I have no problem debating other peoples' ideas and viewpoints either (even whey they are half-assed, as you say). You can tell me what you think about anything. But I do have a problem when people state their opinions of what I think or feel as fact. Very little irks me quite as much as that. So, needless to say, you hit a touchy subject.

You accused people of hating America, but that is only your opinion. I would be willing to bet that they would argue with you about that. Though they can't because they don't know who they are. Perhaps Marc or Scott or even Ken? Or is it just anyone who liked or agreed with the movie?

And I noticed also that Biggles was conspicuously absent from this whole debate. WUSS!!!

I've been away for a while because of, can you believe it, work on a weekend. I am going to take the middle on this one. To say anyone hates America is a way to get everyone in a shouting contest. I don't think that anyone on this board hates America, they just hate the values that "we" think America truely is. I think that it is American to stand up and defend ourselves. I bet they would, too. But it would seem like Jim or Ken doesn't want to go to war unless we are attacked first. Is this fair to say? Now that I think about it, it probably isn't. Jim probably just doesn't trust our government. We had a little chat about it and he told me that he is just skeptical. Its healthy to a degree, but I have an example when it isn't. I'll get to that latter.

I have a question for Jim. Did you agree with Clinton's war in Bosnia? I know this has already been covered, the whole "Republican's like to point the finger at Clinton instead of answering the real questions." Well, I'm going somewhere else. I want to see if you have double standards. I doubt it, just a simple question. What did you say about the Gulf War? What did you think about anything that Clinton did militarily? I am curious.

My example of unhealthy skepticism comes from a guy I work with. He is in his 50s and worked for the phone company. He was top dog for the union so he diffinetly has those liberal ideals of "I expect more given to myself" (does this make sense?). But...when you talk to him, he thinks like a conservative. He wants to go to war with anyone that threatens us in the smallest way but he doesn't want to spend money on rebuilding. Thinks that it is wasting our money. True cowboy, eh? Thats just a little background. He hates Cheney. Thinks he is the biggest crook in the history of the world. Why? Because of the Halliburton $7.2 Billion, no bid, contract. Now, I have given him many reasons why this is a bogus complaint but he doesn't want to believe anything. The reasons I've told him are: halliburton is uniquely qualified. No other company could put it together in time and do as good as a job. And if we had taken the time to force a bid on this contract, we would have waited an extra year to get started, at the least. All the companies would need to put together an outline of some sort and other little things, but they would also need to get ready and go. That would be no walk in the park. Halliburton was ready. I think it is unhealthy to let your skepticism blind you towards what is really going on. Do you not agree that Halliburton was the best choice? Do you not think it is better to have the best choice take the job then allow some underqualified company take it just because you had prior ties? If not, tell me more because all this guy says is that Cheney was a Halliburton figure and that its rediculous that it was a no-bid. It bothers him so much that he refuses to vote for Bush.

I do believe a certain North African dictator has seen the light.

That was a completely different situation. And it may have created the type of situation we see today. The U.S. was -- and still is -- fighting a Third Generation war. The problem is, this is a Fourth Generation war, and Third Generation tactics just ... don't ... work.

The British lost the Colonies because they were using First Generation tactics against largely Fourth Generation. The U.S. lost in Vietnam against Fourth Generation tactics. The same with the British and Russians in Afghanistan in the 19th and 20th centuries -- and it may be the same with the U.S. in this century. As I have said before, a diverse threat requires a diverse response, and a strongly centralized government cannot present a diverse response.

For a more thorough analysis see:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind3b.html

If/when you read it, note that it was written in January. (Especially when it mentions treatment of prisoners.)

Ken V.

I wasn't referring to you, Jimbo. Why did you think I was? I was making a general observation about some souls on the board whom I respect, even when I think they're wrong. If I weren't such a sweet-natured creature, I just might resent =you= for trying to put words in my mouth.

So, who precisely WERE you referring to when you wrote, "...those who hate America -- and I'm truly sorry to observe that there are SOME on this board ... "? (Emphasis mine.)

Perhaps you are making the all too common mistake of equating the "Country" with the Government.

Speaking strictly for myself, I love the "country, " it's the GOVERNMENT I hate. American government truly HAS ended up becoming the very thing it was created to prevent!

Microscopic example: A country that was created through a Revolution that was sparked by a Stamp Tax, and a small tax on tea, has ended up with the IRS.

Sad to say, my ancestors had more freedom under George the Third of England, than I do today under George the Third of America.

(Aside) As far as Bush and lies are concerned, I accuse George W. Bush of lying through his teeth when he took the Presidential Oath to "Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America." A lie that is at the very LEAST, Perjury, and at worst, TREASON!

Does this make me an America hater? If so, then I GLORY in the title.

Ken V.

