Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:

---

Originally posted by jhappel
Posted by KRamsauer:
Email me the $5.00 I could use it at the bar today while watching football.

---

Fortunately we've (note, that includes me!) been able to elevate the conversation above the circular misunderstandings that marked the few hundred posts in the middle of this thread.

Regarding football, it's been a rough season for a New England fan. Last year was magical and made up for all those years they just couldn't do anything. This year is rapidly returning to the era of Bledsoe. Oh well. Can't win em all!

Registered: May 2001
Location: NY metro area
Posts: 219

I think you agree with this too, since you say that after all diplomatic efforts have failed.
Please don't quote me out of context. The only time I said the words . . . after all diplomatic efforts have failed . . . was when I said Whether or not I oppose a war against Iraq in the future if all diplomatic efforts fail is something I don't know at this time. This is not presupposing that diplomatic efforts will fail or that I will or will not oppose a war at that time.

Regarding football, it's been a rough season for a New England fan.
Fortunately being from the NYC metro area I can have a good laugh at my friends who like the Jets (who I have not liked since they were the Titans (if there's anyone out there, other than myself, who is old enough to remeber the NY Titans playing football at the Polo Grounds). As a Giants fan I still have some hope for this season.

__________________
Jonathan

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:

---

Originally posted by jhappel

Please don't quote me out of context. The only time I said the words . . . after all diplomatic efforts have failed . . . was when I said Whether or not I oppose a war against Iraq in the future if all diplomatic efforts fail is something I don't know at this time. This is not presupposing that diplomatic efforts will fail or that I will or will not oppose a war at that time.

---

I'm sorry, you're right. I thought you meant you will support action later if diplomacy fails. Instead you're saying you might support force only if diplomacy fails.

quote:

---

Fortunately being from the NYC metro area I can have a good laugh at my friends who like the Jets (who I have not liked since they were the Titans (if there's anyone out there, other than myself, who is old enough to remeber the NY Titans playing football at the Polo Grounds). As a Giants fan I still have some hope for this season.

---

I don't like the Jets because they are like the other half of the Patriots. It seems like all of the Jets were at one time a Patriot and vice-versa. They had the first laugh (getting Parcells, Martin and others). We had the last laugh (getting Belichick and the Lombardi Trophy!!!!!!).

Now that the Niners have the jerk Owens on their team (he's been on their team for a while but only recently has be become a jerk), the Giants are one of the few NFC teams I like.

P.S. I just remembered the Cowboys incident. Owens has always been a jerk.

Registered: Feb 2000
Location:
Posts: 1571

Whoa Johnathan!

My thinking is along the same line too. I think the real reason for the U.S aggressiveness is becoming clear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jhappel


I am opposed to a war against Iraq at this time because I think there is a lot more that can and should be done diplomatically by the UN and the other countries trying to work something out. Whether or not I oppose a war against Iraq in the future if all diplomatic efforts fail is something I don't know at this time. I think that what is happening with North Korea is a good example of my thoughts. NK has admitted that it has been actively trying to build/obtain nuclear weapons but the Shrub administration is not threatening to invade their country. This in spite of the fact that Dubya has branded NK as on of the three worst terrorist countries in the world. Instead we are trying to use diplomacy to end the threat. This leads me to think that maybe there are other forces at work with the plans for the war against Iraq. Maybe the oil industry wanting to get their hands on Iraq's oil fields?????????????

---

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:

---

Originally posted by yardie

My thinking is along the same line too. I think the real reason for the U.S aggressiveness is becoming clear.

---

Registered: Feb 2000
Location:
Posts: 1571

Its funny that the Bush admin get Cheney and Rumsfield -- the two hawks in the the inner circle -- to beat the war drum. While they get Powell -- the "dove" -- to give out the peace message.

The U.S. is backing down because they didn't get their way with the international community -- not because they really want to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
If the real motivation is not non-proliferation why would Powell this morning say disarmament would result in no use of force? Such actions would not result in opening of the oil fields to benefit these supposedly infinitely powerful oily Bush friends.

