sexual_chocolate

Fairweather. This is getting silly. I support Bush's impeachment because I believe him to be a dangerous man pursuing policies outside the scope of domestic and international law. If he was impeached, he would stand trial and the facts would come out in their entirety. The legality of this process is spelled out by our constitution. Is this much clear? Chavez was elected president by a majority of Venezuelans, mainly the poor. He is simply standing by his commitments to his constituency, and many are having a problem with that. The calls for a re-election don't have legal backing! The Venezuelan constitution does not support Chavez' opposition! Chavez is in the right, completely, within the legal frame-work of Venezuela. Why do you have a hard time accepting this? Because you disagree with his policies? Get over it! He won the election, fair and square. My support of Bush's impeachment and my support of the legitimacy of Chavez' presidency has no double-standard what-so-ever. Both positions are rooted in the legal frame-work of either country. Now if I was demanding that Bush step down, that would be silly, right? This is what Chavez' opposition is demanding in Venezuela.

Alright then, I'll play. What was the question? Something about the relevance of history for understanding the present? Of course of course. But the comparisons must be valid. And I only see a most superficial validity in comparing Saddam and Iraq to Hitler and Germany. Saddam has no expansionist policy. Saddam has no capacity for pursuing an expansionist policy. Saddam has been disarmed, and is making no moves to create the capacity for an expansionist policy. Saddam allows inspections of his country. (By the way, I wonder if you knew that Clinton pressured the UN to pull the inspectors out? Iraq did not kick them out. Just a little side-note, to clarify an oft-repeated error.) Hitler spelled out, quite clearly and early on, what his intentions were. There was no nuclear technology to act as a deterrent back then. Ahh jeez, I can't believe I'm debating this with a John Birch society member. If you can't see the dissimilarities, then you probably don't want to. There is no question you have the right to believe what you want to. Let's just say we disagree, and leave it at that! And: I'm not anti-america. It's just that there's so much going on with the current administration that I disagree with, it only seems I'm entirely anti-america. There are many things beautiful about this country!

I don't have time to address anything beyond your Chavez comment: He was elected, and his constitution obliges him to serve out his term. Why on earth would you have a problem with that? Are you saying that if enough people started rallying for Bush's ouster, he should simply step down? Don't be silly! There are constitutional guide-lines here, just as there are in Venezuela.

E-rock....if you are attempting to refer to me, I have nothing to retract or concede. I've just reread my original post in light of the ones that follow and I stand by my comments. Perhaps you are referring to yourself in your quote. I accept your apology. No hard feelings....have a beer and some sausage: "frustrated" Allison: there is no anger here. On the other hand, I have no interest in discussing anything controversial with you. The first time we ever met you started that up and I'm not interested in repeating the experience (and it ain't because I felt you had the upper hand.) I think we get along better talking about things that don't have to do directly with the outdoors or climbing. Muffster: I ain't upset. THIS IS SPRAY, to which you contribute at least your fair share. Listen to catbirdseat...If you don't like my opinion, you can always ignore me. I ignore you 99% of the time. But don't expect everyone to agree with your views. Relax, who the hell cares what Dwayner thinks? Take it or leave it. It's a doggone internet spray parlor!Again, if you're going to resort to name calling, at least check your spelling. It's "horse's ass". Here...Dwayner's gonna buy Muffy a beer: I hope you like it....it's Mickey's, and a lot of people enjoy it if you don't tell them what it is or show them the bottle. Kind of like Spam.... "what's in this here sandwich? It's good!" Why it's Spam! "But I don't like Spam!" Have you ever tried it? "No. But I don't like Spam!" Then call it something else and you'll feel better about it. So here's a Spam sando to go with the Mickey's: mmmmm good! Enjoy your weekend and keep on sprayin. Really! Sexy-Cocoa.......ah, never mind....I'm not even going to dignify you with anything more than "keep on Moon-Dancing", whatever the heck that is. Jon...I hate to admit it, but you're right. This thread, which was meant as a semi-provocative/semi-humorous Spray topic (Just consider the title!), has taken a number of obnoxious turns. Yes, the shark has been jumped here. Not once, but perhaps three or four times. If anything positive has come out of this, it would be the thread-drifters who posted the cool photos of El-Cap and "Canary" on Castle Rock. - Dwayner Hmmm.... Just a little too transparent, if'n you ask me. But I think he convinced himself, though, at least partially!

Sexual Chamberlain, I propose that you are THE LAST person on this board who should call another here "santimonious". Who, ME? But you can't deny that the kettle is black!