I think it was pretty clear from past disagreements why I thought you were referring to me. If you legitimately were not, I apologize, but why the vagueries about whom you are referring? Why not just say what you mean?

I couldn't agree more!

I despise these inuendo's.

Ken V.

Apology accepted. But I thought we'd agreed privately not to get too het-up about opinions expressed on the board. Am I wrong? I hope not--I value your ideas. (Even when they are half-assed )

Never considering the possibility that your ideas might be half-assed.

Ken V.

I don't think that anyone on this board hates America, they just hate the values that "we" think America truely is.

At base, I believe in property rights, beginning with the concept that you are the ABSOLUTE owner of your own life, and that you have the right to live your life in any manner you choose.

PROVIDED!

That you do not forcibly interfere with the right of others to live their lives in what ever manner THEY choose. (And vice versa.)

You cannot teach individual responsibility by denying the pupils the chance to practise it -- or by protecting them from the consequences of their own actions.

I don't hate your values, I just deny anyone's right to impose their values on others. For myself, I don't want to be a Guinea Pig in ANYBODY'S "social experiment."

When somebody else can take the product of your effort away from you without your voluntary consent, or tell you what you may or may not do with your own body, they are de-facto claiming a property-right in your effort or body . . . they are claiming YOU as property. This condition is called SLAVERY.

I think that it is American to stand up and defend ourselves. I bet they would, too. But it would seem like Jim or Ken doesn't want to go to war unless we are attacked first. Is this fair to say?

Speaking for myself, YES. It's true. No one has the right to INITIATE the use of force -- although every one had the right to defend themselves against those who do.

The reasons I've told him are: halliburton is uniquely qualified.

Who said so? An ex-Halliburton executive who just happens to be vice president?

No other company could put it together in time and do as good as a job.

No one else was given the chance.
And it is also jusssst possssssible, that -- having a friend high up in the Administration -- Halliburton had advance notice of what was going down.

Wouldn't be the first time. One of the owners of the company that did all the rebuilding in Vietnam just happened to be partially owned by president Lyndon Johnson. (Quite a coincidence doncha think?)

. . . this guy says is that Cheney was a Halliburton figure and that its rediculous that it was a no-bid.

I agree! (ridiculous, not rediculous)

It bothers him so much that he refuses to vote for Bush.

I wouldn't vote for Bush if you put a gun to my head.

Mind you, I would put a gun to my OWN head before I'd vote for Kerry.

Ultimately, I don't think it's going to make any difference whether Bush or Kerry wins. The same people are still going to be behind the scenes, still pulling the same strings.

Ken V.

I've been away for a while because of, can you believe it, work on a weekend. I am going to take the middle on this one. To say anyone hates America is a way to get everyone in a shouting contest. I don't think that anyone on this board hates America, they just hate the values that "we" think America truely is. I think that it is American to stand up and defend ourselves. I bet they would, too. But it would seem like Jim or Ken doesn't want to go to war unless we are attacked first. Is this fair to say? Now that I think about it, it probably isn't. Jim probably just doesn't trust our government. We had a little chat about it and he told me that he is just skeptical. Its healthy to a degree, but I have an example when it isn't. I'll get to that latter.

I have a question for Jim. Did you agree with Clinton's war in Bosnia? I know this has already been covered, the whole "Republican's like to point the finger at Clinton instead of answering the real questions." Well, I'm going somewhere else. I want to see if you have double standards. I doubt it, just a simple question. What did you say about the Gulf War? What did you think about anything that Clinton did militarily? I am curious.

My example of unhealthy skepticism comes from a guy I work with. He is in his 50s and worked for the phone company. He was top dog for the union so he diffinetly has those liberal ideals of "I expect more given to myself" (does this make sense?). But...when you talk to him, he thinks like a conservative. He wants to go to war with anyone that threatens us in the smallest way but he doesn't want to spend money on rebuilding. Thinks that it is wasting our money. True cowboy, eh? Thats just a little background. He hates Cheney. Thinks he is the biggest crook in the history of the world. Why? Because of the Halliburton $7.2 Billion, no bid, contract. Now, I have given him many reasons why this is a bogus complaint but he doesn't want to believe anything. The reasons I've told him are: halliburton is uniquely qualified. No other company could put it together in time and do as good as a job. And if we had taken the time to force a bid on this contract, we would have waited an extra year to get started, at the least. All the companies would need to put together an outline of some sort and other little things, but they would also need to get ready and go. That would be no walk in the park. Halliburton was ready. I think it is unhealthy to let your skepticism blind you towards what is really going on. Do you not agree that Halliburton was the best choice? Do you not think it is better to have the best choice take the job then allow some underqualified company take it just because you had prior ties? If not, tell me more because all this guy says is that Cheney was a Halliburton figure and that its rediculous that it was a no-bid. It bothers him so much that he refuses to vote for Bush.

