WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-02 19:38:41 +0000

If by "peace" you mean more UN ass kissing and listening to more countries that dont give a tinkers cuss about helping the US, but most certainly benefit from our help in other areas, then yeah, I'd agree... _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-02 19:48:03 +0000

No. By "peace" I meant not misleading nations to war, not killing innocent people, lying to the UN, yadda, yadda, yadda. Can't we start the impeachment already? Sheesh...

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-02 19:53:14 +0000

No, in the past 10 years only our friend Bill will be in the impeachment circle.. sorry. _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-02 20:01:32 +0000

Again I disagree. Bush's felonies far out weigh Clinton's single one(which he was acquitted of), and GW will be in that circle. So pucker up to the UN, rladew, after all they were right about Iraq, and Bush was dead wrong. Thousands of dead wrong.

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-02 20:21:14 +0000

said in my best Homer Simpson voice: "MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM... UN Ass.................." On second thought, no thanks. _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-02 20:31:20 +0000

Yes!!! If you talk the talk, you better walk the walk.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-02 21:51:54 +0000

And after Bush's failures and deceit, why would any UN country want to help the US with him in charge? Yet another reason to get rid of him...

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-02 23:43:43 +0000

Could I get filled in on where the U.S. has been ass kissing the U.N.? I've always been under the impression that the U.N. merely serves to give rubber stamp approval of U.S. foreign policy whims. Someone please point out to me any U.S. action that was somehow limited by a U.N. resolution?

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-03 00:19:01 +0000

you MUST be kidding... _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-03 01:13:10 +0000

it's a craze that's sweeping the nation

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-03 03:23:46 +0000

Walk the walk, Kid. Walk the walk...

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-03 03:27:38 +0000

Hold my hand... where are we walking too?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-03 03:29:46 +0000

To the UN in New York, where rladew and GW Bush will kiss their ass.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-03 03:31:32 +0000

Nice Post tgl. Just makes one wonder why this is not in more mainstream press. Dare I say, I wish Nixon was President?

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-03 03:34:10 +0000

Goddamn. Funny. ...must be this Pernod.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-03 03:36:00 +0000

I'm writing my Federal Rep. right now. Let's get it started!!

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-03 03:36:44 +0000

The Johnny Walker "Green Label" 15 year ain't bad either...

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-03 03:40:11 +0000

speaking of kissin'

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-03 03:54:46 +0000

Nixon was less telegenic than Bush, that's why he went down.

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-03 03:59:54 +0000

you just gotta know where to look

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-03 04:11:14 +0000

Wow. That shit is tight.

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-03 14:10:51 +0000

I'm going to say that Amnesty lost this debate when they decided to use the word "gulag". This administration is flawed in so many ways, there's no need for overstretched metaphors in describing their misdeeds. Like The Post writer claims, it's just fodder for the spin machine.

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-03 14:54:51 +0000

they havent been, nor should they start. My implication was that our friendly Massachusetts Senator, if elected, would've pulled us in that direction... _______________________________

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-06-03 15:25:57 +0000

Dear sweet Rich who I adore, I say with all respect and admiration for you as a person... You [i]crazy[/i]! Since when is it ass-kissing the UN to seek some kind of unity between major world players, in pursuit of a balanced & just global political approach? Were you one of those kids who used to taunt the playground peacekeepers (i.e. kids who HATED dodgeball and would comfort the younger kids who fell off the swings) with the likes of "Mama's boy!" "Teacher's pet!" "Priss!" "Goody two-shoes!"? Eeeks, it's all coming back to me now...

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-03 19:48:34 +0000

Sweet Pam (tee hee that was fun calling you that and I am doing my best to be civil and respectful in these rants and not a rabid outcast) I guess thats the disconnect, then Pam. I dont see them as playing nice and fair with the world. Have the UN been "Playground Peace Keepers" by accepting billions of dollars in bribe money by Saddam? If I was on a swingset and a bully who forces his followers to beat up and kill jump ropers and put them in Mass graves slipped me some dough, would I start ignoring the jumpropers just because the bully wasnt going after me directly? Countries such as France have. Asking nations such as these for their permission for United States action sounds crazy to me. We help them, but they wont lift a finger to help us? uggh. _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-03 19:56:19 +0000

Im sorry I ever voted for Nader... like all his regulations would make us a safe utopian society... _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-03 19:57:29 +0000

Are you honestly saying that the only reason that Bush isnt impeached is because of his looks? _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-03 20:30:25 +0000

You are indeed a confused man...

