President Bush

[SpringTX]

You can compare world wars to an attack on a wounded country of 25 million all day long.  No one buys the comparison.  I don't even need to explain why.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think all these comparisons with WWII aren't useful, because it's a completely different context. I don't want to get too deep in an agrument about whether the war was right or wrong, but the risks of terrorism are too great these days. It's too easy for one small group of crackpots to kill thousands of innocent Americans these days. If Bush didn't invade Iraq, and if there would have been another catastrophe on American soil, then everyone would have jumped all over Bush and blasted him for being too soft on terrorism. He was being proactive. (Some might liken it to premature ejaculation he was so proactive.) But it had some merit, because there was a real threat there. We don't know if WMD's were destroyed or if they were never there in the first place. But it's kind of hard after 9-11 to take that chance. We KNEW these nutballs in Iraq WANTED to commit terrorism on us. We knew they were TRYING to build deadly weapons to commit terrorism on us. That's good enough for me. Why take the chance? I think it's better we kill 2,000 U.S. soldiers and 20,000 Iraqi soliders then to let an Iraqi terrorist detonate a subway bomb in New York and kill 5,000 American women and children.

But my larger point is that, whether the president is right or wrong, in our wonderful country, we all have the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. I have no problem with the anti-war crowd lobbying for a Constitutional amendment to restrict the president's power to send troops ("national emergency" as opposed to declaring war). I have no problem with anti-war protesting, for Vietnam or for Iraq. But I don't think the end ever justifies the means. There's no point for being disorderly just to make your opinion heard. Everyone has their own opinion. There's no need to turn things into a never-ending battle of who can be more disorderly. NO ONE WINS in a debate like that. All sides MUST keep it civilized. This lady camped out on Bush's ranch is overstepping the boundaries of fair dialogue.

RedScare calls the war "an ill conceived act of agression that has not made the country safer, but in fact, increased terrorism". And that's fine for him to believe that, and I respect his beliefs. But I think that the people who feel this way should be lobbying to have the President impeached. Or for Congress to pass some law that brings the troops home and ends the war. Or something that is WORKING WITHIN THE SYSTEM. We have a wonderful democratic system. Both sides have equally fair opportunities to work within the system. There is no place for being disruptive, disorderly, or insubordinate, no matter how strongly a person feels about a subject. That kind of misbehavior tends to breed counter-reactions and it never seems to end. It drags everyone down. That's just my opinion.

[RedScare]

" I think it's better we kill 2,000 U.S. soldiers and 20,000 Iraqi soliders then to let an Iraqi terrorist detonate a subway bomb in New York and kill 5,000 American women and children."

Dude, I don't know a nice way to say this. Your math is seriously f*cked up.

"But I don't think the end ever justifies the means."

That's what you just described above.

"There's no point for being disorderly just to make your opinion heard. Everyone has their own opinion. There's no need to turn things into a never-ending battle of who can be more disorderly. NO ONE WINS in a debate like that. All sides MUST keep it civilized. This lady camped out on Bush's ranch is overstepping the boundaries of fair dialogue."

You are more concerned with disorderly conduct than you are 22,000 dead bodies? Man, you need to seriously examine your priorities. BTW, if this woman or her friends committed the offense of disorderly conduct, she or they would be arrested by the McClennan County Sheriff. I believe they have comported themselves within the law.

Oh, and if the Congress was not run by Republicans, this president would have been impeached.

[Houstonian in Iraq]

If Bush didn't invade Iraq, and if there would have been another catastrophe on American soil, then everyone would have jumped all over Bush and blasted him for being too soft on terrorism.  He was being proactive. .....But it had some merit, because there was a real threat there.  We don't know if WMD's were destroyed or if they were never there in the first place.  But it's kind of hard after 9-11 to take that chance.  We KNEW these nutballs in Iraq WANTED to commit terrorism on us.  We knew they were TRYING to build deadly weapons to commit terrorism on us.  That's good enough for me.  Why take the chance?  I think it's better we kill 2,000 U.S. soldiers and 20,000 Iraqi soliders then to let an Iraqi terrorist detonate a subway bomb in New York and kill 5,000 American women and children........

