Debate : 19468


Off-Topic / Debate / 19468

Gulf of understanding is mutual —Larry Pieniazek

A good article from an expat Brit (now a US citizen) (URL) favorite quote: 'In off-topic.debate a year and a half ago, I was talking to one of my Canadian friends about the United States Constitution. He waved away the Constitution with a laugh. (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —David Koudys

(...) I think my point has always been that when you put a piece of paper, or a book, say, off the top of my head--the Bible, or any other piece of literature (good or otherwise) above what's good for you or your fellow person on this planet, then (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —Scott Arthur

(...) The USA has lost this war already. Don't doubt that. See: Europe poll sees US falling from favour (URL) last year the proportion with a favourable view of the US has dropped from 75% to 48% in Britain, 76% to 34% in Italy, 50% to 14% in (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —John Neal

(...) Ahem. The he meant the war with Iraq, not the "war" with gutless, European lefties. JOHN (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —David Koudys

(...) Gutless Canadian Lefities as well And Gutless American Lefties who are now disenfranchised completely as to your very own political process, as if hanging chads was bad 'nuff... Have fun storming the castle--your homeland won't ever be the (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —John Neal

(...) That statement makes absolutely no sense, but thanks for invoking the popular buzz words of the Left, "disenfranshised" and "hanging chads". I've said it before, I'll say it again, and probably again in the future: The election is over-- move (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —Dave Schuler

(...) We all accept that the election is over (thank you, Papa Bush, Jeb, Katherine, and Dubya), but what Conservatives don't seem to recognize is that Dubya was not elected by a majority. I can accept that we have a president who was appointed to (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Take the Oreos, Cremewiches are where it's at! And how dare you criticize President Bush during a war! You are failing to support our troops, you traitor tot! America, love it or leave it; impeach Earl Warren; reverse discrimination; liberal (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —John Neal

(...) -->Bruce<-- you are finally coming around! ;-) JOHN (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —Larry Pieniazek

(...) ?? Do you mean the UN? Seeing the back of that morally relativistic failed talk society as a force in the world is about the only good that will come of this whole mess. (URL) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —David Koudys

(...) institution I imagined it was... As this crisis continues, I am fast coming to the same conclusions Larry has been posting about where the UN is concerned. Keep up the postings Larry. Dave K (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —David Koudys

(...) Yeah, makes no sense to folks who consistantly an now effortlessly, ignore their fellow citizen. (...) Yeah, Iraq--poor, decimated, blowed up country sent alotta ter'ists flying planes into your buildings... Iraq--the focal point on the 'war (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —Dave Schuler

(...) Some readers may recall with fondness this highpoint of American discourse: (URL) it's no surprise that similar word-scapegoating is still going on: (URL) the French have made similar lexicographic revisions, some of which I list for you (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —John Neal

(...) JOHN (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

"gutless" bush? —Scott Arthur

(...) Why is it when you say the word "gutless", I think about how Bush Jr reacted on 911? ;) Also, how did he avoid the draft in ’68? Was it because: a) he was too drunk? b) he was too stupid? c) he was disallowed as monkeys can't fly planes? d) (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —John Neal

(...) I give up. Why? (...) He served his country in the National Guard (he was a pilot). I fail to "get" your winkies. JOHN (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Scott Arthur

(...) I seem to remember he ran around like a headless chicken? How many bases did he hide in? How long was it before he spoke to the nation? Rather than leading your country in a time of need, he chose to hide under his bed. His own words: “I was (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —John Neal

(...) Those weren't his decisions, but of the secret service. It is their job to ensure his safety-- they did what they felt prudent. You are a cretin to imply otherwise. (...) predecessor? What is your point? Merely more blathering? (...) Trolling (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Scott Arthur

(...) What about his duty? (...) youch! (...) My point is that he is "gutless"! (...) How ironic! Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Scott Arthur

(...) What do you think President Thomas J. Whitmore would have done? ;) Scott A (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —John Neal

(...) Who the hell is he? JOHN (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Scott Arthur

(...) Well that just shows what you know about American History! [joke] Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —John Neal

(...) I just Googled him-- I had a suspicion that he was the president from the WW.... guess not. JOHN (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —John Neal