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-03 20:31:20 +0000

No, I'm not saying it's the only reason.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-03 20:32:09 +0000

Which one of Nader's regulations that our US government passed have not helped make us safer? Can you think of one? Just one? Seriously...

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-06-03 20:37:13 +0000

Rich, you know I'm crazy about you - and I am enjoying this, most especially because I know you won't hate me for disagreeing with you, which is a very nice feeling indeed. I feel a bit like the underinformed bleeding-heart here (do I hear a shriek of glee from your corner?), but is that really true about cash from Iraq to the UN? And under what circumstances? I may be a complete Pollyanna, and I freely admit that this is a distinct possibility, but I believe that countries like France (America's oldest ally!) wanted more proof before taking [i]military action[/i] than Georgie's word on WMD presence alone. Then again, I used to think that Abe Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation out of a desire for greater human equality, and that the US got involved in WWII out of a sense of moral obligation... Yes, I am a chump. But I don't think that there is anything wrong in trying to work toward a better cooperation with countries which have hundreds of more years' experience in international relations than we do. America is a comparative teenager, with Europe as its wiser, somewhat slower-to-action, middle-aged aunts & uncles. Shouldn't we want to at least discuss our aims with them? To learn more about their perspectives? Or do we want to full-out run into things willy-nilly like a hormonal 14-year-old hellbent for leather? Yes, I really think like this. Yes, my first boyfriend banned me from playing Axis & Allies because I kept trying to call peace conferences. No, I still hate hippies.

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-03 20:44:33 +0000

How does Nader's advocacy for safer vehicles affect his position that Bush has committed impeachable offenses? Some might disagree, but, without Nader et al., American automotive manufacturers would still consider safety belts and air bags "luxury items". Hope you never have the need for 'em.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-03 20:49:14 +0000

The proof of Iraq and hundreds of millions of dollars to the UN is earnest. The French public (91% of the population) did not want to invade Iraq -- Democracy at work. But what is the lesser of the evils? The UN was right about Iraq, and Bush was wrong, and infact he lied about WMD, manipulated the data, and hindered those who knew the truth. The result tens of thousands of lives lost. The lesser of two evils is clearly the UN here... And the original post was about how Kerry would have recognized this, and Amnesty recognized that.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-06-03 20:56:34 +0000

Well... and isn't that why we Americans want a President and not a King or a Dictator? Don't we as a country respect a democratic approach to things? And on the world stage, doesn't it make sense that the democratic approach should [i]include other countries[/i]? As in, more than just us, the UK and Poland? Why is it that GWB is meant to respect the opinions of others in a national context but not in a global context? Is it, um, because we as Americans don't give a shit about anyone else's opinion, because we're the only ones whose opinions count? It sure seems that way from here. And if we as Americans accept that we know best and because we have the most power and money we can do whatever the hell we like on the world stage... aren't we then behaving like a world dictator/king?

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-03 21:10:52 +0000

pamsterdam, haven't you heard? The Iraq War _is_not_ about Weapons of Mass Destruction or Oil for Money (clearly: we haven't found WMD and I'm still paying more than $2/gallon of gasoline). It's about Freedom on the March, baby. --- Here's a poser: A) How many Iraqis were murdered by the Baathist regime during the UN Oil for Food program? B) How many Iraqis were murdered by the Baathist regime while Iraq was considered a "valued friend" by the US? C) How many Iraqis have been murdered since the US liberated Iraq from the aforementioned Baathist regime? (Some of whose members are now gaining power in the new government...) We could spend all day arguing which scenario: A, B or C represents the most vile and loathsome of human behavior. They are all bad, why should we be apologists for any of it? Meanwhile, not on my watch.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-06-04 07:13:45 +0000

...because it's comforting to have something to believe in? ...because otherwise I'll start thinking like my father? "Pamela, the world is going to hell in a handbasket." I know, you're both right. *sigh*

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-04 13:41:55 +0000

The US should get out of the handbasket business.