I have no problem with the anti-war crowd lobbying for a Constitutional amendment to restrict the president's power to send troops ("national emergency" as opposed to declaring war).  I have no problem with anti-war protesting, for Vietnam or for Iraq.  But I don't think the end ever justifies the means.  There's no point for being disorderly just to make your opinion heard.......This lady camped out on Bush's ranch is overstepping the boundaries of fair dialogue.

RedScare calls the war "an ill conceived act of agression that has not made the country safer, but in fact, increased terrorism".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If we didnt invade Iraq, Suddam Hussain would of still been the trash talking, paranoid president he was. In other words he was NO threat before the war, he had NO ties with terrorist and only had conventional weapons(you been watching too much FOX news). ...The Lady is on public property not camped out on his ranch

.....The war was an ill conceived plan. May I point out. The Lack of body armor, armored vehicles, equipment, and training. Not to mention that he greatly underestimated the amount of troops and time needed to win this war. ALL these things were all brought up to him by his top generals. GEN Shinzinski(miss-spelled) he went ahead and retired in part becuase Bush wouldn't listen to him.

.......This war has NOW created a haven for terrorism. They sneak through the border set up camps and blow up people, if not they are going back to their country and spreading what they learned. The IRAQIS are NOT the ones that are blowing things up FOREIGN extremist are

.....We have messed up the country we should fix it

[KatieDidIt]

If we didnt invade Iraq, Suddam Hussain would of still been the trash talking, paranoid president he was. In other words he was NO threat before the war, he had NO ties with terrorist and only had conventional weapons(you been watching too much FOX news). ...The Lady is on public property not camped out on his ranch

.....The war was an ill conceived plan. May I point out. The Lack of body armor, armored vehicles, equipment, and training.  Not to mention that he greatly underestimated the amount of troops and time needed to win this war. ALL these things were all brought up to him by his top generals. GEN Shinzinski(miss-spelled)  he went ahead and retired in part becuase Bush wouldn't listen to him.

.......This war has NOW created a haven for terrorism. They sneak through the border set up camps and blow up people, if not they are going back to their country and spreading what they learned. The IRAQIS are NOT the ones that are blowing things up FOREIGN extremist are

.....We have messed up the country we should fix it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WIth this final concept I think both sides should agree on. Pulling out of Iraq, after promising its more peaceful citizens a better way of life and stirring up the area, would be an IMMORAL thing to do. We have to stay the course now.

[HeightsGuy]

The world and the US didn't collapse when we pulled out of Vietnam, it won't collapse if we pull out of Iraq. We did our job by getting rid of Saddam, if the rest of them want to duke it out I say let 'em. We did business with Saddam until he bit the hand that fed him, and we will do business with whoever comes out on top there until they eventually bite the hand as well.

[nmainguy]

Grrr, and some ally the French turned out to be.   

As to Iraq not attacking the US......... Factions in Iraq supported and still suport Al Qaeda....Al Qaeda attacked the US. While the original purpose to go over there was because of WOMD and the potential of them, the reasons to remain there grew.

Basically that whole area over there has been a hornets nest for a long time. Al Qaeda just made us take a swat at them. But now that area is buzzing, we have to take care of it...GET ON WITH IT. And yes, they are starting to dominate the WORLD with terror. Its being felt all over now.

Let's just flatten the mountainous regions of Afganistan and be done with it. We have that power.

Back to the subject of the Mother:

It is tragic, I feel for her loss. But what makes her more special than any other parent that has lost a child to war or to 911? Grief is part of life, part of military service. I COMMEND her son for wanting to fight for his country, what a noble American. His mother however, is falling short. If she is being backed by political faction, I hope she is revealed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My grandma used to say, "Everyone becomes an adult at 21 but not nessesarily a grown-up" Let's file this one in the adult drawer: "Let's just flatten the mountainous regions of Afganistan and be done with it. We have that power." Not very grown-up there, KatieDidIt.

And you hope she is revealed as what? A patriotic American whom you disagree with or is she just another piece of excrement? (Ann Coulter's words, not mine.)

[PureAuteur]

What happened to Ann Coulter? I haven't seen her parading herself around the flag-waver scene lately. (Fox News, Far-Right Radio) Maybe she is focusing more on being a prolific writer. "How to Talk to a Liberal if you Must", now there's a timeless piece of literature right there.

