So, when senator Kennedy says going to war is the wrong thing to do, is he a traitor? Or is he doing his job as a senator?
Is it wise to go against the rest of the world?
Ah. So Senator Kennedy chose now to become moral and principled? He couldn’t possibly be grandstanding to gain some points with the anti-war crowd…
As to the rest of the world, they are making noise to appease their own anti’s. Come crunch time, they will decide that they want a piece of the post-invasion pie, and will vote affirmative. (Or abstain, as China may do.)
So it’s the American and British Churchills against an army of foreign Neville Chamberlains ? Now I see why we haven’t made much effort to woo them into our alliance of two. :dubious:
Yeah, God forbid the US government should do anything like listen to the opinions of the country’s population.
Quite right, if you mean choosing not to protest, or even being asked not to protest and agreeing. Being prevented from protesting does. Being called a traitor for protesting is just plain rude.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed that certain posters in this thread never get to positions of power within the US government. I enjoy my rights as an American and would loathe giving them up.
That said: tomndebb for President 
jshore
[Moderator Hat ON]
jshore, do NOT strongly imply that your fellow posters are dense.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
If nominated, I shall not run.
If elected, I shall not serve.
The fear of nuclear power has been pervasive even before the 3 mile island incident and what happened in Chernobyl coud never happen in the US. It merely served as a “AHA, I told you so” to the public. In the US, thats one screwup in a 50 year history. Just think of the tons of pollution and waste spewed out of fossile fuel generators, acid rain and rapidly depleting non renewable resources. Dams destroy thousands of acres of land.
My whole point in all of these discussions is that we are taking the opinions of demonstrators who may not have all the facts or are chosing to ignore the facts. Lying is not limited to one side of the debate. Just because you have thousands upon thousands of people demonstrating their point of view doesnt make them correct or even truthfull. For all we know they couldve been lied to and they chose to believe those lies rather than the truth. They have a right to demonstrate, without a doubt. But just because a person has the right to speak doesnt mean other people have to listen to them.
That’s good to hear because the OP was : “Those chumps are a bunch of subversive bastards”.
Would a person who can’t, or won’t, even listen to how educated people pronounce “nuclear” listen to the public as to a minor matter like war?
and have you seen what the president of the United States have been called by these anti-war protestors? The OP is entiltled to his opinion as well.
Would a person who has bought and ruined oil companies and still came out filthy rich listen to a public whose income can’t even come close to matching his?
There are those who would vote for you because of that.
And???
You should hear what names they have called the Reichschancellor of the Great German Reich.
Maybe, in future, we should write ‘president’ with a capital P.
Have the Pope declare it a holy institution.
Better still, let’s declare the Presidency infallible.
** Oh! That explains it! You thought that “subversive” meant positive!
**
What ** photopat ** said. Calling protesters subversive * does * equal anti-First Ammendment. Simply put, you cannot call someone subversive for speaking out against a policy they disagree with and then say that you support their right to do is. It’s hypocritical. I understand your mother and cancer metaphor, but whereas smoking may be a choice, getting cancer is not. No one would opt to go through cancer treatments: cancer is something that happens TO you, the passive party. You must actively * chose * to go to war.
**
Actually, I’d like to apologize for that remark. It was a cheap shot, and I’m sorry. Given that my own spelling and grammar are far from perfect, I really shouldn’t have stooped to personal insults.
That being said, your spelling and grammar are not the only evidence I need to say that you’re wrong. You’ve provided abundantly toward that opinion in other ways.
I disagree. The US did not choose to go to war with Japan on Dec. 7, 1941. Belgium did not choose to go to war with Hitler. Kuwait did not choose to go to war with Saddam Hussein.
We can choose whether or not to go to war with Saddam right now. However, war may come in the long run, and it may not be our choice.
**
Of course we did. Look at it this way: a man walks up to me and punches me in the nose. I can either punch him back, or sit passively. I have to make a choice.
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we also had to make a choice, no matter how obvious the answer seems. We could have done nothing, if we had chosen to, but instead, we chose to go to war. We may have been “punched” first, but we still had to chose to fight back. As did Belgium and Kuwait: they had two choices, to fight back, or just sit there. A choice had to be made, either way.
As I said, we always have a choice. We could decide to do absolutely nothing, even if Saddam nukes Denver, Colorado, and takes George Bush prisoner. It wouldn’t be the smart thing to do, but the option is still there. You always make a decision: whether to act, or not.
You forget the testosterone factor. Even I would want to nuke Saddam if he took out Denver. BTW, the only Senator not voting for war with Japan was a woman.
I would use a better metaphor. Mama don’t have cancer yet, we are trying to stop her from stuffing crack into her Marlboros.
That’s quite correct.
The US chose to go to war with Japan on Dec. 11, 1941.