Posted by G lib on 2005-06-05 08:11:48 +0000

I was angry about the WMD, I was scared about the oil for money but I think that I didn't want to let myself believe that it was "freedom on the march." . After being in Europe for a week, I'll take the blinders off. It's probably true, and REALLY fucking scary. My brother-in-law the German has a lot to say about this. In his opinion, the EU is being already bullied by multi-national corporate interest... They've been able to push back, but it's ending up to be like our filibuster situation. . Pamsterdam, I'm with you-- I don't see any reason why countries CAN'T use a mix of 'best for the planet' and 'best for me,' rather than only 'best for me, I'm holding the most marbles, so fuck you.' ________________ The Boot Knife of Mild Reason

Posted by G lib on 2005-06-05 08:17:09 +0000

"Helping us" is the argument that gives me the heebie-jeebies. Since when is Iraq "us"? ________________ The Boot Knife of Mild Reason

Posted by G lib on 2005-06-05 08:19:51 +0000

And why do we need help? We should have taken lack of European support as a sign that this is the "wrong war at the wrong time" . (Apologies to the innocent civilians and troops that have lost their lives for this war.) ________________ The Boot Knife of Mild Reason

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-05 16:22:06 +0000

Just to clarify my sarcasm: I'm for liberating people from oppressive regimes. I happen to think that the method the US has tried to employ in Iraq is failing miserably. While the Hussein regime was murderous, containment was working! I'll go out on a limb and say that under UN sanctions and UN money laundering (er, Oil for Food) less violence was visited upon the Iraqi people than what they have to endure today, under US protection. Yes, their future may be bright now, but, there are scores of other examples of people moving towards free and democratic governments without the aid of the US's pointy stick. I'm afraid the US is going to leave behind a repressive and un-democratic regime like the British did in Oman, in Kenya, in Malaysia, in Burma, and in every-other-location-in-the-British-empire. If the administration had to use the "Freedom on the March" argument they seem to be using now, without relying on the pig-with-lipstick that was the WMD argument (my apologies to honest pigs everywhere), I'd imagine we would not be in Iraq right now. Look at how support for the war as eroded. The US is an isolationist country at heart. We do not view Iraqis as "us". It's the hypocrisy of the besmirched freedom marchers that gets me... do not the people of Darfur deserve to be freed from a repressive regime? How about Saudi Arabia? How about Uzbekistan? So, the answer is no, it is not about freedom. Who is benfiting from war in Iraq? As I am sure Focher (sp?) would agree, the same profiteers that benefit from all wars.

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-05 17:26:45 +0000

So to bring this around to Amnesty and impeachable offenses: the American people will come to realize that the Bush administration made misleading and demonstrably false statements in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. During the application of the so-called war on terror, the adminstration is guilty abusing basic human rights (detention without trial) and systematic turture of detainees. It's only 6 months into the second term... I can't imagine the news getting any brighter for Bush in the next 3 and a half years.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-06-06 16:17:36 +0000

I disagree. Safetly features were coming in cars, and being deemed less and less as luxury items without Nader. What Nader _did_ do is kill the Corvair, for really no reason other than it stood out as a revolutionary car in the American automotive lineup and still had the deficiencies of all other American cars. No, the Corvair was not worse, in many ways it was better and safer than other American cars at the time. So what Nader did, was kill off the first serious attemt at a Big Three compact car, which wouldn't be tried again for fifteen years. Thank Nader for the muscle cars, which were "safe" and guzzeled gas with their rinky lapbelts. He could very well have been on the OPEC payroll for the impact he had.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-06-06 16:27:23 +0000

The Iraq Thingy was not about Oil _directly_ it was about the economy, and oil is one of the keys to international economics. Iraq is to the economic war betwixt the US and Europe as Vietnam was to political idealism of the US and the Soviet Union. I buy [url=http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2003/04/20030409.php]this[/url].

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-06 16:27:41 +0000

"with Europe as its wiser, somewhat slower-to-action, middle-aged aunts & uncles. Shouldn't we want to at least discuss our aims with them?" Absolutely, Pam. All countries are a part of the earth. I dont feel other countries can ultimately veto what another country can do. Everyone's feedback and opinions (at least to me) are extremely important. I would hope that our leaders take other points of view into consideration before making decisions. Having said that, I have enough problems of the US making decisions on my behalf, much less (and Im not saying that any country has done this, Im just saying that I would be against) other countries making decisions on behalf of the US. The US should have the ultimate say so over the US. _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-06 16:38:35 +0000

Doesn't sound like you are disagreeing here, save that you think they were coming without Nader.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-06 16:41:06 +0000

I have no idea what rladew is talking about here. Could some one enlighten me?