The woman is very smart, don't get me wrong, but I'm sick of these people being paid to divide the nation into far-right and far-left just because it's popular and profitable right now to do so. If you speak to Ann Coulter on a radio show, she will respond with the same old b.s. nonsense. If you talk to her in person away from any media outlet, she will be more sensible and tell you that it's all for entertainment and that the world isn't as black and white as we make it seem.

[sevfiv]

yep, ann coulter is the poster lady for right-wing chic...

it's all an image though, since it is alot of drivel...

or is it? (says ann)

[kjb434]

That's why I prefer Rush and Savage. These two are much better at getting at the real issues instead of just repeating standard lines.

I like Glenn Beck for comedic purposes since he doesn't like politics anyway.

I avoid Sean Hannity because just a marketing force and repeats in 1.5 hours what rush and savage take care in 20 minutes.

Chris Baker is good in the afternoon also.

I guess its out again. I'm an Evil Conservative who purposely want to starve children, be a bigot and destroy the environment. That's what I'm for.

[RedScare]

Hate to ruin your day, but Limbaugh has stated on numerous occasions that he is an entertainer, nothing more. In fact, all of them are, especially the radio guys.

That's why you never see or hear liberals on radio/TV. They are all too earnest, rather than entertaining. I know I'd never listen to it. If you can't write it down in plain English, I doubt I want to hear it.

[Kirzania]

I'm a fan of Sean Hannity simply because he had an assistant who he called Flipper. Seriously, it doesn't get any funnier.

Her intelligence factor was shocking. ("You can't hurt the poor cows. But I do eat tuna, because it doesn't come from an animal! Fish don't think, so they can't feel.")

[PureAuteur]

Savage came across as a total jerk yesterday. Some caller mentioned one thing about how the Israelis are leaving land that wasn't truly theirs to begin with (belonging to the Palestinians) and Savage immediately responds with "wow, so you are a bigot and stupid i see". That is ridiculous. I am all about entertainment, but to hurt someone's feelings and be that rude on the air to a caller should get him fired. If he said that to me, I'd be pissed.

Basically the rule of the game on right wing radio is, if you are a disagreeing caller, you're wrong. If you are the host of the show, you are correct always.

[Kirzania]

Basically the rule of the game on right wing radio is, if you are a disagreeing caller, you're wrong.  If you are the host of the show, you are correct always.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To Fark with them all, to be honest. I may consider myself "conservative," but these days everyone is too full of themselves to be anything but "Republican" or "Democrat" - they're all Pompous Pr*cks. All of those radio personalities are guilty of being arrogant at some point or another (if not always.)

Can we not rise up against ClearChannel and Take Back the Radio? Maybe then we can have people who are actually good at listening and can debate with calm, level-headed facts and the intelligence level of a high schooler.

[Houstonian in Iraq]

The world and the US didn't collapse when we pulled out of Vietnam, it won't collapse if we pull out of Iraq. We did our job by getting rid of Saddam, if the rest of them want to duke it out I say let 'em. We did business with Saddam until he bit the hand that fed him, and we will do business with whoever comes out on top there until they eventually bite the hand as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our job was to stop terrorism instead we fueled it. It was to set up a democratic state instead we threw it into a more chaotic one. It was to get it's economy up and running instead we left it in shambles. Veitnam is a totally different animal so is any other war(don't get me started)Yes the world will not collapse into oblivian if we pull out, but the impact will be fealt. Fealt if not in our economy then in national security.

We owe it to the good people of Iraq and the men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice to finsh the job we started.

[sevfiv]

To Fark with them all, to be honest. I may consider myself "conservative," but these days everyone is too full of themselves to be anything but "Republican" or "Democrat" - they're all Pompous Pr*cks. All of those radio personalities are guilty of being arrogant at some point or another (if not always.)

Can we not rise up against ClearChannel and Take Back the Radio? Maybe then we can have people who are actually good at listening and can debate with calm, level-headed facts and the intelligence level of a high schooler.

yay for listener-run radio (and the listeners who support it).

i can't affiliate with party politics...not even democratic socialism anymore (giving responsibility to the people is a great idea theoretically, but look around! look at "the people")

aaahhhhh!

sorry, i get to myself sometimes...

[Kirzania]

i can't affiliate with party politics...not even democratic socialism anymore (giving responsibility to the people is a great idea, but look around!  look at "the people")

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm running away to live on Palmyra Atoll to raise my kids and live off the land. Care to come along?