---

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:

---

Originally posted by yardie
Its funny that the Bush admin get Cheney and Rumsfield -- the two hawks in the the inner circle -- to beat the war drum. While they get Powell -- the "dove" -- to give out the peace message.

The U.S. is backing down because they didn't get their way with the international community -- not because they really want to.

---

But my point is if they really wanted to go get the oil, whiney Frenchmen wouldn't keep them from it. And I don't see where the humor is in that situation. Seems pretty logical to me, but maybe that's just me. I'd instinctively think you'd have the secretary of defense relying on miltary needs while the secretary of state urges diplomacy. Is this not the way it's supposed to work?

And to show you (and me) I didn't just imagine the policy change/clarification (it's a change, regardless of what they say):
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...a_st_pe/us_iraq

P.S. something (perhaps an ostrich) seems to have eaten part of Brain's ears.

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Redwood City CA
Posts: 472

quote:

---

Originally posted by yardie
OK Mr. Nowak,

Are you denying that most scientist believe Global warming exists?

---

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Redwood City CA
Posts: 472

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
My stance is being incredibly mis-interpretted.

---

Registered: Feb 2000
Location:
Posts: 1571

Yes.
We both agree that there is policy change. The point of contention is the reason behind the policy change. I am argueing that the opposition of the international community has a lot to do with it. The North Kprean situation may also have somethign to do with. North Korea is more of a threat to U.S interests and its neighbours than Iraq will ever be under the sanctions now in place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer


And to show you (and me) I didn't just imagine the policy change/clarification (it's a change, regardless of what they say):
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...a_st_pe/us_iraq

P.S. something (perhaps an ostrich) seems to have eaten part of Brain's ears.

---

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Nowak


Then, logically, you're either failing to communicate it correctly, because you're convincing a number of people you hold a view you claim not to.

---

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:

---

Originally posted by yardie
Yes.
We both agree that there is policy change. The point of contention is the reason behind the policy change. I am argueing that the opposition of the international community has a lot to do with it.

---

Uh, I think you're just repeating what I said.

quote:

---

For all those claiming Bush is a war-crazed fool, intent on ousting Saddam regardless of any actions he takes, it turns out the administration does have at least half an ear toward the world's opinions. Powell just claimed that effectively a completely disarmed Iraq would essentially be a changed regime and therefore would satisfy the policy of "Regime Change." Seems to me like a bad twisting of words to save face, but more importantly it demonstrates that we do have logical people in charge of this country. Don't stop complaining about policy--that's integral to the system--but don't doubt the country and its institutions. "The good ol' days weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

---

and

quote:

---

The system solicits the opinions of the world and gives veto power to a varied few. Our American system punishes the leadership who fails listen.

---

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Redwood City CA
Posts: 472

quote:

---

Originally posted by jhappel

NK has admitted that it has been actively trying to build/obtain nuclear weapons

---

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Nowak


No, they stated they had operational nuclear weapons.

---

Registered: Feb 2000
Location:
Posts: 1571

Well I guess we both agree on this particular issue then

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
Uh, I think you're just repeating what I said.
and

---

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Registered: Feb 2000
Location:
Posts: 1571

Or maybe the U.S is just afraid to pick on a country that can give it some competition.

They have people believing that Saddam is a major threat, while one more closer to home is the real threat.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Nowak


No, they stated they had operational nuclear weapons.



Maybe it's more dangerous to invade a country with nuclear weapons than a country without them?

Nah, must be the oil.

---

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734

quote:

---

Originally posted by yardie
Or maybe the U.S is just afraid to pick on a country that can give it some competition.

They have people believing that Saddam is a major threat, while one more closer to home is the real threat.

---

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by yardie
Are you denying that most scientist believe Global warming exists?

---

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

Now, we finally get back to the crux of the biscuit...

Now, I can re-summarize what started all of this before the waters got all dirtied with mental spooge...

quote:

---

Originally posted by yardie
There is nothing wrong with making assumptions based based on general trends and observations.

---

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
My point is it's not prejudice. It's a prediction.

---