(...) Are you implying that it is his duty to get *in* harm's way? That he can't do his duty in safety? I would submit that it is a large part of his duty to *not* get killed-- an event that would have serious national implications. All hell broke (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) Then you obviously have no clue how much strength and fortitude it takes to, unarmed and undefended, stand in front of a rolling tank. Getting what one wants with a gun is mere thuggery. (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —John Neal

(...) Sorry, I don't share your admiration for suicide martyrs. (...) Not when dealing with thugs. In that case, the bigger the gun the better-- it's called "results". Stand in front of as many of SH's tanks as you dare; he will roll over you every (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Dave Schuler

(...) Not even if they're crucified? Dave! (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —David Koudys

(...) Thank you for bringing that moment of *perfect* clarity, Dave! I'll walk and talk peace, thanks. Dave K (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —John Neal

(...) You mean *self-inflicted* crucifixion? JOHN (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Dave Schuler

(...) Heck, yeah! He was *the Lord* according to the myth. If he allowed it to occur, then it's tantamount to causing it to occur. Dave! (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —John Neal

(...) But can he create a stone he can't lift? You raise some heavy theological issues, not the least of which is circular in reasoning. JOHN (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Ummmmmmmm, you sure you want to phrase it that way? -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —John Neal

(...) Yes. This started 11 years ago with the invasion of Kuwait. JOHN (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Scott Arthur

(...) …which Bush only mumbled about until Thatcher kicked him in the proverbial ass. Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —David Koudys

(...) Kuwait was liberated. That war is over. This cannot be about that invasion--it's over. You're so quick to tell us to 'get over' Bush and the election--get over Kuwait--it's done. SH wasn't massing a force to re-invade. What is it you are (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —John Neal

(...) Ploughed ground, but I'll explain 1 more time, and I'll type extra slowly in hopes you get it this time: 1. SH invades Kuwait. 2. UN forces repel SH from Kuwait. 3. SH agrees to >>>DISARM<<< 4. SH yanks weapons inspectors around for 11 years, (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —David Koudys

(...) That's a pretty good house of cards you built there. If that's the 'domino effect' that gets us to now, you cannot use "Kuwait's invasion" as the foundation building block for *this* war. The issue--the invasion of Kuwait--has been resolved. (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —John Neal

(...) Absolutely not. It was a condition of surrender, Dave, that SH disarm. He has violated that treaty, therefore it is *unresolved*. (...) Who else's would it be? (...) Rez 1441 states that "serious consequences" will occur if there isn't (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) You weren't paying attention, JOHN: how can the U.S. use a UN resolution as a pretext for war when the UN doesn't back us on it? Yes, the UN shouldn't have passed such a resolution if they weren't prepared to back it up, but we have no legal (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Begin violence. (...) End violence. (...) No violence.... (...) No violence.... (...) No violence.... (...) No violence.... (...) No violence... (...) Violence, started by the U.S.! Hey this is *your* sequence of events. "sometimes violence is (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 2004: DPRK: Give us food, or Seoul gets it... you know we can do it, you saw that nuke that OBL set off earlier this year? That was us. And we made more. RoK: OK, I guess so, but just this one time... 2005: DPRK: Give us food AND a good stock (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I don't drive a Hyundai, go ahead! Seoul is the one that requested we show restraint, so I don't have a problem with them eating the consequences. (...) Oh dang, I drive a Mazda. Time to switch to that BMW, I guess. Anime? They are welcome to (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —John Neal

(...) The violence is a CONSEQUENCE of his FAILURE to comply. You are making my case for the impotence of the UN. If the UN isn't willing to back up their threats, they are empty and worthless. Without violence, there will be no disarming SH. That's (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) No John, you said one thing and I called you on it: "sometimes violence is the only way (because the bad guy starts it)." Okay, we started the current violence, so your statement has a certain irony to it. You'd be far better off amending your (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Richard Marchetti

(...) Indeed! Look, the U.N. is a joke -- but at least I am willing to hear the punchline because it means people do not have to die RIGHT THIS MINUTE! And yes, of course, the U.S. has become imperialistic. Look at our feigned concern for the (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Um, not exactly. When a war ends the armed hostility phase with a truce agreement, it's not over until a negotiated peace is in place. In this case, the truce agreement specified that SH would disarm and change his ways. He didn't. Violations (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Dave Johann

