posted July 27, 2004 05:19 PM            

If, as a former Iraqi Ambassador says, that Iraq was willing to play nice and didn't want war with the US and this happened way back in 1993, then Bill Clinton and certain people in his administration owe America and the world more than an explanation.

The mandate of the UN in the first Gulf War was to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait, not remove Saddam from power. We could have and would have done that at the time if that had been the objective of the UN Resolutions. It wasn't and we didn't.

At some point, it appears the Clinton Administration took it upon themselves and without Congressional approval or UN approval, the goal of removing Saddam and that back in 1993.

All this developed against the backdrop of UN Resolutions, not to remove Saddam but to get him to live up to the cease fire Resolution and in conjunction with the Oil for Food program which was being ripped off by UN functionaries and certain high government and business officials in Europe.

It was not until 1998 that the official policy of the US, through a Congressional Resolution, became removal of Saddam from power in Iraq. And it was not until 1992 that UN Resolution 1441 gave Saddam one more chance to live up to the cease fire agreement.

So, it appears we could have had a compliant Saddam, needed oil to meet the worlds energy needs and stability in the Middle East, including a buffer against radical Iranian Islamic fundamentalists and we could have had all that in 1993 but the Clinton Administration wouldn't hear of it.

Tuesday, July 27, 2004 1:30 p.m. EDT
What Clinton Did Not Say About Iraq

Former President Bill Clinton, who had no reservations about criticizing the Bush administration's Iraq policy during his keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention, conveniently omitted one small fact.

As early as November 1993, the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein approached senior Clinton administration officials in an effort to "cut a deal" to avoid a second Gulf War, reports NewsMax's Stewart Stogel...... http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/27/133516.shtml

posted July 27, 2004 10:36 PM            

They'll never accept your retreat back to the bronze age.

posted July 28, 2004 08:09 AM              

I'm not against technology. I'm not against chemistry. I'm not against firearms. I'm not against explosives. I'm simply against the use of those things to harm other human beings.

I'm not against money. I'm, not against television. I'm not against processed foods. I'm simply against those things being used to manipulate and control other human beings.

I am against allowing ONE set of human beings the control and power to subjugate ANOTHER set of human beings.

I'm against us treating each other like resources and OBJECTS rather than as family..as human beings.

I'm afraid you've jumped the gun on your assessment of what it is that I want, and what it is that I believe, my friend.

I'm not being unrealistic. What's unrealistic is the notion that because OTHERS are a-holes, we all have to be a-holes and THAT control and manipulation will somehow lead to Global Unity.

Love,

posted July 28, 2004 10:44 AM            

Let's see, you mention things you are against and you mention things you are not against so how about mentioning things you are for.....other than Liberty, Fraternity, Equality....like this:

I am for
private ownership of real property

an undivided interest in my own property

an undivided property interest in the fruits of my own labor.

the sovereignty of nations

the right to worship God as one sees fit or not

freedom of speech, thought and action, providing actions don't infringe the rights of others to the same freedoms

the right of individuals and nations to act in their own self interest

posted July 28, 2004 08:32 PM              

A common understanding that the land belongs to noone

Giving food to anyone who is hungry and likewise water to anyone who is thirsty

Pulling my weight in our common struggle and not taking advantage of anyone's goodwill

Sharing what I have with those who do not

Treating people with respect and courtesy for as long as they prove themselves worthy of it. Keeping my distance when they do not, and defending my right to that distance should the aforementioned choose to encroach upon it.

I am for raising children to be respectful, intelligence, self-sustaining and hard working. I am for raising them in a loving environment and enforcing reasonable boundaries through loving discipline. I am for raising my children to be a benefit to the society in which we live, not a detriment to everyone but me and mine.

I am for allowing each to practice their religion in whatever manner they choose for so long as they do not encroach upon the rights of others to do the same.

I am for doing what I can to SOLVE the problem, not benefitting by, contributing to or ignoring it.

As far as the lack of materialism in my list of wants: I feel that dirt is dirt is dirt. I've had more than my fair share of money this time around....it's just not where the REAL action is. Enough to feed my chilluns and speak my mind...that's enough and I'm thankful for it.

daf

DISCLAIMER: These views are the views of one (some would say) deranged little man and not to be construed as the views of anyone else. Nor should these views be taken to represent a moral high ground or low ground. They are simply the humble (ok that's an exaggeration) opinions of one highly eccentric person.

posted July 29, 2004 12:18 PM            

If you believe in and are for the land belonging to none, then you must be for the concept that anyone can be dispossessed from whatever space they are occupying on the theory they are squatters and as such any and all other squatters have equal rights to the very same space.