[sevfiv]

awesome! it looks lovely there!

oooh according to wikipedia, though: "Defense is the responsibility of the United States"

[nmainguy]

What happened to Ann Coulter?  I haven't seen her parading herself around the flag-waver scene lately.  (Fox News, Far-Right Radio)  Maybe she is focusing more on being a prolific writer.  "How to Talk to a Liberal if you Must", now there's a timeless piece of literature right there.

The woman is very smart, don't get me wrong, but I'm sick of these people being paid to divide the nation into far-right and far-left just because it's popular and profitable right now to do so.  If you speak to Ann Coulter on a radio show, she will respond with the same old b.s. nonsense.  If you talk to her in person away from any media outlet, she will be more sensible and tell you that it's all for entertainment and that the world isn't as black and white as we make it seem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's Coulter and O'Rielly arguing: O'Rielly says we didn't lose in Viet Nam but we're are losing in Iraq...Coulter says the opposite...watch the anorexic and Mr. Vibrator here

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/The_OReil...ll-over-war.wmv

[KimberlySayWhat]

"Flipper" saved a lobster and then set it free in fresh water!

[SpringTX]

" I think it's better we kill 2,000 U.S. soldiers and 20,000 Iraqi soliders then to let an Iraqi terrorist detonate a subway bomb in New York and kill 5,000 American women and children."

Dude, I don't know a nice way to say this.  Your math is seriously f*cked up.

"But I don't think the end ever justifies the means."

That's what you just described above.

"There's no point for being disorderly just to make your opinion heard. Everyone has their own opinion. There's no need to turn things into a never-ending battle of who can be more disorderly. NO ONE WINS in a debate like that. All sides MUST keep it civilized. This lady camped out on Bush's ranch is overstepping the boundaries of fair dialogue."

You are more concerned with disorderly conduct than you are 22,000 dead bodies?  Man, you need to seriously examine your priorities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The reason my calculations appear to you to be "f*cked up", as you say, is because you're overlooking one premise in my mathematical calculations. And that's that "them" don't count in the calculations. Us losing 2,000 soldiers is better than us losing 5,000 civilains. Net savings: 3,000. If it costs "them" 20,000 or 200,000, that's their problem for trying to kill us in the first place. If a guy on the street wants to come into my home and cut my face with a knife, that's nice. But, after he does so, he's still going to drive home with a 9mm slug in his skull that is delivered to him courtesy of me. Am I supposed to feel sorry for him? Was I supposed to use some sort of ethical concern for him when he invaded my home and attacked me with a knife? If a terrorist nation or a nation harboring terrorists tries to blow up Manhattan and kills 10,000 in the process, they better be darned well prepared to have all 20 million people in that country offed. We may go easy on them. Or we might just decide to nuke that whole country in response. But that's our choice. That's how the game works. War isn't fair. War doesn't have ethics. It's kill or be killed. Yakuza Ice's post raised that question. There's no "ethical" math when it comes to saving lives, theirs, ours, or both. Kill 1 or kill 1,000,000. Let it be soliders or let it be civilians. It's all hell. It's all the work of the devil. It's all wrong. But it's part of this sick thing called life here on earth. The next time a stranger with a knife invades your home in the middle of the night, I'd like to see you "play Ghandi" and use passive resistance as a tactic. And it appears to me from what I've seen on this board that you have a pretty sharp ability at debate, but I don't think that will save you when it's some crazed crackhead holding a knife at your throat. I strongly suspect you're going to pull out some heat and invite the sucka to taste some hot lead, courtesy of Smith and Wesson. Am I wrong?

[YakuzaIce]

The world and the US didn't collapse when we pulled out of Vietnam, it won't collapse if we pull out of Iraq. We did our job by getting rid of Saddam, if the rest of them want to duke it out I say let 'em. We did business with Saddam until he bit the hand that fed him, and we will do business with whoever comes out on top there until they eventually bite the hand as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well the north did invade the south and thousands of southern supporters of democracy were executed.

