A respectable and effective protest to the war
 

I came across this article today and I read through it, as I do with all the protestors' comments and quotes.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_747771.html


This particular article is different from many that I have read. It's not based on the "illegitimacy" of the Bush presidency, not bogged down with 50,000 technical examples that can be neither refuted or conclusively proven, or spun from some wild conspiracy theory. Hoffman makes his point in a rational, compelling way without turning into a lunatic. If you're attempting to actually influence people (are you reading this Susan) Hoffman's statements would be a good example to follow. I don't have any problem with political protest or opposing views, but some of these people have attracted my attention in a way they most likely didn't intend. Though I cannot realistically say that I will not support some of the more prominent Hollywood spokespeople by seeing their movies, etc., I will certainly *remember* what asses they have been in their "protesting the president", not the war.

This is a good part of the article:

"I believe -<B> though I may be wrong because I am no expert</B> - that this war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil".

See, he understands that he is not an expert nor has access to secret gov't info. He has an opinion and expresses it. Millions of supporters respect that opinion and Mr. Hoffman for presenting that opinion without breaking out into some tirade against Bush/Republicans.

As you may know, I am in favor of this war for many reasons I have previously posted. The fact of the matter is however, that only time will prove either side. There was a military action about ten years ago that I was very much in favor of. When this action was executed, I remember cheering because it had been so long looming. Two or three years after the murder of the Branch Dividians, I learned a great deal that I hadn't been aware of before the slaughter. I keep that "little war" in mind when contemplating the Iraq war. The two are actually miles apart in similarity, but I am aware of the manipulation of info for the desired result.

The Hollywood left doesn't understand how little their opinions mean except in bolstering the right. Kennedy does the same when he talks about battlefield losses, since its obvious to most non-Mass Americans that the man is a fool. As much as I love to rant about whichever party is in power, I know that the only effective protest is to argue outcomes. I think we are going to inflame Arab hatred of us and end up with a lot more terrorism in the long and the short term. Bill O'Reilly tells me that they're gonna forget all about it and its gonna be peaches cream and democracy for all. I think its absurd to believe that Iraq is capable of sustaining democracy but like you emphasized its what I THINK not what I know.

Howdy gun guy
 

Maybe you can help me out.
I am looking for a gun to be used soley for self defense
in my house: point and shoot.
How do you feel about a short barrel shotgun
loaded with some kind of buckshot.
Any suggestions?
Thank You and may peace be unto you

The idea that one may be wrong is so important to intellectual honesty that, as y'all plainly see, I've put it rather permanently into my user title. I haven't changed my user title in ages, and that's why. I trust myself in that I think I am a pretty bright person, but I have often gotten things wrong. And where people think I'm wrong I hope that they will try to put me right.

The Hollywood folks have gone over the edge from my perspective. I understand it, I think - if you feel you can't trust the administration, then you have to ignore specific facts that only the administration has put forth. Then things start to get murky. And because it's war, it's critically important.

In international relations, you really hope against hope that your government will set politics aside, and for once simply do the right thing. I remember Clinton preaching free markets at the students in China, and it practically brought a tear to my eye. When Limbaugh et al still tried to stick him in the side during that trip, it showed their true colors, showed who you can believe. It royally pissed me off...

Now the thing is, remember when we were about to invade Afghanistan? Remember what the same sides were saying at that point? Oh my ghod, some were saying, we're going to have a land war in Asia. Oh my ghod, we're going into the same morass that ended the USSR. We're going to bomb and kill these innocent people, the humanitarian aid is going to fail, we will make their lives worse.

And when it went better than it ever could, they spun it like it didn't. It showed their true colors, showed who you can believe.

They will be too busy watching football on TV, eating pizza, voicing their opinions without losing their head, drinking beer, paying taxes, driving a car that *isn't* from the fifties, learning and adjusting to a new free society to give hatred of us a second thought. :)

If we don't come through with the cable TV though, we're screwed. :) Maybe we should be sending cable technicians to Iraq to get the groundwork going to speed up the transition.

In my ignert opinion, the "new and improved" non-destructive weapons we will be using in this exercise will reduce civilian deaths. That doesn't mean there wont be any, but I think it will be few. Imagine if *none* of your electronic gadgets worked. How effective of a resistance could you wage?

As for Teddy K and the like, I have their number. They know if this goes well, there will be Reps dominating the House, Senate, and the White House for a long time. They would willingly protest a hot shower and a bar of soap if they felt that it would help them regain the power they feel they are *entitled* to.

