Chuck has not been around as usual.
 

Actually, Chuck has not even been in this conversation. This was really between Rockyroad and a couple of other people that took issue with his comments. Chuck did not even play a part in the main part of the discussion. But as usual Chuck puts himself in something that was debatable by more than just me on this topic. I guess he has nothing else to do.

Peace

Re: Chuck has not been around as usual.
 

#1) Go back over the posts again...the only one who had any problem with my comments was Rutledge...PA Coach took exception to one of Rutludge's "interpretations" of what I said, but then changed that stance in his next post when he realized I never said what Rutledge "interpreted"...

#2)Chuck obviously read all of the strand, and got fed up with Rutledge jumping around all over the place and making comments about things that were never said by me...

So Chuck is innocent here...not his fault it went so long...

okay, sorry...

CE & Rut & Rocky
http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/argue.gif http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/pcangry.gif

I'm not sure why you "should have known" that I had anything to do with it. I have only been in one conversation with Jeff that has been extremely protracted. And throughout that entire debate, I really only asked one question. So it's not like I was all over the map making irrelevant points and intentionally deflecting the conversation. I almost always stay out of those types of threads, but I was curious how long -- and to what lengths Jeff would go -- to avoid answering the question, when the answer was already obvious.

In any case, even if Jeff and I did have an extensive history of conflict (which I don't think we do), this thread isn't a part of that history. I only made two posts prior to this one. And one of them was a compliment to Jeff, for crying out loud. I said he has a "gift"! How can that possibly be construed as confrontational? I try to raise a young man's self-esteem and get castigated for it.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said anything negative about anybody ever. And anyway, why do you care what I said? It's just a discussion board and it's just my opinion. Clearly, you have nothing better to do with your life than attack me, but why should I care?

Chuck

Re: Re: How does he do it?!?!
 

No, this is:

"There was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently."

Hmmm....I know I've read something like this before...where?
where?

Can't we all just get along???

--Rodney King


Maybe he was talking about this forum. Sheesh.

Sorry guys, just poking fun....and those "smilie" things are a hoot. I just forgot to add ;) at the end.

Sheesh, no wonder you Yankee types are so quick to go to war...

(see how many pages THAT comment generates!)

Do not lump us all together. Some of us think this President is an idiot!!http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk...icon_drool.gif

Now that might help generate more posts about that.

Peace

Rut,

I won't lump you all together, if y'all promise not to get all your info about Canadians from Pat Buchanan :D

I believe the majority of the U.S. does not agree with this war, but your fierce nationalism and patriotism (not necessarily bad things) lead many to beat the drums anyway. I will say that most of the people I know up here don't think much of ole George Dub-ya.

Why I disagree with invading Iraq is a much longer discussion. Let's just say your country's duplicity in this matter (and Afghanistan, for that matter) leave me skeptical about the real reasons for this war. I don't believe it's as simple as "war for oil", but it's definitely not because Iraq is a threat.

My hopes and good wishes go out to your Armed Forces. Our Prime Minister refuses to commit military support unless the U.N. mandates it, a position I support. Any Americans who criticize us for that should remember that it took over two years for you folks to pitch in against Adolf Hitler.

The war will be quick and surgical. Hopefully loss of life (American, Iraqui, whomever) will be minimal. Just don't believe any of the news you receive from the front lines. It will all be sanitized by the military. The real battle will be for independent journalists to report the truth.

Many of us do not believe the information we get from our government anyway. It is not like we are surprised by those accounts. But the one thing they will never be able to hide, the body bags when they come back to this country. But I guess this is all to get revenge for the attempt on <b>DADDY'S</b> life.

Peace

Canuckref, I wanted to email you, b/c this conversation probably doesn't really belong in this forum; but I didn't see an email link for you. So I'll have to post this here, but I'll keep it short (I hope :) ). I'm not a knee-jerk "My country, right or wrong" kind of guy, but I wanted to make just a couple comments on your post.

I think that you might get that impression from some of the news coverage of the daily anti-war demonstrations; but polling data by fairly neutral companies (in other words, not commissioned by the Republican Party) shows support for military action by 70% or so of Americans. And that's even if the action is not backed by the UN. I saw that figure last night, although I apologize that I can't quote you the source of the poll.

I'm sure that's true, since one of your government officials (MP Carolyn Parrish) recently said, "Damn Americans, I hate those b@stards." I have no problem with that. One person's opinion. I think that there is a large perception that President Bush is just an idiot, as Jeff put it. He's stupid and in way over his head. Even referring to him as "old George Dub-ya" has a connotation of a country hick sittin' on the front porch of the town store. But I personally think that is an easy characature used by critics and unsympathetic media.

It's very similar to the characature of former President Clinton as the womanizing philanderer, who would have sex with anything that moved. Both are based on a small grain of truth (Bush's college grades, and Clinton's affair with Monica), but are overblown and accepted simply b/c it's easier to do than to see the person as a complex individual.

Again, I'm not so naive as to believe that the US gov't hasn't slanted its facts to make the best possible case for itself. But whatever duplicity has been used in this country cannot possibly be compared to that used in Iraq. At least, I don't think so.

Frankly, I just don't see how it's possible for anyone to say that Iraq is NOT a threat. Iraq is, in my opinion, an obvious threat in several ways. First, they have shown in the past the willingness to invade another country without provocation. So they're obviously a threat to their neighbors. Second, the gov't there used chemical weapons on its own people when they attempted to rebel after the Gulf War. (The US's failure to help those rebels is the real shame of that conflict.) So, Iraq is a threat to its own people. And we know that they still have those weapons, b/c their soldiers have them right now in the battlefields.

Iraq is much more of a threat right now than Serbia ever was. But President Clinton sent troops there to remove Milosovic without UN approval, and the results were not the horror that many predicted.

The ties to terrorists are, I think, murky and haven't been proven very well. But I don't think you need those ties to show that Iraq is a threat. Is it enough of a threat to invade? I don't know that personally. But I assume (I hope to God) that the US gov't has information that it has not made public to show that it is enough of a threat.

I appreciate that, I really do. I think that, like you, we all hope for minimal loss of life on all sides. That will be more likely if we see mass surrenders, as has been reported will happen. But that could easily be a ruse.

And I respect your support for your own gov't, as well as your government's right to do what it sees as best for the safety of its people. The problem with the UN mandate is that at least one country has said that it will veto any resolution that calls for use of force. So what's the point of going thru the UN? It's a non-starter. Even if the whole UN supported it, it would be vetoed. If you want to talk duplicity, I think Germany, France and Russia bear examination.

Well, I guess this whole post is based on a lie, anyway. I said it would be short! :D I hope that this post is seen as respectful debate and not as bashing anyone or as jingoistic propoganda. If you want to talk more, please feel free to email me, as I think Brad would rather not have this topic clogging up the board. Very sincerely,

Chuck


[Edited by ChuckElias on Mar 19th, 2003 at 09:02 AM]

Wow...interesting statements. This one really caught my attention...not only are you wrong (as Chuck pointed out), but why would we Yanks care what you Canucks think about our President???? I have been sitting here trying to think of one single impressive thing any of your Canadian PM's have done in the last 40 years...haven't thought of anything yet...

So much for any chance of this NOT turning into Canadians and Americans bashing each other.

Oops...guess I forgot to add my smilie face at the end also...sorry.