[RedScare]

The reason my calculations appear to you to be "f*cked up", as you say, is because you're overlooking one premise in my mathematical calculations.  And that's that "them" don't count in the calculations.  Us losing 2,000 soldiers is better than us losing 5,000 civilains.  Net savings: 3,000.  If it costs "them" 20,000 or 200,000, that's their problem for trying to kill us in the first place.  If a guy on the street wants to come into my home and cut my face with a knife, that's nice.  But, after he does so, he's still going to drive home with a 9mm slug in his skull that is delivered to him courtesy of me.  Am I supposed to feel sorry for him?  Was I supposed to use some sort of ethical concern for him when he invaded my home and attacked me with a knife?  If a terrorist nation or a nation harboring terrorists tries to blow up Manhattan and kills 10,000 in the process, they better be darned well prepared to have all 20 million people in that country offed.  We may go easy on them.  Or we might just decide to nuke that whole country in response.  But that's our choice.  That's how the game works.  War isn't fair.  War doesn't have ethics.  It's kill or be killed.  Yakuza Ice's post raised that question.  There's no "ethical" math when it comes to saving lives, theirs, ours, or both.  Kill 1 or kill 1,000,000.  Let it be soliders or let it be civilians.  It's all hell.  It's all the work of the devil.  It's all wrong.  But it's part of this sick thing called life here on earth.  The next time a stranger with a knife invades your home in the middle of the night, I'd like to see you "play Ghandi" and use passive resistance as a tactic.  And it appears to me from what I've seen on this board that you have a pretty sharp ability at debate, but I don't think that will save you when it's some crazed crackhead holding a knife at your throat.  I strongly suspect you're going to pull out some heat and invite the sucka to taste some hot lead, courtesy of Smith and Wesson.  Am I wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not to prolong the debate, but yes you are wrong. In 1986, while standing in a restaurant parking lot, 2 armed robbers rounded the corner and put a gun in my side. They were exremely nervous, raising my and my date's chances of dying. I talked quickly, explaining that everything they wanted, they could have. They left with 2 wallets, but no blood. Having a gun would have cost me my life.

Back to the topic, you suggest that 2000 soldiers is better than 5000 civilians and "their" losses don't matter. This may be true if 2 conditions exist. One, if "they" are, in fact, the enemy, and two, if war is the only option. I have seen many posts that still argue Iraq was involved with 9/11, or that they were supporting terrorism. I have seen neither to be true, but this is still the basis of the pro-war argument. You can't reason with someone who believes facts to be true that are not facts.

The second condition is war as the only option. There were numerous options on the table, but the administration wanted war, so war it got. Supporters insist it was the only option when it was not. I find it interesting that you support the war to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq's citizens, who were oppressed by Saddam, yet you don't count their losses, because they are the enemy. How can Iraqi citizens be the victim and enemy at the same time?

If you want to support war as a peacemaker, fine. I suggest you and the other supporters join up and put your M16 where your mouth is...and your taxes. Me, I am more than willing to put my diplomatic skills where my mouth is. Unfortunately, my skills are not wanted by this administration.

[SpringTX]

This may be true if 2 conditions exist.  One, if "they" are, in fact, the enemy, and two, if war is the only option.  I have seen many posts that still argue Iraq was involved with 9/11, or that they were supporting terrorism.  I have seen neither to be true, but this is still the basis of the pro-war argument.  You can't reason with someone who believes facts to be true that are not facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, I'm relieved to see you concede that their losses don't count if they are indeed the enemy, bent on killing us, and our best (if not only) response is killing them back in "self-defense". That tells me you see the basics of this debate in a clear and rational way, which is good, in my opinion. So if it's just facts we're debating, then I think it's safe to say that neither of us knows for certain. I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of the facts of the situation is somewhat rudimentary, and based somewhat on information from sources who are pro-Bush. So if you were to deliver enough facts to show me that there was clearly no chance in hell that Bush could have ever believed that Iraq was any sort of threat, then I'll concede that Bush forced a war without any merit. But my understanding from seeing some of the facts from both sides of the issue is that it's very much undecided. On one hand, we have a top general in Bush's post who resigned because he thought Iraq was no threat. But on the other hand, we have the United Nations and our own Congress calling for Iraq to stop developing its nuclear arsenal. You'll have to forgive my memory, because I can't remember all the details clearly right now, but the bottom line is that there seemed to be plenty of doubt, speculation, debate, and information pointing the possibility that Iraq was on its way to making weapons of mass destruction. Nothing was known for sure. But plenty of reasonable had strong suspicions, based on information they had gathered. Supposedly a lot of this came from top-secret intelligence briefings that the general public didn't have access to. So my point is: Bush may have made a bad decision, but some of us trust that he made it based on a REASONABLE fear that Iraq was on its way to developing WMD's. And the fact that we didn't find any evidence of WMD's after the invasion can be explained by the fact that the Iraqis had plenty of time to destroy them, so we don't have CONCLUSIVE proof that there were no WMD's.

