Uneducated Actors

Subject: It's a long one, but well worth the read!!


Who's Smarter?
by Cindy Osborne

The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like "stupid" , "morons", and "idiots". Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American.

So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid", "ignorant" , "moronic" leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:

President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other than Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a false story about his I.Q. being lower than any other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to URBANLEGENDS.COM and see the truth.)

Vice President Dick Cheney: Earned a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966, both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes to Capital Hill to meet with Senators and members of the House of Representatives to work on the Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America.

Secretary of State Colin Powell: Educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country.
(Note: He retired as Four Star General in the United States Army)

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: Attended Princeton University on Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59; U.S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77.

Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge: Raised in a working class family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served as an infantry
staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U.S. House, and was overwhelmingly re-elected six times.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice: Earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, **** Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981.
(Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (**** Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her
advanced degrees are also in Political Science.) She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she resides in Washington, D.C.

So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also have all the facts on their educations and background:

Barbara Streisand : Completed high school Career: Singing and acting

Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade. Career: Singing and acting


Martin Sheen: Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton. Career: Acting

Jessica Lange: Dropped out college mid-freshman year. Career: Acting

Alec Baldwin: Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal.Career: Acting

Julia Roberts: Completed high school. Career: Acting

Sean Penn: Completed High school. Career: Acting

Susan Sarandon: Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in
Washington, D.C. Career: Acting (disowned by Catholic University)

Ed Asner; Completed High school. Career: Acting

George Clooney: Dropped out of University of Kentucky. Career: Acting

Michael Moore: Dropped out first year University of Michigan. Career: Movie Director

Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High School. Career: Acting

Jennifer Anniston: Completed High School. Career: Acting

Mike Farrell: Completed High school. Career: Acting

Janeane Garofelo: Dropped out of College. Career: Stand up comedienne

Larry Hagman: Attended Bard College for one year. Career: Acting

While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders.

These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian
Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic
out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed, by freedom-hating terrorists, while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies against the
war. Why the change? Because an honest, God-fearing Republican sits in
the White House.


Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE, FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons, in order to promote world
peace. It is curious that now, even after we have heard all the evidence
that Saddam Hussein has chemical, biological and is very close to obtaining
nuclear weapons, their is no cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They
believe we should leave him alone in his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even though it is certain that these deadly weapons will eventually be used against us in our own cities.

So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that
since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also determine the course of our Nation? That they can make viable decisions
concerning war and peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing of the Nation
when he recently thanked France, on our behalf, for being a "good enough
friend to tell us we were wrong"? I know for certain he was not speaking
for me. Does Sean Penn fancy himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we
are just weeks away from war? Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in more money per year than the average American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him clout?

The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and
divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare
they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation! What is even more
bizarre is how many people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!

It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation remains strong. We must make certain that those who would destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall them.

Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real. We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F. Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in Cuba in
1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of immediate
war if the ships did not turn around. We did not end the Cold War with
conferences. It ended with the strong belief of President Ronald Reagan...
PEACE through STRENGTH.

To all the actors who feel it is there job to enlighten everyone out there on what they should think about this war: SCREW OFF. It pisses me off that the actors of hollywood feel it is their job to speak for the people who watch their films as if they have any bearing whatsoever on what their fans think.

Just because someone is smarter doesn't make them right - or moral.

Being privvy to information doesn't make them right either - how they act on that information is what makes them right or wrong.

And an education does not a smart person make - it makes an educated person - there is a big difference.

The article smacks of Academic snobbery and falsely implies that the people who know more will always do the right thing.

And the article also implies that your right to an opinion is somehow related to your educational background.

I agree with the premise that actors should stick to acting,but this piece of 'writing' is far too skewed to be considered factual.

Yes,George Bush was in the National Guard.Curiously,he never saw action,he went AWOL to campaign for his own self-interest.Funny how that never gets mentioned.Or that all of his buddies in the war room managed to worm their way out of Vietnam one way or another....

The rhetoric about Saddam is the same mix of assumptions half-truths and anti-dissenter crap that Republicans everywhere seem to believe is fact.

The sickening implication that if you are not a Republican you don't know what is going on and you are a liabilty to national security is about as wacko off-the-planet as anything I have seen so far.

Like I said, actors should stick to acting.And maybe Republicans should stick to facts that they can demonstrate to be true.I don't go with the "Trust George,his advisors see much more than you do"bullshit,if his intelligence was any good,he would have seen the WTC attack coming, found Bin Laden before the event, and been able to tell the UN inspectors EXACTLY where the alleged weapons were kept.

This kind of far right nationalism is not the work of patriots,it is the work of those who are desperate to justify that which is morally indefensible.War is the last stategy of a failed argument.There was no 'security' risk to the U.S.There may be now,but that is entirely the work of those who make bad decisions in the name of America.