Since you are for giving food and water to the hungry and thirsty, does it also follow that you are for enshrining that concept in law, making it mandatory and compulsory for all others to do the same?

You are for pulling your weight in our common struggle, a struggle you fail to define. What is the common struggle that alludes to a common unifying theme shared by every squatter on earth?

Are you to be the judge of who is treating or not treating someone with respect and courtesy or do you wish to enshrine a set of rules in law whereby any person's freedom of speech is set aside or subject to law?

You are for doing what you can to solve THE problem. Is there only one problem in the world? What is it and what is your plan to solve it?

You say money is not where the real action is. Do you subscribe to the axiom to each according to their need, from each according to their ability?

By all means kids beware because I would teach you there is no such thing as a free lunch.

I am also for:
the right of every US citizen to be equal before the law. But it in no way follows that everyone has a right to equal outcomes in life.

the right of citizens to keep and bear arms to secure all their other rights. And on the occasion of invasion of the US, the right to arm bears as well.

posted July 29, 2004 02:52 PM              

Ohh...and I am highly in favor of YOU!

Love,

daf

TO OUR VIEWERS AT HOME:

posted July 29, 2004 03:28 PM            

I can see how you might feel you're being led to get egg on your face, however I think that would be your own doing, not Jwhops, were it to happen. You could *** -for-tat and answer his questions word for word, then pose more yourself if your answers to his questions lead you to more questions of either his motives or your own. I believe he would answer you were you to do so, but only after you've answered his questions - fair is fair after all.

posted July 29, 2004 04:02 PM              

Love,

posted July 29, 2004 04:16 PM            

Do you feel asking questions is an attempt to understand the viewpoint of another, or a device to counter their positions(s)

OK, you're against laws compelling anyone to do anything. Are you also against laws forbidding anyone from doing certain things?

When you share what you have with others, are you acting in their interests or are you acting in your self interest?

When you came on this thread to engage in discussion, changing the topic, whose ego was on display and whose ego was undergoing a delicate extraction?

posted July 29, 2004 04:26 PM              

It does NOT logically follow that if one is against ownership of land that one is in FAVOR of one being dispossessed by another. Where you pulled that argument from is beyond me, but a simple examination of the two statements shows that you CAN be for ONE and against the other. Herein lies the flaw in your Socratic approach. If I am both for treating others with respect for as long as they are worthy of it AND free sharing of land resources, how could I possibly be FOR dispossession of another? That would be most disrespectful indeed. In a land where people treat each other mutally with respect, such a thing would be a non-reality. In the few occasions, where misunderstandings occurred and someone moved into a space that was being occupied by another, the fact that both parties practiced mutal respect would forgo any conflict. The newcomer would realize that he had made a mistake, and the established individual would do their best to help accomodate the newcomer's needs.

There was no rhyme OR reason to that statement, neither was it intriguing. It was simply an attempt at dissecting an idea, point by point.

I've already answered point two. I do not believe in forcing behavior upon people. I believe in educating children to know certain core behaviors to be acceptable and others to be unacceptable. The whole of the law is established within the confines of one's heart. The majority enforces the "law of the heart" through their actions, which establish the norm.

Our common struggle refers to the fact that we all need to eat, breath, live and learn. Our common struggle refers to movement in the direction of evolution and unity. If you cannot feel the common struggle and the bond between us in your heart, then the system has failed us all, miserably.

Again, if you do not know what it means to be treated with and to treat others with respect, then the system has failed you and us all miserably. DO you know what it means? Then you have asked a question for which you already have the answer.

The problem is that too many are raised without ANY awareness of a common bond between them and the people around them. The problem is that too many people forgo respect for self preservation and gain. That is the problem. I propose we solve that problem and get on with the process of evolution.

Money isn't where the action is, because money's value is entirely dpendent upon the actions of people. When it was based upon gold and silver standards, it was dependent upon human beings being willing to search for and extract it, when it has been based upon the Gross National Product, it has been based upon our willingness to chain ourselves to the yoke of the corporate establishment. In any event, even the extremely wealthy are dependent upon the good will and cooperation of other human beings. Therefore the ACTION resides with the good will and cooperation of other human beings. NOT with the money.