So my point is, I don't think it's fair to say that there are "no facts" or that the "facts are wrong" that support the war argument. I think it's a gray area and I personally don't know what Congress knew at the time or what Bush knew at the time. But I have some degree of trust that Bush had a reasonable justification for invasion. I could be wrong. And I'm giving trust to a man who may not necessarily deserve it. But I don't think it's fair to say that any of us KNOWS for sure that Bush did indeed manufacture a flimsy justification for a war. It's always a good idea to "trust but verify", and maybe our president wields too much power, but the Congress seemed to back him on this at the time, as he repeatedly claimed later.

The second condition is war as the only option.  There were numerous options on the table, but the administration wanted war, so war it got.  Supporters insist it was the only option when it was not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As you pointed out in your personal story about being robbed at gunpoint, there are ALWAYS other options. Even if the option is simply to walk away, or throw down one's weapons, or "passively resist". So there were certainly other options than going to war. There always are. So I'm not sure we would ever see a situation where there truly is no option other than going to war. Even if we were invaded by the Canadians tomorrow, with their soliders on horseback riding across the border, we could still throw down our arms and beg for mercy. My point was that, in the wake of 9-11, invading a country who had not yet attacked us was much more UNDERSTANDABLE or reasonable than it would have been previously. Simply because, once they decide to attack, it's a little late. I think it's safe to say that Iraq (Saddam) made it pretty clear that they hated us, wanted us dead, and were going to do what they could do to make that happen. In a sense, that's enough justification right there. If you say to a police officer "I want to cause you harm...and I plan to do so at some point in the future, if at all humanly possible", that's basically enough for them to put you in jail and throw away the key. The cops don't wait for you to strike...the mere INTENT is good enough for them to take action. I'm not saying we were COMPELLED to invade Iraq - I'm just saying that, as long as it was clear that they were working overtime to cause us nasty harm, it was more JUSTIFIABLE for us to take some sort of action to prevent them from doing so.

The bottom line on this, in my opinion, is that while war may not have been the ONLY option, and it may never be the only option, it seemed to be the BEST option at the time, at least in the minds of our leaders. I'm not saying it WAS indeed the best; I'm saying that it may have SEEMED to be the best, at least to those who were responsible for making the decision. I think many reasonable folks had pretty much given up on diplomacy, as Saddam was basically ignoring it. After 9-11, people were wondering if we could afford to wait months and months with more failed attempts at diplomacy...only to risk Saddam successfully building a nuke in that time and then smuggling it into New York in gift wrapping for us. In hindsight, maybe Bush jumped the gun. But the paranoia and tension over 9-11 was irrational at that time. It certainly made many people more willing to go along with Bush's decision to invade. I'm not saying it was the right decision or the best decision. I'm just saying it was hopefully SOMEWHAT justifiable and somewhat rational. He's our leader. We elected him. He's allowed to make mistakes (bad decisions) sometimes. That's the trust we placed in him when we elected him.