I think the degree of creativity these asshats have is amusing because it is so transparent. The party that cried wolf. I have my hat here with salt ready, but I dont think I'll be eating it anytime soon.

After the self destruction of the Democratic party, we can replace the Reps with Libertarians. Then maybe I can relax my sphincter.

You're right about the seductiveness of consumer goods, maybe its enough. It will happen so I'm just gonna watch n see.

I dont want to sound like I have a clue what thier society will accept. If the Iraqis were free to leave and had a US visa in hand, I think they'd be pretty happy.

Maybe they could make some spin-off similar to football with goats playing some part in the game. :)

I'm optimistic that the whole thing will settle terrorism down more than it encourages it.

To start with, there's the point that Hussein supports terrorism directly.

But bigger than that is the idea that we are keeping the west-vs-Islam conflict at center stage, not ignoring it hoping it will go away. And we are taking it to their shores to keep it off ours.

The conflict has been bubbling under for, like, centuries and it's the conflicts that take the longest to cook that scare me the most.

To think of it another way, Kim Jung Il and N Korea is the end game of eastern Communism, of trivial little states being propped up by big friendly commie powers as long as they were useful. Everybody knows it can't go on, everybody knows these states can't support themselves, and it's just a matter of time until their heads of state croak and are replaced by more reasonable people. Nobody [who matters] thinks it might be a noble, working social experiment anymore. The game could play out poorly, even resulting in the unthinkable vaporization of a city or two. But then it's over, because Il and many of his unfortunate followers would be vaporized in turn, and nobody would say it didn't have to happen.

The middle east, though, could be the MIDDLE game of something that started before the years had four digits in them.

Many people say that Bush is only using the flames of 9/11 to get public support for this conflict. Sure, that's possible. .. even probable. But what kind of public support would there be if there was another attack?

Can you imagine there being public support for an invasion of Afghanistan on September 10th? Of course not. The public outcry would be enormous, even though at that time it would have been the Right Thing To Do.

Can you imagine there NOT being another 9/11 if we lacked that same resolve on September 12th?

Geez, I know this is a rambling post... sorry. There are just so many thoughts rambling through my brain at this point, and a lot of them just need an opportunity to get out...

Not necessarily...especially if the economy isn't back in tip-top shape. Ask Dubya's daddy how one can go from hero to zero in about 18 months. Dubya has an edge in that he comes across as more down-to-earth and in-touch than his father, but IMO, the economy is really what drives people's choices at the voting booth.

I agree. The major factor (IMO) in keeping the market down is this Iraq war. As we saw recently with the new budget (of 2.35 TRILLION bucks), having the reps in the majority is not a great thing.

I think that after this war has been won, and the residual terrorists have been extinguished, the dow will make regular small gains to the point that some good jobs will be created.

That's my expectation anyway.

Dow does not make productive jobs. It is a measurement of and not a creator of productive jobs.

There is no history to suggest economic upturn. America did not pay for most of the Gulf War. America was paid by most of the world - biggest contributor I believe was Japan - to fight that war. That war resulted in a lesser recession because we paid so little. This war will be different - more like what Korea and VietNam did to the American economy. America will pay completely for this war and will suffer economics consequeneces. Its the old and well proven concept of guns and butter.

Basic economics. Money does not make a prosperous economy. After all that money is spent, then punishment either from inflation due to too much cash, or from recession due to no new products or useful capital equipment. With VietNam, we had something even worse - stagflation - both inflation and recession - because war results in long term negative economic results.

War creates a short term boost in economic activity. Then when that activity does not result in profits or productivity increases, then a downturn must result.

Only after war in Europe (both WWI and WWII), that resulted in America owning much of Europe, did a war instead result in economic boom. There is nothing in this George Jr inspired war that will create economic prosperity. It is but another problem with entering war too early - before a problem ever exists.

What terrorism. Take away Al Qaeda and America has suffered virtually no terrorism once we stopped attacking Druze and Shites in Lebanon and settled Khadafi. Al Qaeda is a direct result of not leaving the Gulf as we had promised. If Al Qaeda is only due to occupation (a broken promise), then what will invasion, occupation, and a forced government on an Arab nation do? To believe an Iraqi invasion would not result in terrorism on America is George Jr mythology.

