A little poem a friend sent me guys

[lazs2]

nash... you say that you are not my enemy...  I very much think that you are.  

Your views are such that you would take away my individualism and replace it with democratic socialism and big government.... Of course.... you are canadian so you really can't vote and are pretty harmless but... speak up and you are just another whack-0-mole to me.  You deserve it.

There is indeed a split between red and blue in this country.   the socialists from other nations are allied with the blues....  nash is so blue he would be king of the smurfs.

seriously.... what kind of person has to say "I am not your enemy"?  Easy.... A person who is your enemy and doesn't want you to know it.

lazs

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by lazs2
nash is so blue he would be king of the smurfs.

 Gotta love it.

[Thud]

One is in a sad state when calling someone with a different political mindset, not even that different, an enemy. Since when does a mild disagreement qualify you as such?
People who are trying to attack and annihilate your western way of life in general, these are enemies.

And on the ever returning proclamation of "Big Government": ever contemplated the size of the huge apparatus of civil servants and bureaucracy needed to warrant the academic quality of all teaching institutions if vouchers are introduced, as all but exactly the same people calling BG in every thread strongly advocate.

The happy days of hypocrisy have returned...

[lazs2]

Oh.. so you say that it would take more civil servants to monitor the same amount of schools if not all of them were public?   Not sure I get that reasoning unless you are monitoring unrealistic things that are none of the states business.

And... yes I do believe that the red and the blue states should hate each other and that far from "not being that much different from each other" they are diametricaly opposed to each other.

Only people with a blue state mentality would try to pretend that there is no difference.  The gap is huge and unbridgable.   The blue states are socialist and therefore will never give up.

It is a fundamental and unsolvable difference between socialism and individualism when boiled down to its essence.  

lazs

[midnight Target]

said the blue stater.

[uvwpvW]

Originally posted by Shuckins
So, since we are NOT the world police...and the U.N is basically doing nothing...we just sit back and watch it happen.  

Got it.

In summation:  Nothing and no one is worth dieing for.  There is no "brotherhood of man."

No we’re not the World Police and the UN never was. If our allies or friends need help we should answer their call. The Iraqis are not our allies or friends. Culturally and politically they are our enemies.

Originally posted by Shuckins
The United States and the western democracies had absolutely nothing to do with the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The western economic war on the Soviets probably did accelerate its collapse, but it collapsed from within. The disenfranchisement of the people, blunderous Soviet planned economy and rampant corruption doomed the Soviet Union long before the cold war.

Originally posted by Shuckins
A few corrections to your statements;  The Nat Turner was the only slave revolt in the United States prior to the Civil War...and involved a mere handful of rebels.  Oh, and there were four million slaves in the southern states...fully 40% of the population...more than enough to "fight for their freedom."

They could have been 10 times as many and it wouldn’t have mattered. As long as they were held in small groups without the right to mingle and communicate with others, no real rebellion could be started. You should look up the word “slave” some time, I think you’ll find the definition lacking of any resemblance to the Iraqi population. The Iraqi Shi’ites were citizens of Iraq and made up a significant portion of the Iraqi army.

Did you just fail to think this through or are you really this obtuse?

Originally posted by Shuckins
The United States' entry into World War II was delayed by a peace movement led by people who thought exactly like you...that nothing that takes place in other countries is important enough for us to shed our blood over.  Not even the massacre of our fellow man.  

They were wrong. The British were our friends. The French were our friends. Germany was a clear and present threat and a growing military might. The Iraqis are not our friends, Iraq was not a threat and its diminishing military couldn’t even threaten its weakling neighbors.

Originally posted by Shuckins
Personally, I find hand-wring, do-nothing, pacifists with no apparent compassion for the sufferings of their fellow men to be beneath contempt.

Yes, pacifists are a strange bunch. The Iraqis may be your fellow man, but they sure as hell are not my fellows.

Originally posted by Shuckins
"There is no greater love than this, that a man refuse to lay down his life for his friends."

If only the Iraqis were our friends, then you might make some sense.

[Maverick]

Saying that iraq is or was not a threat because they could not invade the mainland is overly simplistic. Given the nature of oil and it's impact on the entire world economy iraq had a significant impact on world economic events. That was one of the main reasons for rescuiing Kuwait. Maintaining a significant portion of the globes oil supplies in openly hostile hands gives the hostile leader a significant tool to damage the economy of any nation they feel the desire to do so.