Yes you are wrong. In 1986, while standing in a restaurant parking lot, 2 armed robbers rounded the corner and put a gun in my side. They were exremely nervous, raising my and my date's chances of dying. I talked quickly, explaining that everything they wanted, they could have. They left with 2 wallets, but no blood. Having a gun would have cost me my life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for sharing your personal account. It's definitely a terrifying one and I'm glad you came out unscathed. But just out of curiosity, for the sake of my point, am I safe to assume that you're making clear that, if attacked in your own home by an intruder, you wouldn't respond using violence? So you would either flee or plead for mercy or use some tactic to attempt to restrain and/or disarm your attacker? You wouldn't just plug the scum with a slug a la Dirty Harry? If so, that's extremely noble of you, and I applaud you. I personally wouldn't take the risk. I'd blast the guy and remove the source of the danger. I've heard arguments that say that carrying a gun in self-defense INCREASES the chance of getting yourself hurt, and I can see where there is some truth to that, but I don't think this completely offsets the factor of having improved your odds by having a comparable level of firepower. I have to quote Sean Connery in the movie The Unotuchables on this: "it's just like an Italian to bring a knife to a gun fight". And then Sean's character gets blasted by a second enemy who is carrying a more powerful gun (a machine gun) than he was carrying. If you can honestly say that you're safer without a gun in your home to protect yourself against intruders, then I would be tempted to question that by looking into the statistical evidence. By the way, don't get me wrong here. I'm no super pro-gun NRA person. I'm just saying that, when it comes time to take care of business, either in your home or in the international arena, there's a time for diplomacy and there's a time when words end. I know you disagree, and that's fine. But when I saw smoke rising from the Pentagon out the window of my office building on 9-11, it ceased to become an intellectual argument for me. Before 9-11, I may have been arguing on your side of this debate. But after 9-11, count me in the camp with the hawks. We can't risk no bomb going off in downtown NY or DC. Too many would die. And living in constant fear is no way to live, either. I'm not saying we can bring back the innocent days before 9-11, but we must do what we can to try restore as much calm as we can, even if it means "playing a little offense" as opposed to defense. The world changed on 9-11. We were attacked. A BUNCH of our citizens got smoked. This wasn't Vietnam. The last time we had thousands die inside the continental United States from a foreign enemy was probably the year 1812, if I'm not mistaken. And the last time we had thousands of our CIVILIANS die inside the continental United States from a foreign attacker was...never. So 9-11 was a first in that respect, if I'm not mistaken.

Anyways, I apologize for the long diatribe here. It's always a pleasure to hone one's debating skills against worthy opponents. If you've actually read through this entire post and are still awake, I invite you to set the alarm clock and go to sleep!

[RedScare]

I appreciate the diatribe. And you did point out that many on both sides do agree on the approach if the facts are known. The main point that this woman is trying to make is that she DID believe Bush in the beginning (I admit I was skeptical from the start). She is protesting now as more and more evidence emerges that the administration knew that Iraq was not a threat and deceived the Congress and the public. It is probably the number one reason that support for the war has dropped to 34%.

As to what happens now? I believe the administration is in the process of lowering the bar for what constitutes victory, so they can bring the troops home. There will never be a victory in Iraq, so the goal is to achieve a goal, however small, and call it a day. I don't blame them for this. Politically, they cannot admit mistake or defeat. I understand this. If declaring mission accomplished allows the troops to come home, I am for it. We can debate victory or defeat later. I also believe that once the insurgents lose their target, the Americans, they will lose what little support they had. However, the civil war has already started. It will run its course and the end result will be an Iranian style theocracy, and the US will have gained nothing in the way of security, just Iran.

As to my response to an intruder...it depends. If I have the advantage, I will take it. If I am staring down the barrel of a gun, I'll start talking. Interesting thing. During the robbery, I was extremely calm, probably the calmest one of the bunch. Afterward, realizing how close I came to dying, I shook so hard, my knees almost buckled. The power of adrenaline amazes me.

[SpringTX]

The main point that this woman is trying to make is that she DID believe Bush in the beginning (I admit I was skeptical from the start).  She is protesting now as more and more evidence emerges that the administration knew that Iraq was not a threat and deceived the Congress and the public.  It is probably the number one reason that support for the war has dropped to 34%.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If this is the case (that Bush deceived the Congress and the American public), then the sucka deserves to be impeached. I think Clinton should have been removed from office when he was impeached. Lying and deceiving the American people is a pretty serious crime, in my personal opinion. I don't think we should tolerate that from our leaders. I I trust and support every one of our Presidents unconditionally and naively, whether Republican or Democrat...until one of them is caught red-handed...in which case I'm 100% behind booting them out of office swiftly and unceremoniously.

[RedScare]

I don't think the Republican majority in Congress would allow impeachment. At best, history may show that this was a deception. Just my opinion.

[dbigtex56]

The media report the death tolls for American soldiers. This doesn't tell the whole story.

Servicemen and women aren't the only ones being killed in Iraq. More than any war in recent memory (and correct me if I'm wrong) we're relying on contractors (such as Halliburton) to do jobs usually performed by military personnel. Are these people as well equipped and trained as our soldiers? I'm thinking no.