Glacierdog: We can't go kicking out every leader we disagree with, agreed? In the Saudi regime (our ally!), public executions occur, I believe amputation as punishment occurs, de-tongueings, public stonings, etc.. Everything we accuse Saddam of doing. In Egypt, the regime (our ally!) is accused of numerous human rights abuses. In pakistan (our ally!), Musharref is accused of multiple human rights abuses, including the torture of the president he illegally ousted! Did you know that in Iran, the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected leader, replacing him with a dictator (the Shah), who was then a leading human rights abuser? Ever heard of Pinochet? He killed THOUSANDS of his own people, all with the backing of the US. We turn a blind eye to Syria, and now we support a dictator in I believe Tajikistan, who is erecting statues of himself in public areas, and is accused of multiple human rights abuses. I can go on and on.... In Afghanistan, we have allowed the warlords to take back the countryside, with all the resultant chaos (rape, robbery, murder, extortion, bribery, etc.), all unchecked.What do you thin kwe accomplished there? I'll tell you: Nothing! So as bad as Saddam might be- and he IS bad- don't for a second believe that we are trying to go in because he's a bad guy; that has NOTHING to do with it. If he was supporting our cause, he'd be back on our side instantly, no matter WHAT his human rights record was. Remember, he WAS our ally through the '80's, even shaking Rumsfeld's hand. Reagan even gave him an old revolver as a gift, if I remember right. His human rights record was actively worse back then. Shoot, was else can I say? I think the record speaks for itself. Now tell me, what do you think about all this, if you accept what I say as fact? (Investigate it all on your own. I think you owe it to yourself, especially if you're gonna be fighting for these crooks.)

Allowing the UN weapons inspections to continue is not ignoring the problem. Israel poses a much greater threat to world stability than does Iraq.

Oh, and the rally was awesome. It was cool to see so many people from all walks of life, participating in what they think is so important. I personally felt pretty somber, but definitely psyched by all the involvement. The rally must have stretched from the Center all the way to the INS. Dwayner, you would have especially enjoyed the street puppeteers, although there weren't more than a couple; mainly just average run-of-the-mill folk demonstrating against mindless unjustified violence. I hope that all of you who care feel inspired by the events. 1 million marched in Rome, almost a million in London (does that give the British leadership something to think about?), and countless thousands in major cities around the world. I'm somber, but also hopeful that all this opposition will put the brakes on Bush's war plans. Cheers!

UN inspections are doing quite a good job. It's what even most Americans are supporting now (66%, last poll I read)! But thanks for asking!

Sometimes I think you won't look past your ideologies when analyzing situations. You're so caught up in notions of right and wrong, assigning blame, that you can't at all begin to see that there are ALWAYS two sides to any given situation. Yeah, I admit it can be a bit scary to allow yourself to see the "enemy" as human, just like anyone else in many ways, but I think this is vital if we're going to understand at all the recursive international situation. Just my humble opining. SexC, Had thinking like this taken root in the late 1930's, we'd all be speaking German or Russan by now. "Notions of right and wrong"? Would you have negotiated with Hitler? Face it SC; your sypathies will always lie with any nation or group that opposes America. Especially if they have socialist or communist ideals. There IS right and wrong, good and evil. And, as demonstrated by WWII, sometimes the best path to peace is through war. The light-water reactor has been under construction in NK for several years. There have been reasonable technical/political difficulties/delays in its timely completion. NK promised to abandon its "plutonium seperation" efforts. Clinton/Albright/Carter, dupes all, forgot(?) to tell NK that its uranium enrichment efforts were included in this. GW could withdraw us from the Iraqi borders tomorrow and I suspect you would proceed to blame him for allowing Saddam to kick the inspectors out of Iraq once again, and for all subsequent brutality perpetrated by his regime. I stand by my statement. You're no different than Hanoi Jane or Tokyo Rose, or the idiots that spat at our soldiers upon their return from Vietnam. You're doing it again. You're comparing Iraq to Germany. You're a bad and silly boy. I don't know why I waste time with you. I guess I'm just a sucker who gets baited really easylike. Silly me. So anyways, like I was saying, you're a bad and silly boy. Shape up. And until you can come up with something better than the WWII analogy, I'm done with you, cuz you're making yourself seem as silly as George the Dumb.

But Muffy, you support a war! Nice link, by the way.

I can't believe the reaction at the UN yesterday. The US is quickly losing its allies! Here's for Hope against Hope.

Today at 11:30 am, Seattle Center. Come one, come all. There's a few of us meeting at Cafe Ladro at the base of Queen Anne (Roy and Queen Anne) at 11 am, if you want someone to hook up with. Shalom.

Hey, Cunning Stunt was an awesome and thoughtful climb until it got bolted. I'm glad it got chopped. I think it was Collum's retrobolt; the guy's a bit bolt-happy.

You are SUCH a bitch. I'M wearing that outfit this weekend!

What kind of things would you talk about?

You should be learned to be a Rabbi, my friend. And Rabbis tend to practice humility as an antidote to ego centeredness. Plus, many of your opinions seem mis-informed, so your high-handed opinion of yourself becomes a bit laughable, given the context. But hey, nothing personal! Just pointing something out that might or might not be relevant. You be the judge.