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-06 17:02:49 +0000

I'm talking in generic terms, here. (And I admit I dont understand how every last detail of the UN works) If the UN tells the US not to do something that the US is set on doing, I dont think the UN should have the ultimate say so. _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-06 17:07:10 +0000

Sounds about right. Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld et al. have been smacking their lips over an Iraq invasion (forevermore The Iraq Thingy) since the early '90s. Everything else is a ruse. They acted treasonously to get us in there, once acheiving there goals throgh nefarious means they completely screwed up the implementation (violating human rights in the process). Don't send a Jacksonian to do a Wilsonian's job.

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-06 17:07:39 +0000

This is why we should at least consider drilling for oil in Alaska (ANWR - I believe) Ive heard commentators quote figures that 99.9% of ANWR would remain untouched if we went for that resource. That would certainly help to reduce the US's dependence on the Middle East for energy. _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-06 17:14:49 +0000

rladew drank the Kool-Aid. I can't think of how a UN resolution is considered binding. Maybe it's all explained here. The US is the most powerfull country in the world, it's been clearly demonstrated the what the US wants, the US gets. All this hysteria from the Right about loss of sovreignty is just that: hysteria. Excuse me, but the black helicopters are starting to circle, overhead...

Posted by frame609 on 2005-06-06 17:23:36 +0000

That's like saying you're only going to have one bite of dessert.

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-06 17:26:52 +0000

Off the top of my head: the total extractable oil that geologist postulates might be under Alaska would serve to power the US for 3 months. You could look it up... OK: The horse says 10.4 billion bbl total. We consume 20 million bbl/day. That's 520 days or LESS THAN TWO YEARS of oil. Probably less than that because US oil consumption is increasing. A mere band-aid. Meanwhile, that 0.1% of land is in a contiguous strip through the middle of the reserve. It's just like seatbelts: the automotive industry is technically capable of improving fleet fuel economy, howver, they lack the will to do so.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-06 17:54:10 +0000

Why don't we take over Saudi Arabia? That would certainly help, and I've heard figures that 100% of ANWR would remain untouched.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-06-06 18:02:33 +0000

I just think that Nader is an egotist who has profitted off of false premises of altruism. Martin Luther King Jr he is not, yet I believe he believes he is. Nader was crusading first for personal fame, next for the people. Evidence: run for presidency in 2004 (2000, I will allow to slide)

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-06 18:14:18 +0000

So then, Nader differs from other national politicians in what way?

Posted by frame609 on 2005-06-06 18:24:47 +0000

Oh snap!

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-06 18:55:01 +0000

Why dont we go 100% solar and wind power? then we can cover 100% of ANWR (and the rest of America for that matter) with low power yielding panels and windmills that wont be awkward eyesores and will surely hinder all economic prosperity for free enterprise? Im sure our friend Ralph Nader would be glad to assist... _______________________________

Posted by frame609 on 2005-06-06 19:01:05 +0000

We'll never go 100% solar and wind power because there's too much money in oil- the same reason that hybrid cars tend to be so expensive.

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-06 19:04:20 +0000

What is it that Mr. Kool Aid said? "OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH YEAHHHHHH!" (sorry no cute animated image of me breaking through a brick wall...) [img]http://www.slutfishrecords.com/images/028f100.jpg[/img] _______________________________

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-06 19:09:41 +0000

I agree we need alternative fuel sources, but I havent seen enough proof that wind and solar would yield the amount of power the US uses... My point was that if we are going to use OIL, the more we can make by ourselves w/out Middle East assistance, the better. _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-06 19:13:00 +0000

Wind and solar are not the sum total of "alternative" fuel sources.

Posted by frame609 on 2005-06-06 19:19:21 +0000

I hate to sound all conspiracy theory and shit, but having oil in the Middle East is a surefire way to start a war whenever we need to.

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-06 19:20:20 +0000

Damn... good thing we put our oil under their sand!