It can be argued that these people are in it for the money, that they knew what they were doing when they signed up; they take their chances and sometimes they lose. Yet, the result is the same. Another American is killed fighting for...for what? The justifications seem to change quite often. And another family is left to grieve.

So, how many of these non-military American casualties are there? Oddly enough, if the administration or the contractors are keeping count, they're not releasing the statistics (or if they are, I can't find them). Perhaps it would not benefit either to do so.

Perhaps we should insist they do.

[Heights2Bastrop]

Since when did this become a political forum?

I like most of the people on here, even if some of you have shown yourselves to be overly misguided in your beliefs. I won

[uncertaintraveler]

Excuse me for "intruding" upon this interesting and somewhat long-winded discussion, but I've just got to make the following points in response to SpringTX's comments:

If a terrorist nation or a nation harboring terrorists tries to blow up Manhattan and kills 10,000 in the process, they better be darned well prepared to have all 20 million people in that country offed.  We may go easy on them.  Or we might just decide to nuke that whole country in response.  But that's our choice.  That's how the game works.  War isn't fair.  War doesn't have ethics.  It's kill or be killed. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well....I hate to bring this to your attention, but what nation was it that harbored the terrorists that tried to blow up Manhattan a few years ago? Umm..it wasn't Iraq, it wasn't Afghanistan, and I don't believe it was even an Arab nation. Instead, it was the U.S. I mention this only because your argument is one of the most overused lines there is about responding to terrorism, and it reveals a serious lack of consideration as to the nature and extent of the problem(s) facing a realistic response to terrorist activities. Simply blowing away all nations that harbor individuals whose interest are adverse to that of our own is hardly a reasonable, or even possible, response.

You'll have to forgive my memory, because I can't remember all the details clearly right now, but the bottom line is that there seemed to be plenty of doubt, speculation, debate, and information pointing the possibility that Iraq was on its way to making weapons of mass destruction.  Nothing was known for sure.  But plenty of reasonable  had strong suspicions, based on information they had gathered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The same could be said for at least 50 other nations in the world. What shall we do about them? Or do we just invade those nations that we believe we can over-throw easily?

But when I saw smoke rising from the Pentagon out the window of my office building on 9-11, it ceased to become an intellectual argument for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps this is one of the problems: we shouldn't be making decisions of this magnitude that aren't grounded in intellectual argument....

If this is the case (that Bush deceived the Congress and the American public), then the sucka deserves to be impeached.  I think Clinton should have been removed from office when he was impeached.  Lying and deceiving the American people is a pretty serious crime, in my personal opinion.  I don't think we should tolerate that from our leaders.  I I trust and support every one of our Presidents unconditionally and naively, whether Republican or Democrat...until one of them is caught red-handed...in which case I'm 100% behind booting them out of office swiftly and unceremoniously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow...I'm glad to know that you consider all lying to be the same and deserve the same draconian response. Personally, I see nothing wrong with a president lying about personal matters (i.e., who he has sexual relations with), but I have a serious problem with a president lying about issues that result in the virtually needless death of over 1800 Americans.

[dbigtex56]

Since when did this become a political forum?

I like most of the people on here, even if some of you have shown yourselves to be overly misguided in your beliefs. I won’t say who, and I won’t air my opinions because I don’t want to get into this kind of debate. It can only lead to ill feelings, and that just shouldn’t be.

Off topic discussions are one thing, but political debates quite another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We tried to confining posts to matters relating to Houston architecture. After all, the name of the website is Houston Architectural Information Forum.

It became apparent that issues such as transportation, flood control, zoning, etc. impact the development - and ultimately, the architecture - of Houston. With issues like these, it's impossible to completely divorce ourselves from politics. However, we tried to minimize political discussion.

Didn't work. So the editor decided that people who were determined to continue talking about sex, politics and religion could do so seperately from the main topics. Those who didn't want to view or participate in these discussions would be forewarned. Therefore, "WAY Off-Topic".

I agree that most of the people who participate on HAIF are likeable and thoughtful - even the "misguided" ones . If you'd rather not know their opinions on controversial subjects, it's best to avoid the "Way Off-Topic" section altogether.