Try the Kabala! Mmmm, delish. And kosher, too!

Just cuz he can have multiple opinions? Let me guess: ultra-orthodox?

It wouldn't have anything to do with sanc·ti·mo·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sngkt-mn) n. Feigned piety or righteousness; hypocritical devoutness or high-mindedness. or condescension n 1: the trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior [syn: superciliousness, disdainfulness] 2: a communication that indicates lack of respect by patronizing the recipient [syn: disdain, patronage] would it?

Here's one. Some more context. China's input. Something very reasonable. I'd check the last link first, since it most clearly illustrates my line of thinking on this issue. Oh, and a correction, of course. US compliance within the framework of '94's treaty wasn't abrogated by our refusal to ship more oil, it had to do with assistance in constructing light-water reactors. My error.

Oh, so now you're gonna blasphemy Ramtha, are you? You obviously should have lined your underground dwelling with copper while you had the chance, cuz now the alien waves have polluted your mind. Heathen. Just keep an eye on Rainier, my friend.

SC, You say N Korea is hostile to us "for very good reason"? Are you off your rocker? If the depth of your America-loathing goes this deep, you are truly beyond help. Possibly even a...dare I say... traitor. Oh fairweather. Now I am a traitor. Do you even know what that means? Probably not. To the John Birch society, everyone is a traitor. Did you think Patty Murray was a traitor for stating the obvious about bin Laden? Probably, huh? My best understanding of the N. Korea crisis comes from a variety of news sources, including the New York Times, Reuters reports, Time, "left-wing" rags such as Z Magazine and CAQ, etc.. I like to read everything, so my ideas are a little more contextualized, with info and data drawn from many sources. Hey, I even listen to Rush Limbaugh, although I find him to be an annoying little pug. Oh, and now Debka.com is another source I occasionally look at. But I wander. Back to N. Korea. From what I have gathered, agreements were made in '94 that N. Korea would dismantle its nuclear program if its energy needs were met through importation of fuel... Some shipment began, as we all know, but Clinton couldn't get congress to approve the rest. (Why did he promise what he couldn't get from congress? I don't know, maybe he thought they'd come around, or just wanted to avert a disaster.) So for all these years since '94, N. Korea didn't get what it had been promised during negotiations. Put yourself in N. Korea's shoes for a minute. Try at least. You've been promised something, and it never materializes. You've been moving your country towards the direction of more openness and dialog with the rest of the world, and a new, quite bellicose administration labels you as part of an "axis of evil". Hey, you know and I know that you, and many others, would begin to immediately arm to the teeth, considering what's happening to the other "axis of evil" member, Iraq. I ramble. Sometimes I think you won't look past your ideologies when analyzing situations. You're so caught up in notions of right and wrong, assigning blame, that you can't at all begin to see that there are ALWAYS two sides to any given situation. Yeah, I admit it can be a bit scary to allow yourself to see the "enemy" as human, just like anyone else in many ways, but I think this is vital if we're going to understand at all the recursive international situation. Just my humble opining.

The paranoia continues.... Ah yes, the Kittyhawk will certainly take care of any issues that might arise with North Korea. Tell that to the South Koreans. I'm sure they'll be impressed. Please don't even think for a minute that Iraq is better armed than North Korea. I'm not sure what they're telling you there in the service, but this flies in the face of all military "intelligence". So we have one country entirely hostile to us (I think for very good reason, I might add) in North Korea, with known weapons of mass destruction, including perhaps two or three workable nuclear bombs. Then we have another country entirely decimated by a previous war, whose armaments were systematically located and destroyed for a 7 year period AFTER the war. Some SUSPECT them to be in possession of chemical and/or biological agents potentially useful in war, although no factual proof exists. It is nearly universally agreed that they have no nuclear weaponry, nor the resources to make any. Oh, but the leader there tried to kill our president's father (let's forget our president's father tried to kill HIM)! And he also sits on the SECOND LARGEST known oil reserves on the planet! What a coincidence!And his country is strategically located, plus, he's an easy victim (limited military), AND at least a pre-text of justification for attack can be made, however weak it may be (UN resolution violations. We seem to violate them quite often; who threatens us with war?) We damn well know that he wouldn't be stupid enough to attack the US, for he isn't suicidal. Nor could he in a 100 years develop competitiveness militarily with the US or its allies. I think it's safe to say he'd be happy having his life and his palaces. I'm sure he'd LOVE to attack the US (wouldn't many countries?), but even arming "terrorists" would be too risky for him. Oh good god, this becomes more and more insane the more one thinks about it. Look, I know you have to feel justified in risking your own life and taking the lives of others; can't you just pick a better cause to die for than this? You're not doing anything to make the world "safe for democracy". You're just stirring the pot, helping to kill people you don't know, for people you don't know.

Jeez, Dwayner, I was agreeing with you! Now you need therapy for anger and paranoia issues, along with the others. How can I help?