Posted by frame609 on 2005-06-06 19:24:41 +0000

You put your chocolate in my peanut butter!

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-06 19:26:46 +0000

What's the connection between implementing new energy technologies and hindering the economic prosperity? Or this that just the second item on the global Liberal agenda after getting everyone to use sail-cars? ;)

Posted by frame609 on 2005-06-06 19:33:15 +0000

I don't have a leg to stand on re: this argument, no facts or anything. I still think, though, that there's a whole lot of money tied up in oil. Making oil obsolete demolishes the whole oil-based sector of the global economy. Implementing new technologies that phase oil out isn't in the interest of big business right now.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-06 19:34:50 +0000

People stop contradicting yourselves!! If a little energy helps (like the little bit of Oil in Alaska) then so would alternative fuels. This hypocracy that solar and wind won't supply 100% of our fuel, but a 2 month supply in Alaska will, is not valid.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-06-06 19:38:27 +0000

new "alternative" energy supplies are to the oil companies as new software is to Microsoft. They do everything to make sure it won't work, until they find a way to make it their product, their business, their money.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-06-06 19:39:43 +0000

Because he claims piety.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-06 19:42:03 +0000

Awesome.

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-06 19:43:47 +0000

Sure, there's a whole lot of money tied up in oil. There was a whole lot of money tied up in whale oil lamps until someone came along with a better, cheaper solution. It's within the US interests to spend money to develop these alternate technologies. Be they solar, wind, *gasp* nuclear, hydrogen, etc. BTW: Hydrogen cars are at least 50 yrs out. Clean coal is an oxymoron. This administration's energy policies are completely backwards. As oil prices continue to rise (Go, you prices!) new technologies will become big business interests. The current issue of The Atlantic Monthly (sans-fiction, boo!) features nice glossy adverts for BP and ExxonMobil touting their alternative energy programs. --- Q: What did the drunken chemist say when he heard that Prohibition was coming? A: Hydrogen!

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-06-06 19:48:08 +0000

Not to mention that reusable resources aren't without their drawbacks as well. It has been speculated (and proven in trivial cases) that huge windfarms can influence global weather patterns, not to mention be as unsightly as oil rigs. (see the Cape Cod offshore windfarm debate) If we wanted to deal with the loss of beauty, there is enough energy at Niagara Falls to power North America, but we would have to divert 100% of the flow through thousands (more?) of turbines. And that's a sacrifice we don't want to make for the same reasons we don't want to drill in ANWR... </ramble>

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-06 19:56:15 +0000

awesome. _______________________________

Posted by frame609 on 2005-06-06 20:22:51 +0000

I always assumed that alternate sources would come about as oil began to run out. Anyone have an estimate of how long, in years, the existing stock of fossil fuel will last us?

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-06 20:37:24 +0000

"Follow the money" being the famous quote from "All the President's Men". Spoken the the character protraying Deep Throat, aka, W. Mark Felt. Actually was penned by the script's writer: William Goldman, aka, greatest screenwriter of all time.

Posted by frame609 on 2005-06-06 20:37:59 +0000

GSOAT.

Posted by G lib on 2005-06-06 20:54:55 +0000

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! . A little bit too much Franconian wine, and all I can say is that you're COMPLETELY wrong about Alaska. Find me any source that says reliably that that's the case. There's almost no oil there. And it would ruin the last of Earthly available wilderness area to take what little is there, out. . We ABSOLUTELY need to reduce the US' dependency on oil, but frankly, depending on a non-renewable resource, just finding new places where you can find it is just stupid. Let's think about maybe reducing, reusing, and finding alternative energy sources? ________________ The Boot Knife of Mild Reason

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-06 21:05:49 +0000

G lib, are you saying the Dept. of the Interior doesn't know who many barrels of oil might be underneath Alaska?

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-06 21:15:58 +0000

.1 % would Ruin Alaska's wilderness area? How so? _______________________________

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-06 21:29:08 +0000

Um, polution.