Most Arabs have no interest in terrorist activities against the US which is why current Muslim fundamentalist terrorists are such mental midgets. Saddam is sponsoring no international terrorism except in myths. However once the US attacks a nation that no one in the world fears, then terrorism on American will return to make Lebanon (and the resulting Khadafi acts) seem trivial.

Most of the world - even the Arab world - resoundly supported America's rescue of Kuwait - so agressively that I should not have to repost some of those examples. But most of the world is already resoundly against an American unilateral and unprovoked invasion of Iraq. That makes America ripe as a terrorism target - which the French should like because it takes them off the hook.

If we remove Saddam, have we removed the source of any terrorists? Of course not. Any association between Saddam and terrorism is created by the George Jr administration to justify their pre-conceived actions. Go outside this war monger American government and no one - no responsible nation - links Saddam with international terrorists.

Of course this is the same administration that would advocate war even with China over a silly spy plane. They will say anything to justify a war - facts be damned. Facts are that an invasion of Iraq will make it very easy to recruit smart terrorists in the Arab world.

Re: A respectable and effective protest to the war
 

I was also a minority that advocated immediate war on Iraq when Kuwait was invaded. For that matter, I was proclaiming a war that would involve every major world power back in June 1990. Most, including a best friend, thought I was loony (then some asked where Iraq was).

Most Americans back then would not support a war to liberate Kuwait. Today too many forget their actual opinions. Those not in open support of war included most of The Cellar, Defense Secretary Cheney, majority of Congress, most of George Sr's advisors, and most of my friends. Funny how today a strong majority say they supported that war. Funny how so many forget that it took Margaret Thatcher to put the backbone into George Sr (and Scowcroft to stiffen it in the middle of August).

In fact some friends still are pissed that I called then after 11 PM on 1 Aug 1990 (woke them up) to tell them 'my' war had started.

So what is different here? My someone so hard nosed is so opposed to this war? No smoking gun, still, AND that America should only fight wars that those most threatened first could not solve.

We are not the world's policeman. First those nations that are threatened must see and confront the problem. The same person who kept saying on The Cellar that we will fully end up in a war in the Baklans (who apparently was the only one advocating eventual military action) - with total silence from virtually the entire Cellar - uses same reasoning to say this war is wrong.

I find it curious that among the few who advocated the immediate liberation of Kuwait was Brent Scowcroft - George Sr's National Security Advisor. He too agrees with me about this inevitiable war. Wrong time and currently not justified.

Another hard nosed, take no nonsense, man is Scott Ridder - of the first Iraq WMD team. Do you remember his take no bullshit, confront them to expose their stalling attitude? Ridder makes a point quite bluntly. This is not a war to remove mass destruction weapons. We are going to war only to take out Saddam. Of course. Saddam is a tribute to Cheney and company who drank champaigne when they should have defined conditions for Saddam's surrender. Scott Ridder and I also share a common belief - that this war is about Saddam and not about WMD.

Slang, you will be surprised how militant my support for war has been. This war is that different - war for the wrong reasons. So hard nosed about no international nonsense that some call me an extremist conservative. War must have solid, fundamental reasons. Those reasons don't even come close yet to existing in Iraq - and never will until Saddam's neighbor are threatened. They, not America, are Saddam's targets. Saddam, not WMD, are George Jr's target.

Scott Ritter has now been completely discredited by his inability to offer any defense whatsoever of charges that he was arrested after he used a chat room to solicit the intimate company of a 16 year old girl.

An event which BTW preceded ALL of his recent statements.

Just in case you weren't aware. HTH.

Since he was never charged and the records were sealed we'll have to take Sean Hannity's word on this one? The timing of these events were pretty damn "fortunate" for Bush 2.

Speaking to the trust issue, Ellsberg's book came out in October.

Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg

I don't take Hannity's word for anything. I watched Ritter commit media suicide on Aaron Brown/Newsnight. It was pathetic and sad. He had every opportunity to give an explanation. He whiffed badly and he knew exactly what he was doing.

There was an agreement to seal the records. The arrest happened well before Ritter's current interests in upsetting the apple cart. The leak of the arrest is what is convenient, not the actual arrest. Ritter's response was that it shouldn't have been leaked. He refused to explain anything further than that.

Mr. Brown patiently explained that Ritter had no legal reason to stay quiet about the events and that if he didn't give an explanation he would become a non-entity. Mr. Ritter stuck to his approach, and that was that. His credibility is near zero.

This really bothered me overnight.