(...) Yes, the invasion of Kuwait is over. That business is finished. What was never finished was the removal of Saddam Hussein from his nice, cozy position of power. This is something Papa couldn't finish and something Hill Billy Clinton wouldn't (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Richard Marchetti

(...) Why? I wouldn't have cared if Saddam had been allowed to thumb his nose at resolution after resolution after resolution, ad infinitum...I have no ego investment in making others obey my every word, as long as they also keep the peace. Everyone (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Dave Johann

(...) I'll agree completely that 'keeping the peace' is the paramount concern here. That, and the prevention of the proliferation of more WOMD. Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN resolutions and sanctions imposed on his country. Now it's time to put (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Richard Marchetti

(...) I thought what was wanted was justice for the "helpless" Iraqi people? Why should we let SH slip away quietly when it is our "claimed" agenda to make him pay for his supposed crimes? Or is there another agenda that doesn't care about justice (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) No. That was resolved 11 years ago. But hey, I was just trying to give you a chance to rephrase your statement before you were jumped all over for such an inviting statement, considering that Bush is initiating the violence. I see the jumping (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) If you think that what the Tien An Min Square protesters were saying/doing was merely "give peace a chance", you may have misunderstood. They were FIGHTING for what they believed in, and they had pledged their lives, their fortunes and their (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —David Koudys

(...) Agreed. They protested peaceably. They didn't get guns, they didn't blow things up, and they made a point that was 'heard 'round the world'. You know a long time ago someone e-mailed me this quotation: "it's a lot nicer when spray paint (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate... (...) The subtext of Scott's 100% correct point [ie, that Lil' Bush shirked his duty] underscores the fallacy of the so-called "liberal media." During the 2000 campaign, many dozens of articles were written about Gore's (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Scott Arthur

(...) What I want to know is this: Did any of the Bush clan make money out of the war Jr was too scared to fight for his country in? Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Dave Johann

(...) Hmm...last time I checked, it is US policy to remove the president from harm's way aka the White House. That doesn't sound like running to me. Perhaps when a threat to national security occurs, we should just have the president step out on the (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Dave Schuler

(...) Not lost, but misplaced. No one really thinks that Dubya should have leapt to the front lines as soon as danger reared its head (though that might have been nice), but he should have addressed the nation much more promptly than he did, and he (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Dave Johann

(...) No, he had to wait until the Secter Service was satisfied that the he was relatively safe from harm and separated from Cheney. -Dave J. (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Dave Schuler

(...) Evidence, please. The Secret Service is, as I understand it, trained to secure the safety of the president, even if he's appointed rather than elected to the position. I think that should take a maximum of about half an hour. I'm no expert on (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Richard Marchetti

(...) I think a lot more of us could benefit from being separated from Cheney... Perhaps he can be placed in a rocketship and sent into space with what -- a 2 hour supply of oxygen? Works for me. Although I guess some kind of "conflict of interests" (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) All sarcasm is lost on him, but I digress. (...) I think you mean "Secret Service", but there are those that would argue that your statement is equivalent to the one made by Dave! They may seem to have different words but they come out to the (...) (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: "gutless" bush? —Scott Arthur

(...) I'm not sure what would be a bigger danger: a) Bush the pilot. or b) Bush the "president". ;) Scott A (21 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) The difference between Dubya-Dubya III and Desert Storm may well be that in the latter, the Iraqi soldiers knew they were in the wrong in the first place and didn't have any heart in holding Kuwait. This time it is about defending Iraq and we (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —John Neal

(...) Why would they risk their lives to save Saddam's ass? (...) Or like an unleashing of a chemical/biological agent. (...) This assertion is patently false. The dirty little secret is that Al Qaeda is the enemy of ALL Muslims. Even if Al Qaeda (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Gulf of understanding is mutual —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Look to the Iraq-Iran war for an example. Nationalism can win out over common sense. Happens all the time. Not to mention they hardly trust the motives of the United States (I don't, so why should the Iraqi people?). (...) It's possible, but (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)