OK, here is my story. I HATE politics. I always have and I still do. Nothing inspires such devisiveness and anger and can literally destroy relationships and lives. That being said, I spent most of my life avoiding any discussion of it. My political "birth" if you will can probably be traced to September 12, 2001. Before that I only paid attention to politics as news stories, per se. I was somewhat aware but avoided the politics behind it. On September 12, 2001, some people at work started talking about how they thought all Arabs (middle-easterners, whatever you want to call them - less flattering terms were used that day) should be rounded up and thrown into "concentration camps." I found this concept to be TOTALLY absurd and attrocious! I stated in exact terms that doing such would be the first step on a "slippery slope" towards a policy that I CANNOT and WILL NOT agree with. PERIOD. I was filled with hope when Bush gave his speach from NYC that week. Here was an opportunity to really showcase what America was all about. Unity, perseverance, hope to name but a few. The ENTIRE free world was with us, they felt our anger and our pain and our suffering. Since that day, this administration has done (almost) nothing but destroy that feeling of community both within this country and around the world with its secrecy and lies and mad lust for power. It continues to deny the rights of its own citizens and citizens of the world, the same rights that it says it fights for. They use fear and anger to advance their agenda. So please, don't EVER accuse me of forgetting 9/11 and don't put words in my mouth and don't tell me what I think or feel or even presume to know what I think or feel.

As for Bosnia, per above, I don't really have much recollection of the political events of atmosphere surrounding it. I will say this: I have always been and continue to be uncomfortable with the idea of the U.S. being the "policemen of the world." With so much wrong in our own country, I believe that we need to fix domestic issues before we can even attempt to solve the problems of the world. (side note: Why do Republicans seem so totally ambivalent or even against domestic issues?) My other issue with foreign policy is that it is VERY selective. Why is the situation in Iraq more pressing than the other situations around the world? In China they have extremely bad human rights record; they go so far as to kill unwanted female children when a boy is desired. In Africa (and much of the East) approximately 20-25% of the populace has AIDS and will die within the next generation. Also in Africa there is mass genocide going on which is just now coming to the foreground even though it has been going on for at least 10 years. Have you ever heard of the 100 Days of Death? 500,000 people slaughtered in 100 days! And perhaps most relevant, is it only because Saudi Arabia are our political "allies" that we overlook the horrible offenses of sexism and other human rights violations that take place there?

If you're trying to catch me in a trap of hypocrisy, it can't work. I think you may have mistaken me for a Democrat or a liberal (which by the way, I resent that the right-wing media has made that into a "dirty word"). I dislike this current administration not because I agree with the other side, but because it is the current administration and I disagree with its policies. It has no bearing on other administrations (other than from a historical standpoint). I have contempt for much of this administration's policy. If you can even call it policy since it seems to be all politics. I don't even see the relevance in comparing past policies and administrations. I think what this admin is doing is wrong. Comparing doesn't make it any more or less right or wrong, it is merely petty politics.

As far as Haliburton, how can we know that Haliburton was the best for the job? We can't. They may have been, but we will never know for sure. The fact is Cheney had (quite possibly has) a vested interest in how well Haliburton did. I would be willing to bet that he still has close contacts there. What about all the price gouging that has been documented regarding Haliburton? Why does Cheney still refuse to make available the information from the meetings on energy policy?

As for Bosnia, per above, I don't really have much recollection of the political events of atmosphere surrounding it. I will say this: I have always been and continue to be uncomfortable with the idea of the U.S. being the "policemen of the world." With so much wrong in our own country, I believe that we need to fix domestic issues before we can even attempt to solve the problems of the world. (side note: Why do Republicans seem so totally ambivalent or even against domestic issues?) My other issue with foreign policy is that it is VERY selective. Why is the situation in Iraq more pressing than the other situations around the world? In China they have extremely bad human rights record; they go so far as to kill unwanted female children when a boy is desired. In Africa (and much of the East) approximately 20-25% of the populace has AIDS and will die within the next generation. Also in Africa there is mass genocide going on which is just now coming to the foreground even though it has been going on for at least 10 years. Have you ever heard of the 100 Days of Death? 500,000 people slaughtered in 100 days! And perhaps most relevant, is it only because Saudi Arabia are our political "allies" that we overlook the horrible offenses of sexism and other human rights violations that take place there?