I'll ask the same question of you. What's different here? Hussein resigned the first war with an agreement to disarm. Then he didn't. The UNSC voted 15-0 that he still has to disarm. Blix came back and said he's not disarming. Ritter said in 1998 that he wasn't disarming. What is different here? This is simply part 2 of the same war you wanted so badly before.

Clinton bombed Iraq too - after inspectors left the first time - was that OK? How about the no-fly zones - surely those are an obvious remnant of the first war. Can Iraqis fire anti-aircraft missiles at planes in the no-fly zone? If they do, aren't they disrespecting the agreements of the FIRST war cease-fire?

If applying absolutes to Iraq, then why so quiet about nine atomic bombs in South Africa? Why so quiet about biological weapons of mass destruction missing and unaccounted for in S Africa. We should be attacking Israel for an outright an intentional attack on the USS Libety. We should be seeking UN sanctions on Israel for possessing nuclear weapons. The UN should be invading Israel for way too many violations of UN resolutions and outright violations of human rights. We should be attacking both Pakistan and India for their outright proliferation of nuclear weapons and selling associated war material. Why not attack Castro for violations of human rights. Why are we not involved in wars of Ivory Coast, Liberia, Siera Leon, Sri Lanka, Congo? Why do we not threaten Mugabee - clearly more abusive to his people than Saddam? Why did we not immediately invade East Timor or solve the race riots in the Marshall Islands?

Why do they not so concern you? If absolutes don't apply to these events, then why demand absolutes on Iraq? Accusations against Iraq have equal or less credibility than all those above violations. What make Iraq different? Saddam.

Adults don't immediately solve everything with violence. America once was a tolerant nation that let most crisis fester - diplomatic solutions were used - and most ended up solving themselves. Military force was only used after everyone screwed up and then we were required. As a result, everyone welcomed Americans. However under the hate promoter George Jr, every crisis - even over a spy plane - means war. Damn UT. Once you were a tolerant man. I now see veins hanging from your teeth. And its not just you. This man promotes hate an fear. 6 Arabs enter NY from Canada. Rumored attacks on the Golden Gate Bridge. All were faked, but issued at politically convenient times. Don't you see yourself being played?

What did Hans Blix say? He will solve the problem but he needs time. George Jr intentionlly misrepresented Blix's report to the UN as you have done now. Did you read it? Hans Blix personally accuses George Jr of misrepresenting his report. Hans Blix says they don't have FULL cooperation. They are getting cooperation, but not FULL cooperation meaning only more diplomatic pressure and negotiation must be applied. What did Hans Blix demand? He needs more time. Not war. Not a military solution. He needs time. But George Jr really does not care about those WMD. Is that not yet so obvious?

US governement will not even give Blix full information to do his job. Of course not. Unfortunately a successful Hans Blix will only get in the way of George Jr's 'war at any cost' plan. After all the rumored WMD are only George Jr's excuse. Even a rumored sexual pervert can see through that. Why can't you?

George Jr wants Saddam's head. WMD and Al Qaeda are but excuses, real or invented, to accomplish what George Jr really wants. A personal vendetta.

George Jr's staff should go down into history as the people who drank champaigne rather than do their job: define Saddam's surrender. Again, WMD are only an excuse. Hans Blix could solve the whole problem if given time. But WMD are only an excuse. If Saddam lives again, George Jr's people go down into history as the people who protected Saddam, again.

Stop applying a double standard to UN resolutions. If you want absolutes, then first demand an attack on Israel for their repeated and direct violations of UN resolutions. This is a George Jr personal vendetta. George Jr has even kept enough information from the inspectors so they cannot be as successful - using a stupid national security excuse.

War requires a smoking gun. No smoking gun exists. All we have is reason for heated negotiation and continued inspection that should continue for one more year or longer. But that would directly violate George Jr's real objectives.

Why are we not attacking North Korea? No one in North Korea will put George Jr and his staff into history as losers like Saddam. North Korea has a serious WMD. But WMD are only an excuse. d UT's absolutes don't provide the smoking gun so necessary to justify war in Iraq. They justify war elsewhere. Its called a double standard because the WMD are really irrelevant.

Precisely. Saddam.

But don't you see? Powell's report completely invalidated the entire inspections process. 24 hours before inspectors were to be on site, sites were cleared out.

The inspections process was compromised to begin with. Giving it more time is insane. "Doubling" and "tripling" a compromised process is a bad joke.