Yes you are right that just because some one is intelligent this does not imply they will do the right thing. I think Suddam is very smart and he never does the right thing. However if you are an intelligent person and you have good information(our CIA could tell us what you will have for breakfast tommorow if they needed to) proving that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons than you are making the right decision by destroying him and all that share his ideas.

and been able to tell the UN inspectors EXACTLY where the alleged weapons were kept.

I mentioned this another post. Saddam's forces took video in the 80's of his men testing nerve gas on his own people. He killed hundreds of men women and children and than had the nerve to say it did not care what the international community thought. You actually believe he destroyed these weapons. Hell know they are probably stockpiled in an elementary school, hospital, or holy place. We would have let him stay in power if he would have came clean and destroyed his arsenal. You say he should have been able to stop the attacks on the world trade center. Well this is all part of trying to stop the next act of mass terrorism. Why did we find 2000 brand new chemical suits a hospital they were using as a stronghold? Why are Iraqi militants carrying gas masks? They know that they have these weapons, and they know that their leadership will use them. Find Bin Laden! You try to find one person somewhere in this world when they do not want to be found.

Originally posted by tomlong


I mentioned this another post. Saddam's forces took video in the 80's of his men testing nerve gas on his own people. He killed hundreds of men women and children and than had the nerve to say it did not care what the international community thought. You actually believe he destroyed these weapons. Hell know they are probably stockpiled in an elementary school, hospital, or holy place. We would have let him stay in power if he would have came clean and destroyed his arsenal. You say he should have been able to stop the attacks on the world trade center. Well this is all part of trying to stop the next act of mass terrorism. Why did we find 2000 brand new chemical suits a hospital they were using as a stronghold? Why are Iraqi militants carrying gas masks? They know that they have these weapons, and they know that their leadership will use them. Find Bin Laden! You try to find one person somewhere in this world when they do not want to be found.

erm....you are implying that Saddam has had stockpiles of of these weapons for the last twenty-odd years,and yet your intelligence service can't find them.....If these weapons existed,the CIA would have been able to give the U.N.weapons inspectors precise map co-ordinates as to where to find them,if your statement "(our CIA could tell us what you will have for breakfast tommorow if they needed to) "is anywhere near the truth.

Finally,your comment on finding Bin Laden...If he had any oil,he'd have been found by now.

You have still not answered the questions. Why did we find 2000 brand new chemical suits at one of their strongholds, and why do they carry gasmasks if they do not have chemical weapons. Do you carry around a lighter if you dont smoke?

Originally posted by tomlong
You have still not answered the questions. Why did we find 2000 brand new chemical suits at one of their strongholds, and why do they carry gasmasks if they do not have chemical weapons. Do you carry around a lighter if you dont smoke? Well, the coalition forces carry chemsuits and gasmasks as well - ask yourself first.

Originally posted by tomlong
You have still not answered the questions. Why did we find 2000 brand new chemical suits at one of their strongholds, and why do they carry gasmasks if they do not have chemical weapons. Do you carry around a lighter if you dont smoke?

Haven't seen those reports,must only be on the government propaganda stations that you prefer to trust.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/27/sprj.irq.iraq.chemical.suits/
http://www.wcfcourier.com/special/iraqwar/030326chemicalsuits.html
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/27/iraq_chemsuits030327
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/national/3_26_03iraq_chemicals.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0326/iraq.html
http://middleeastinfo.org/article2343.html


Here are many links. Now they have even found Chemical Antidotes

presumably they are concerned about the possibility that the U.S.will use chemical weapons.After all the invasion forces are also equipped with chemical protection suits,etc,so by your logic, they must be planning to gas the Iraqis.

Originally posted by taranaki
presumably they are concerned about the possibility that the U.S.will use chemical weapons.After all the invasion forces are also equipped with chemical protection suits,etc,so by your logic, they must be planning to gas the Iraqis.


Exactly- By saying the Iraqi's arew wrong in making these chemical suits is implying double standards- If the US use chemical suits- it highlights the danger that they plan on using Chemical weapons- and considering that nothing is gonig thier way at the moment- We can't rule out any possibilities

Originally posted by tomlong
Yes you are right that just because some one is intelligent this does not imply they will do the right thing. I think Suddam is very smart and he never does the right thing. However if you are an intelligent person and you have good information(our CIA could tell us what you will have for breakfast tommorow if they needed to) proving that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons than you are making the right decision by destroying him and all that share his ideas. So if I could prove that the US had chemical or biological weapons would that justify an attack?

Your intelligence agencies unfortunately underestimated Saddam's combat readiness as well as the sentiment of the Iraqi people. Had they been right, Saddam would have been overthrown from within by now and the Iraqi people would be flocking to the aid of the coalition forces.