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-06 21:36:10 +0000

It would also cease to be a wilderness.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-06-07 07:47:01 +0000

Sure - I agree with you on your last point, Rich. This is the same stumbling block for a lot of Europeans when considering the EU - no one wants someone somewhere else telling us here what to do. However... (now, come on - you knew that was coming)... however, attacking a foreign regime is not an action which affects only the United States. Hell, we're halfway around the world from Iraq! And we surely aren't the only ones who need their oil or depend upon some level of Middle Eastern stability (no one wants WWIII). I truly believe that discussion and - ultimately - mutually satisfactory compromise is the best course to follow with the United Nations in making decisions which affect other members of the UN. We are not living or operating in a vacuum. I don't want the UN having a say regarding internal US activities, but yes, I do want the UN to have a say in countries' actions which affect other countries. I truly love your statement: "I would hope that our leaders take other points of view into consideration before making decisions." Surely this has [i]not[/i] happened in this case? Aren't you disappointed? Angry? Our leaders have acted based upon their own opinions and aims, regardless of other points of view. They paid lip service to the UN inspection process and then dove right in! Or do you mean "take into consideration" in the same way that my husband "takes into consideration" my view that tofu & brown rice is a satisfactory dinner, and then refuses to eat it and whines until I make him steak & potatoes?

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-06-07 07:49:46 +0000

Rich was replying to me, as part of our ongoing RSD [url=http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/09/hesaid.html]Carville/Matalin[/url] series.

Posted by frame609 on 2005-06-07 07:50:52 +0000

That's a hell of a post, Pam. Damn!

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-06-07 08:02:15 +0000

Thank you? :) Or do you mean that smoke's coming out of your computer? Hee hee.... oooh, I love discussions with Rich. OK, gotta get to "real" work. Bad Pam! x

Posted by frame609 on 2005-06-07 08:33:09 +0000

I mean, damn!

Posted by rladew on 2005-06-07 12:53:09 +0000

a lot of jobs I have had, when they ask for feedback/consideration, it is the latter situation you always get: It's almost as if theyre asking for 'feedback' as an insurance policy only so they can later say 'we gave you an opportunity to speak up about this'. I would hope that I as an individual would do my best to honestly consider others points of view when I am making important decisions. Has the United States done this in Iraq? Absolutely not. No exit plan, underestimation of insurgencies, etc. I know where the other side of the argument is coming from, and maybe Im Kool-Aid drinking dupe, but I also feel like Sadaam was a mass murdering dictator who encouraged his troops to not only kill but rape Iraqi women in front of their family members. Of course the US cant just go after every dictator in the world, but Saddam had been flying in the face of everyone for far too long and I am glad that he is out of power. _______________________________

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-06-07 14:05:05 +0000

In Ed's defence, I am well aware of his allergy to healthy food and had bought steak & potatoes fully expecting that he wouldn't eat the "gunge" ("gunge", pronounced like the first syllable of "dungeon" is apparently anything involving tofu, brown rice, and/or couscous). You are not a dupe, Rich, not at all. I do understand your moral outrage (I use that phrase in all sincerity) about the former Iraqi regime's tactics, and I share it. However, I find that a lot of things make me feel morally outraged. Was Hussein really worse than Mugabe is? Is it morally right that the US took action against a regime whose country has a commodity which we want (Iraq:oil) and have not taken action against a regime whose country does not (Zimbabwe)? Is it morally just that we took action against Milosevic (Serbia's strategic position) but did not do more to protect Rwandans from genocide? I feel ill just thinking about this, Rich, and so I do understand your feelings of wanting to protect Iraqis from a cruel dictator. But it is not fair or just or morally right to take action in foreign lands only when our wallet or strategic positioning come under threat. The US did not invade Iraq out of a desire to protect Iraqis. That was not the deciding factor, and it never is when we go to war. The goals are always money and power, not justice and freedom. I understand that we have to pick our battles, but surely our criteria should be "what is just" rather than "what is profitable"? And I do think that genocide should be just as much of a crime against humanity regardless of who the victims are, where their homeland is, what their country's exports are worth, what religion they are, or what color their skin is. The US, as a powerful & rich country, should be working together with the United Nations to rid the world of ALL cruel dicators - but in a fair manner, in an equal manner - and if at all possible through diplomacy rather than military might.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-06-07 14:06:42 +0000

Reducing is key... we should consume less. Everyone should trade in their gas guzzling AWD, automatic transmission, station wagons and get compact manual hatchbacks.

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-07 15:40:06 +0000

We could pretend the '70s were back in style. Oh... wait...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-07 15:45:45 +0000

Ka-bam!