chucK

Tomcat, I'm curious why you quoted my post? Did you think I was supporting DFA or condemning the poll? I was answering DFA's questions. I think a scientic poll (like was done here) of 500+ randomly sampled people is a pretty valid poll. I have no reason to believe these results are innaccurate. C'mon Tomcat! Debunk me!!!

DFA, From the article that Tomcat linked: "This ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone March 20, 2003, among a random national sample of 506 adults. The results have a 4.5-point error margin. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, PA."

Me too!! I'm through with these f*ckin' Dem's who can't even win a damn election after presiding over 8 years of peace and unprecented economic expansion!! Sheesh!!? Afraid of a couple of BJ's and cigar jokes...give the people some credit. Somehow though I doubt McCain is gonna be on the ticket in 2004, at least I hope not anyway, 'cause that'd mean something really bad happened.

From Google A merry monster is better than sentimental tedious Maybe Peter could touch that up a bit.

"Redeeming" himself? That implies that he was once soiled. Care to elaborate on why you don't like McCain?

Maybe you gave them the idea. A good example of a self-fulfilling prophecy!

I am listening to NPR on my computer !! I was already proven (?) wrong on my WWII history by Catbirdseat just the other day. So I must say, "I dunno". Is that an issue here? Does it nullify my point? I'm sure you could find one of them in there (that's a problem with long posts ). Do you think it is healthy for the world to make leader assassination "fair" in time of war? I think it adds "accountability"! I'm all for it. All's fair in love and war. There's some sloganeering for ya!

MtnGoat = Peter Puget?

Supposedly some of the moderators were totally out of control on that site. Make Dru's bitches about Mattp look pretty minor.

Peter, Exlpain innocence to me and why it matters.

The war has now taken a positive turn for the "people". With what we characterized as an attack on the command control structure, and what many others will characterize as an attempted assassination of an enemy leader, we have now brought the war directly to the leaders of involved countries. Reports are saying that the first strike was delayed for 5 hours, and that might have caused the failure of the attack to kill Saddam. The reason for the delay seems obvious. I'm sure this decision was resisted by the likes of Bush and other leaders who would rather keep their bodies above the fray. Apparently, in the end, the military leaders won out in an attempt to end the war quickly before the young people comprising their forces were put in harm's way. I believe this makes the world leaders who decide to have their minions partake in war more vulnerable. I don't know how to even begin to answer PP's broad innocence question, but I do know that if anyone is NOT innocent in these struggles they are the leaders of warring countries. Bush, in authorizing this strike, degraded his personal safety in an attempt to protect the personnel in our armed forces (and those in Iraq too). That's good thing. Bush deserves commendation . On one hand I feel this is a wonderful development as it might somewhat restrict the powermongers from throwing around their military weight due to concerns for their personal safety. On the other hand, it is worrisome because, in terms of conventional warfare our country is unassailable right now. Turning the game to assassination puts many countries, our enemies included, "into the game".

Now who's spouting stuff to make themself look smart?

Peter, First, you asked for moral/ethical clarification from Off White. That is the inquiry to which I responded. Second, I did not ridicule your inquiry specifically, but your refusal to respond to said inquiry turned back upon you. You asked Off White and DFA a big unanswerable question, refused to even try to answer it yourself, then used it as "proof" that DFA was wrong. That's what I ridicule.

Yep. I didn't think you'd stick your neck out.

Thank you Barney. Perhaps you should recolor your avatar.

I went out and voted for Nader after those damn TV network statisticians told me that Gore had won.

You sure ask a difficult, philosophical question. Maybe you oughta pony up a bit with some of your views before asking others to work so hard.

[nitpick] No we didn't. We didn't find out about that until after we liberated the camps, well after we killed 100,000 people in our glorious 1000 plane raid of Dresden[/nitpick]

Because it's an effective rhetorical ploy! See also this thread.

Remember the chicken and the egg thing? More like the Chicken Little thing.

I think VB's young enough to go himself.

HEY!!! LOOK AT ME , LOOK AT ME LOOOOOOOOK AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

Honest honey, I'll just stay for one beer!

Tomcat you assume like all these other pro-war types, that we are afraid of Saddam. You assume that he is a threat. If I were a Kuwaiti, or perhaps an Israeli, or an Iranian, or an Iraqi, I'd agree with you. But I'm not. Saddam was not interested in committing suicide to hurt the US. It's not that important to him. Noone has shown any evidence that he was. Most believe he would rather stay in power than be pummeled like he would obviously be, the minute he was connected to any terrorist attack on the US. However, if he is cornered, like he is now, he is already dead. He's got nothing to lose. Let's just hope he doesn't have those weapons like the inspectors are saying.