Which is where we bring slang back in. International relations is the best place for a conspiracy theorist to live, because half of the conspiracies are actually true - a far better hit rate than the domestic. Powell is the most credible man in the US. His report was termed absolutely credible by ex-intel guy Ralph Peters today. Nobody but the Iraqis are saying it's fake. So here's the money question: Who tipped off the Iraqis to the inspection sites?

Doesn't it bother you that it's quite possible that the security of the US has been compromised by forces inside the UN? Oh right, you're the guy who isn't even moved by attempted assassination of a former president - it's completely allowed, if tw doesn't like 'em!

Of COURSE not, because they knew when he asked for assistance that the inspections process was compromised, and to give specific information to the inspectors involves burning valuable intelligence sources. (Where "burning" may be, quite literally - Saddam leaves the torture work to his sons and apparently they are very creative. Where do you think the guy is who made that wireless phone call we intercepted?)

You really want the end of the UN, don't you? I thought I was alone in that thinking, but what you're asking for would in fact be the final nail in the coffin of the UN.

And you keep talking in terms of "absolutes". The "smoking gun" absolute is the one you're hung up on. Get over it. Saddam has killed people, is killing a TON of people right now, and is planning to kill more.

The intelligence information that we have been privy to is a fraction of what's actually out there. Having to trust the government is one of the strangest feelings I've ever had. I don't like it one bit. If they fucked it up, I will be livid. On the other hand, while we can't see what we can't see, but the stuff we have seen is plenty bad.

Get over it man. I'm no Bush guy. This is bigger than Bush.

Sign me up up as a nail driver for that job. The UN is ineffective at actually dealing with situations such as this current Iraq mess. It's a good debating forum, but that's really all IMO. It's a "feel good but do nothing" waste of time.


Then again, what the fuck do I know. :)

I would like to thank TW and the Hollywood loonies for supporting me in my time of need. It's not easy to defend me and my manipulation of the UN, the slaughter of anyone that even *appears* to disagree with me, and my generally hostile disposition.

Rest assured that when I pass off my nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to Al-Qaeda, you will die a somewhat dignified death. If *I* were to come to your neighborhood, I'd kill you the Saddam way, by running a power drill into your genitals, pouring gasoline down your throat, and setting you afire in front of your family. Please understand I cannot make housecalls at this time, I apologize for any inconveinence this may cause.

Your efforts in spinning the debate into something that makes me appear less threatening is greatly appreciated and should prove helpful in the future.

Death to America!!
SoDam Insane

Err UT before you fly off the handle about a UN conspiricy to assassinate US presidents consider two well known facts:

a: The UN building in Iraq is bugged to all hell.
b: They have not recieved funds and equipment to remove them.

Might these have more to do with the ineffectiveness of inspections than some out-of-your-arse theory about the UN being full or Iraqi spies?

that is all.

Oh so the UN prepared for inspections in a location so widely known to be bugged that even Jag knew it?

Yes I do I feel safer now, thank you.

The new conspiracy theory is who made that decision.

Hey, I did say only half the theories will pan out. But I find this sort of thing to be quite interesting, because like a lot of domestic politics, it's the parts that you can't see that really drive a lot of the events.

So when France comes out so dead-set against the war and says it's because they don't like war, whilst at the same time they send the fleet down to Africa to "change regimes" for the nth time in their former colonies, you just have to wonder.

Ok Jag. This makes sense. Why hasn't this situation been rectified? How much would it cost to secure the UN building from bugs? One million, 5 million, 10 million?

It seems to me, that even if the cost was 10 million or more it would be a good idea to have them removed. In your opinion as a intelligence administrator for the UN, how would this change the current crisis? Would the Iraqis find another method to collect info on the location of the inspections that is just as effective? Why wouldn't the US gov't pay for having this done, if they could actually catch the Iraqis with the "smoking gun", it would make their case. [sarcasm] Then we could invade Iraq and take all their oil,[/sarcasm] with the world knowing full well they were making the WOMDs.

I'll call W and talk with him about this. He hasn't returned my calls since I was so critical of the Poindexter thing, but I'll program the number into speed dial and keep calling.

And another thing. What the feck is an arse? Do they have a specific colour? Are they made from alee-uminum? Is an arse generally blu-hy in the centre? :)

(slang thinks to self: For the folks that *invented* the English language, they sure do use it funny)

not to nitpick (but I will anyway)

Jag's an Aussie, which means that the Brits think he screws up their language just as much as we do.