TO SAY THAT WE LOOK PAST DOMESTIC ISSUES IS REDICULOUS. WE SEE THEM BUT WE THINK THAT MISSLES BEING POINTED AT US IS MORE IMPORTANT. WHY? BECAUSE THEY WILL BLOW OUR COUNTRY UP. BUT, WE DON'T IGNORE DOMESTIC ISSUES. BUSH IS BEING ATTACKED ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ AND HE ISN'T BEING ATTACKED FOR HIS DOMESTIC ISSUES. SO, WHEN HE ISN'T OUT DEFENDING HIMSELF DAILEY ABOUT HIS DOMESTIC ISSUES, IT SOUNDS THAT HE HAS NONE. BUT WHEN THE DEMOCRATS FIND TIME TO SHOOT DOWN EVERYTHING THAT HE SAYS, AND WHEN THEY FILIBUSTER, DON'T COME CRYING TO US. I CAN ASK A SIMILAR QUESTION. WHY DO DEMOCRATS SEEM NOT TO CARE ABOUT FOREIGN AFFAIRS. WHEN DIPLOMACY HAS PROVEN UNEFFECTIVE TIME AND TIME AGAIN, WHY CONTINUE TO TRY IT?

AFRICA AND CHINA (CURRENTLY) AREN'T AGGRESSORS TOWARDS US. CHINA IS A SCARY TOPIC BUT IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BEFORE. I READ A LITTLE ABOUT THEM IN SOME TERRORISTS OF THE WORLD BOOK BUT IT THOUGHT THAT NORTH KOREA WAS THE WORRY IN ASIA. WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT IL AND HUSSIEN ARE/WERE BIGGER THREATS TO THE AMERICAN LIFE THEN AFRICA AND CHINA? I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.

If you're trying to catch me in a trap of hypocrisy, it can't work. I think you may have mistaken me for a Democrat or a liberal (which by the way, I resent that the right-wing media has made that into a "dirty word"). I dislike this current administration not because I agree with the other side, but because it is the current administration and I disagree with its policies. It has no bearing on other administrations (other than from a historical standpoint). I have contempt for much of this administration's policy. If you can even call it policy since it seems to be all politics. I don't even see the relevance in comparing past policies and administrations. I think what this admin is doing is wrong. Comparing doesn't make it any more or less right or wrong, it is merely petty politics.

I THOUGHT I POINTED OUT THAT YOU TOLD ME YOU WERE A ANTI-POLITICIAN, OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES (Jim probably just doesn't trust our government.). I KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE EITHER SIDE TOO WELL, I WAS TESTING YOU. BUT, TO AGREE WITH IT WHEN ONE PERSON SAYS IT, YET DISAGREE WITH IT WHEN ANOTHER SAYS IT, IS BEING A HYPOCRIT. I CAN'T CALL YOU A HYPOCRIT...YET (JOKE).

As far as Haliburton, how can we know that Haliburton was the best for the job? We can't. They may have been, but we will never know for sure. The fact is Cheney had (quite possibly has) a vested interest in how well Haliburton did. I would be willing to bet that he still has close contacts there. What about all the price gouging that has been documented regarding Haliburton? Why does Cheney still refuse to make available the information from the meetings on energy policy?[/QUOTE]

I CAN'T GIVE AN ANSWER ABOUT THE ENERGY POLICY MEETINGS. YOU ARE THE FIRST TO TELL ME. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THEY WERE BEST QUALIFIED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY COMPANY THAT COULD ASSEMBLE IN THAT QUICKILY.

PLEASE EXPLAIN THESE PRICE GOUGINGS BECAUSE I'VE HEARD THE TERM THROWN AROUND BUT COULDN'T TELL YOU ONE THING ABOUT IT.

NO DOUBT HE STILL HAS CLOSE CONTACTS, BUT HE ISN'T MAKING ANY MONEY OFF OF IT. BEYOND THAT, ITS ALL SPECULATION.

Never considering the possibility that your ideas might be half-assed.

Ken V.

Everything I do is beautiful, Ken. Even my own half-assed ideas. Keep that concept in mind whenever you read my posts and all will become clear.

So, who precisely WERE you referring to when you wrote, "...those who hate America -- and I'm truly sorry to observe that there are SOME on this board ... "? (Emphasis mine.)

Perhaps you are making the all too common mistake of equating the "Country" with the Government.

Speaking strictly for myself, I love the "country, " it's the GOVERNMENT I hate. American government truly HAS ended up becoming the very thing it was created to prevent!

Microscopic example: A country that was created through a Revolution that was sparked by a Stamp Tax, and a small tax on tea, has ended up with the IRS.

Sad to say, my ancestors had more freedom under George the Third of England, than I do today under George the Third of America.

(Aside) As far as Bush and lies are concerned, I accuse George W. Bush of lying through his teeth when he took the Presidential Oath to "Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America." A lie that is at the very LEAST, Perjury, and at worst, TREASON!

Does this make me an America hater? If so, then I GLORY in the title.

Ken V.

What do you want to do that the evil guv'ment is stopping you from, Ken? I'm really curious about that.