain unpublished until I do so.

Glenda

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 05:35 PM

Glenda:

One of the liberties they died for is the right to go out in the street and protest the government's decisions. Protesting the decision to go to war -- if that's what is -- is an absolute essential right, and if we refused to tolerate we _would_ be letting the terrorists win.

We don't have to worry about dividing this great country. But we cannot shut it up, out of a fear that we might, or we will ruin the whole legacy of all the philosphers and fighters in the past.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: 53
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 05:23 PM

I have read most of the comments in this thread -parts I & II. I was very pleased with Amos' comments on Bush's speech. and with some others. But there seems dissension amoung the comments.

Someone who voted for R. Nader and did not like Bush said that Bush 'spoke for him' in the speech. He has been personnally touched by the events because he lost loved ones. I do not think those of us who were spared a 'personal' touch, (just because our loved ones were not on those particular flights or in those buildings) need to feel any less personally touched. We need to remember it could just as easily have been OUR cousins, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, friend.... For WE are The United States of America. Let's stand united!!

I did vote for Bush. I was very impressed with the speech and saw that he spoke from his heart. I do not think that his decision was easy or rash. I think it was an informed decision and still is being studied and much work is going on in preparation for what MUST be done.

He made clear that his message was not only to Americans - but to the world. I was pleased to see Tony Blair there to back him. He has given his advise and offered his aid. I do think we should stand behind him, as Americans, and think carefully as citizens of whatever country you are in. All who don't want to be terrorized need to understand that this will NOT go away if we don't do something. We need to remember that the price of freedom is not cheap. It never has been.

Following the news closely after the events of 9/11, I have experienced a series of emotions. But my heart was truly broken when I saw anti-war marches in the news. These will do more to divide this great country than the terrorists' attacks did. For they seemed to bring a unity this country needs.

I say, let's support our president, with our prayers and in whatever way we can. Let's NOT let the terrorists take away the liberty our forefathers willingly paid for with great sacrifice and bloodshed!!

Glenda

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 09:33 AM

Too true, Troll, and and even a broken clock is right twice a day. And a stitch in time saves nine. Got any more hackneyed platitudes to share with us?

I don't believe I've ever claimed to have "all the answers" and its the height of something a bit more obnoxious than arrogance or conceit to assert that I did. Actually, I might suggest you exemplify that "know-all" approach pretty frequently yourself.

Guess I'm with Spaw- "OK, Troll, eat me!"   ;>)

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 08:44 AM

Greg, I asked for your ideas. I have read what others on the Forum (and elsewhere) have had to say and I will use their input in altering and refining my own opinions.
No, I don't need you to think for me, but it is the height of arrogance and conceit for anyone to assume that only they (and others of like mind) have all the answers. I will utilize data from any source.
Even a fool may sometimes have a good idea.

troll