The upside, however, is that our ancestors were escaping religious discrimination. His were transported as criminals.

Not necessarily on his end...Jag is half-Swiss.

That's right, our founders were not, we *evolved* into pacifists with my help. :)

Actually, Kofster, you seem to take a harder line than your predecessor. After all, the US was a big reason why Boutros-Ghali did not get a 2nd 5-year term.

Ah.

That explains the ability to elevate indifference to a high art.

I thought that he didn't get re-elected because Boutros Boutros-Ghali scans about the same as "Olly olly oxen free".

Darn, you learn something new every day.

Well, the US never wanted him in there in the first place. He got the UN more involved in peace-keeping, but got a lot of flack for Bosnia, and apparently his reforms were considered too little too late.

[race]You're just hassling me because I'm a black African, you racist mofo.[/card]

I dont appreciate that one bit.

HEY NOW! Aren't we all supposed to be happy brothers in the new one world government brought to us by the UN??

I try to pay you a compliment Kofi, and this is what I get?

That's fine...you'll never see that money the US owes you anyway.

Little do you know, Syc, my lad ...

The money will come, it will just be sneaked through the Fed and laundered through the world bank.

It's never a straight line.

Shouldn't we get a discount since a) We helped create the UN and b) They do make their headquarters here? :)

On a serious note, I think the UN should have gotten that money ages ago. IIRC, the bone of contention on the US end is the discussion of family planning and abortion.

Which brings me to the SOTU address, in terms of the whole "fighting AIDS in Africa" thing. Dubya talked about new drugs that help stave it off. That's great and all, but don't we also want to stop new infections...through, oh I don't know, contraceptives? I didn't hear any talk about that.

I think their culture is different enough that most of them would never be able to accept living here. Plus, they don't speak our language.

Like that makes a difference to any of the immigrants (legal, or especially illegal) to the US ...

A lot of those folks don't fit into our culture, and many of them refuse to learn to speak English.

Admittedly, it's our own fault ... the US has never legislated a national language. It's well past time, and is probably now too late to do so. We've suffered through waves of nonsense such as bilingual eduation which does a disservice to non-English speakers.

I'm still trying to figure out the necessity of multi-lingual ballots. What gives? In order to become a naturalized US citizen, and therefore to have the right to vote, you HAVE to show proficiency in English. The rules haven't changed ... why have the ballots?

I disagree...people from all walks of life come here and "assimilate" into American culture, creating their own little piece of the quilt.

And there are places here where the language issue would not be a problem (Detroit, Chicago).

I agree that it is too late to make a national language. However, I advocate the use of more Spanish in American society. At the rate the Latino population (both legal and illegal) is growing, there will probably always be a significant number of people in this country unable to speak decent English.

Thank God for those illegals though...they help keep the costs down on a lot of the products we buy that say "Made in USA."

Anyone who comes to this country should be required to pass an English-fluency test before becoming a citizen. IQ and age should be weighted in that requirement (as less intelligent people and older people may have difficulty learning English, which is already a very hard language to learn).

True. Did you hear what that kook from Reading was saying the other day? I don't agree with multi-lingual ballots, but that guy was going about it the absolute wrong way.

English itself is an easy language to learn. It's just that we have so much slang. That's what gets people. Proper English is a snap.

juju - I disagree entirely. I'm always reading something about how some Iraqis whose family have been killed by Saddam's security forces are applying for asylum (and always being granted) in the U.S. Just last week, it was a family that had snuck across the border into Syria and <b>twenty one</b> of their relatives had been killed back in Iraq. They applied for asylum in the U.S. (which they consider to be "great" and "free") and, pretty soon, will be on a plane to their new home in Washington, D.C.

There are always going to be a ton of people that don't want to get out. But there's always a ton more who do.

I don't agree with you on the language issue, Dave. We use so many different sounds with our letters compared to, say a romance language (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.).

The only European language I've heard that is harder than English is Finnish (which is a Ural-Altaic language)...apparently, if you don't learn it growing up, you'll never quite get it.

But that's just practice with pronunciation. You're talking about speaking specifically, and I'm talking about the language as a whole. When it comes to writing, for example, English is a lot easier than, say, German.

And we have nothing on Japanese when it comes to difficulty. Thirty thousand symbols that you have to memorize with no phonetic help whatsoever.