Maintaining a presence and relationship for trade and political purposes is every nations responsibility. Allowing the economy to be controlled by a hostile nation is not benign nor reasonable. It most definately fits in with the self interest of the national policy.

[lazs2]

MT... living in a blue state or a state controlled by blues does not make you a blue stater.

lazs

[Nash]

Hmm... interesting perspective.

I take it then that working for the government also means that you are not a government employee, right?

[uvwpvW]

Originally posted by Maverick
Saying that iraq is or was not a threat because they could not invade the mainland is overly simplistic. Given the nature of oil and it's impact on the entire world economy iraq had a significant impact on world economic events. That was one of the main reasons for rescuiing Kuwait. Maintaining a significant portion of the globes oil supplies in openly hostile hands gives the hostile leader a significant tool to damage the economy of any nation they feel the desire to do so.

Maintaining a presence and relationship for trade and political purposes is every nations responsibility. Allowing the economy to be controlled by a hostile nation is not benign nor reasonable. It most definately fits in with the self interest of the national policy.

“Self interest of the national policy”

Tell me Maverick, do you think it is ok to send soldiers to invade another nation just because it serves our economic self interest?

[midnight Target]

Denile ain't just a river in Egypt.

[Thud]

Originally posted by lazs2
Oh.. so you say that it would take more civil servants to monitor the same amount of schools if not all of them were public?   Not sure I get that reasoning unless you are monitoring unrealistic things that are none of the states business.
l

Yes I do, from experience I 'know' (though that  was over here) that voucher constructions and similar undertakings tend to explode bureaucracywise. The sad thing being that without it many (new) private schools are in a deplorable state, both regarding academic and other characteristics. That said, the U.S. has a longer history op private schools so the effect may be less substantial there.

Originally posted by lazs2
And... yes I do believe that the red and the blue states should hate each other and that far from "not being that much different from each other" they are diametricaly opposed to each other.

Only people with a blue state mentality would try to pretend that there is no difference.  The gap is huge and unbridgable.   The blue states are socialist and therefore will never give up.

It is a fundamental and unsolvable difference between socialism and individualism when boiled down to its essence.  

lazs

For starters it is hard to take anyone seriously who believes that entire states should actually hate eachother because of some differing voting records. I'll guarantee you that in that case every single country in the world would have at least a dozen civil wars on its hand.

All that aside, you seem to forget that there is a concept known as moderacy and that not everything is or should be partisan. Many people are left leaning on one issue, right on the other (terrible clichés, left and right). Furthermore it is possible to walk a pragmatist line between what you call socialism on one side and individualism on the other. A limited mandatory medicare system with additional commercial coverage for example, just everyday things like that.

So to wrap it up, I'm pretty much convinced that this unbridgeable gap you've been talking about may exist at times, but only in the limited minds of those who see everything black-vs.-white it will lead to actual hate, mutual obstruction and purposeful conflict. Sad actually...

P.S. The blue states will never give up on what? Spreading their dangerous dogmas and forcing these upon the brave last few remaining strongholds of individualism such as yourself?

[Maverick]

Letters,

Think about it. Make your own decision.

[Eagle Eye]

A SOLDIERS PRICE




If war should come today
Think of the price a soldier would have to pay
He'd leave his family and his home.
But worse of all few would care that he's gone

All they would know
Is he's in some far away place
Fighting a war
They did not have to face

And if he should die
Few would care why
All they would say
Is "Atleast I did not have to pay"


Written By :
Then PFC James Bradshaw
Operation Just cause
December 20, 1989

U.S. Army
Retired SFC
December 12 2003

[uvwpvW]

Originally posted by Maverick
Letters,

Haven’t figured it out yet?

Originally posted by Maverick
Think about it. Make your own decision.

I am very clearly against it. I find any use of the military to further economic goals repugnant and criminal. Hussein invaded Kuwait to further his economic goals, aren’t we better than that?

Why don’t you just answer my question: Do you think it is ok to send soldiers to invade another nation just because it serves our economic self interest? Perhaps you are afraid of what the answer would make you.