A free lunch is what those who have been raised to think only of NUMERO UNO would seek. A way to sit on their butts and collect without contributing. By that definition, the very wealthy are now receiving a VERY free lunch. So within the confines of the current system you are WRONG. There IS such a thing as a free lunch and ironically, we've been conditioned to WANT that free lunch! (Winning lottery numbers anyone?!) I believe that the time will come when we will realize that we're paying for another's free lunch. When all people are taught from birth to respect one another, to care for one another and to contribute their part to the common human struggle, there will be no free lunches.

I agree with you that there are no equally guaranteed outcomes in life. Again you demonstrate that you are capable of jumping to conclusions when it comes to what I believe in and am in favor of. You need to find a nice lazy hippy to debate with.

Balls in your court...and no doubt your ego will enjoy the exercise....I'm finding it tedious and divisive.

By the way, you'll notice at the end of your response below, you have a rather clever way of saying that you'd like the final word. (To wit: If I respond, it is because my ego wouldn't have it any other way. Right back atcha. ) A rather interesting tact for one who seemed so OUTRAGED at the thought of censorship. The final word is yours...the egos have spoken. Long live the EGOS!

Love,

daf

TO OUR HOME VIEWING AUDIENCE:

posted July 29, 2004 07:13 PM            

If you feel ego is in play here perhaps you should examine your own motives.

Where land is owned by no one, it is not necessary for one to be for or against dispossession. Dispossession by one or the other of those attempting to camp out on the same land is a naturally flowing consequence. As I said, only in your perfect world where everyone always does the right thing does this concept work and you can search the earth and not find an example where it does. Communal living, as lioneye mentioned, is as close as it gets but in those societies everyone has a share of the pooled resources and the commune owns the land and everything upon it.

Children, from an early age know what is acceptable and what isn't. Are you arrogant enough to believe you are the only one on earth who educates their children in the principals of what's acceptable behavior and what isn't? Nevertheless, that doesn't stop them from doing the unacceptable and those who are not restrained by reason or sterner measures graduate to ever more unacceptable behavior. We have law upon law, rule upon rule because there are fools who managed to perform acts so outside the bounds of acceptable behavior that they had to be restrained from doing so. Perhaps you should write a book on child rearing daf....oh wait, Spock already did and the result is the most out of control generation of adults the nation has ever known.

Ah yes, the unity of the One. Where the birds are always singing, the flowers are always blooming, the bees are always buzzing, the sun always shines and not a discouraging word is heard. That is not evolution daf. That's a stifling stagnation, producing robotic like personalities, devoid of the ability to think their own thoughts, dream their own dreams or reach for the stars. The ultimate conformists, eh daf. It almost sounds like a religion, now doesn't it? None for me, I never did like those prissy room monitors.

Your are presumptuous in the extreme and arrogant beyond belief to suggest that those who do not conform to your notions of what constitutes showing respect are on the wrong track of evolution. You are the one fighting the evolutionary track of this world, let me remind you, it's you who would remake the world in your zeal for conformity. Choose an alternative universe. It seems I'm the one with the faith to believe and the patience to accept that the human race is evolving in accordance with the intent of the Universal Power.

Class warfare and envy are implicit in your comments daf. The idea that the rich are getting a free ride is absurd. There may be a few, a very few living off the wealth of past generations of their families. Clipping their bond coupons and living the life of Reily but very few. Those rich you denigrate are mostly people who work 10-12 hour days, had a dream or an idea, risked their own money to start their own business and had the vision, guts, drive and perseverance to stick with it until it started to pay off. They provide the jobs, meet their payrolls, pay the payroll taxes and if anyone doesn't get paid at the end of the week, it's them. You sound clueless. Feel free to get off the train at the stop of your choice daf. The very idea business, in general, is taking advantage of people is disgusting to someone who has, for the most part always had one or more to look after. Nothing worse than a poisoned mind.

All that said, we do have the power to change the behavior of business, when that behavior is unacceptable. We can choose to not work for them. We can choose to withhold our consent to their activities by not purchasing their products and we can even choose to boycott them in a most confrontational manner.