When you get into the romance languages (and others), you come up with different genders for objects. Spanish and French have two, German has three, etc. English only has <b>one</b>.

Plus, we've simplified a lot over the years - thou, thee, etc and their different conjucations have all been left behind. English has very much been streamlined where other languages have not.

As far as speaking, yes - English is a bit more difficult because of the different pronunciations. But that's even a difference between England and the U.S. - not something that is all that different on paper (with the exception of the often-added U and the S instead of a Z on "ize" words).

I really don't think English is all that difficult when you look at just the language and its form. Verb conjucations are a snap, we only have three tenses (how many in Spanish?), we only have one gender...

I've heard Finnish is fairly easily, actually. Well, not heard. I've just always assumed it is. It's quite phonetic; if you can pronounce the letters/letter combinations, you can read Finnish.

I'm not sure about how hard it is to actually understand spoken Finnish. I'm only just learning a language other than English (American Sign Language).

I can say "excuse me", though. I think.

Oh my God, this is TERRIBLE!
 

One of my friends sent me an article about a MUCH bigger threat than Iraq ...

I saw this and thought "Cellar"
 

The Difference Between The Liberal and Conservative
"Debate" Over The War


Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
___________________________________________________

Liberal Answer

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

________________________________________________

Conservative Answer

BANG!

____________________________________________________
Texan's Answer BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

BANG! click...
(sounds of clip being ejected and fresh clip installed)

Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?"

Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Daughter: "Nice grouping Daddy!"

Thanks for posting that bit of silliness, Dagney! I've gotten that several times recently in my email, but I had never seen the "Texas" variation. Good one!

Awww you're welcome Wolf....Hope you're feeling better!

Dags

Crap they found us out. :)

Re: I saw this and thought "Cellar"
 

This is the Conservative Question:

Here is the Liberal Question:

Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man appears and gives you the raspberry. Ten years ago you beat him up for punching his neighbor. Since then, you hired a P.I. to watch him, and haven't heard anything conclusive yet, but one of his other neighbors punched you about a year ago. He is unresponsive to your requests for him to show you his knife. What do you do?

The answers are the same. :)

Speaking from the middle, the question is:

You're walking down a cul-de-sac with your domestic partner and dependents when suddenly you realize that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has made the world much less safe, because it has given the ability for a relatively small number of people to do great amounts of damage.

As you walk, your partner says that it used to take a productive government to create such a device - and productive governments are more responsive to diplomacy, as well as to their own people. You remember it is rare for such governments to wage war against each other. In fact you remember that no two democratic governments have ever waged war. But now proliferation has led to unproductive governments getting these weapons, governments that are unresponsive to diplomacy and unchecked by even any notion of decency.

Finally you come to the question. How can the world remain safe and free while nuclear weapons proliferate to dictators who run death camps and drink champagne from gold spigots in marble-tiled halls while their people starve?

Actually the question is way off base with regard to the Iraq thing.

The real example is:

You're walking down the street with your family and see someone who looks slightly different than you in a fight with his neighbor. You see a bulge in his coat pocket that may or may not be a weapon.

What do you do?

Democrat: Walk up, get involved, and try to talk it out. If that doesn't work kill them both.

Republican: Shoot the guy dead because the bulge in his pocket MIGHT be a weapon. Then treaten his family and prevent them from getting food or medicine resulting in many of them dying. Then wait a few years and kill more of them because you never did get a weapon. Even though nobody in the family has threatened you or associates with anyone who has threatened you or ever attacked you, kill them pre-emptively to defend yourself from future hypothetical situations while at the same time pissing off every other member of his family, his neighborhood, etc.

Libertarian: Mind your own fucking business. Nobody is attacking you or threatening you. Go about your life without interfering. If the fight does spread and come to you, defend yourself at that time.

Why do people feel compelled to categorize themselves politically? Are there really people out there who're for every single thing that a political party is also for?

[sarcasm]Another example of someone that voted for Bush and is supporting the admin in the current crisis. Glad to have you onboard Radar. :) [/sarcasm]


I know, I know, I'm a stupid cock smoker, you've forgotten more....yadda, yadda.....

Lighten up Francis.

Sadly, yes.

There are about 25 million of them right here. If they don't agree with *everything* I run a power drill into their genitals and set them on fire.

Back to languages...
 

I had actually thought that English was fairly difficult to learn, because (after having been conquered by their speakers) we have melded so many different languages together to form our own, and we have adopted rules (and conjugations?) from many of them.