If you want to see what good intelligence looks like check out this post: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=861487#post861487 And if you want to check it's validity, all you need to do is wait and see what happens.

Bush is backed by 70% of the U.S. which equates to 196 million people in our country. We are going to take out the regime of Saddam. We will work with the U.N. to create a new government based on freedom and not terror. When this is all over and you come out from hiding under your rocks you will see that the Iraqi people will be dancing in the streets. They will finally know what freedom is all about and at that time they will prosper.

Originally posted by tomlong
Bush is backed by 70% of the U.S. which equates to 196 million people in our country. We are going to take out the regime of Saddam. We will work with the U.N. to create a new government based on freedom and not terror. When this is all over and you come out from hiding under your rocks you will see that the Iraqi people will be dancing in the streets. They will finally know what freedom is all about and at that time they will prosper.

lovely piece of satire there tomlong...............Oh wait.You actually believe it.How sad.


Who the hell do you think is holding the cities against the advancing invaders?The French,perhaps?No,there's a significant proportion of the Iraqi people who would be well happy if you just got the hell out of their country.
As for "We will work with the U.N. to........."sorry,Ididn't read the rest of that ,Iwas laughing too hard.Unless you are planning on ousting George Bush in a coup[a bloody good idea in my view],there is scant chance of the U.S. co-operating with anyone who actually wants a say in anything.

The idea that you will put in a regime based on freedom is bullshit.Quick list - China, Korea, Guatemala, Sudan, Kuwait, Vietnam, Guatemala[again], Nicaragua..................all countries that have had input from the American military since 1945,can't see any democratic freedoms in any of them.EWhat makes you think Iraq will be any different,given the appaling record at of previous attempts to 'Westernize' countries of strategic importance to America?

Help me recall when we went to China! South Korea prospers while N. Korea has many of the same problems Iraq does. I am not to familiar with what happened with the Sudan, Guatemaula, or Nicaragua so I will refrain from speaking on these matters. Vietnam the French started and requested our help and like Korea the sections we did occupy are prosperous while the rest are not. In regards to Kuwait. Have you been there? Kuwait is very wealthy! There people enjoy a high quality life.

In regards to cooperation bush has already stated that he will let the U.N. help determine the correct leadership and government for a post war Iraq.

You think that what you see on T.V. is correct just as I do. Well since your government and people are against the war you are seeing all the negative stuff while we are seeing many negatives and positives of the war. Non of us like to see civilians or soldiers die for no reason.

Originally posted by tomlong
Help me recall when we went to China! South Korea prospers while N. Korea has many of the same problems Iraq does. I am not to familiar with what happened with the Sudan, Guatemaula, or Nicaragua so I will refrain from speaking on these matters. Vietnam the French started and requested our help and like Korea the sections we did occupy are prosperous while the rest are not. In regards to Kuwait. Have you been there? Kuwait is very wealthy! There people enjoy a high quality life.

In regards to cooperation bush has already stated that he will let the U.N. help determine the correct leadership and government for a post war Iraq.

You think that what you see on T.V. is correct just as I do. Well since your government and people are against the war you are seeing all the negative stuff while we are seeing many negatives and positives of the war. Non of us like to see civilians or soldiers die for no reason.

Kuwait may be wealthy,but it's not a democracy.And the U.S. Marines were in China from 1941-1947.

Most of the footage shown on New Zealand T.V. comes from American T.V.networks,please don't assume that just because your government messes with the media that ours does too.And yes,most New Zealanders are opposed to the war,as are most Australians and most other nations.Bush likes to draw attention to the 40 or so countries that are providing passive support for his war,but that leaves over 100 nations totalling 5/6ths of the world's population unaccounted for.

Most of the footage shown on New Zealand T.V. comes from American T.V.networks,please don't assume that just because your government messes with the media that ours does too.

Our government has no control over what is shown on our networks. Like I said I see many positive and negative things broadcasted. If you are watching our networks you know exactly what I am seeing. It does not matter if Kuwait is a democracy they are peaceful, fair people. I think that you assume that I believe that every country should be a democracy and maybe I do believe this to a certain extent. I as many other americans believe that the world would be a better place if all were free and allowed to voice their opinion without being severly punished. How many people in Iraq post on this forum. Non because they are not allowed.

Originally posted by tomlong


Our government has no control over what is shown on our networks. .

You can't possibly believe that.Goodnight.:rolleyes:

I have been doing some research on some of the conflicts you listed. Since I was not well informed of them. In 1941 through 1947 we were not in china to fight against their government we were there to help them keep their northern front against the impeding Japanese(which we did) forces we were not there to restructure their government.

Guatemala 300,000 people have been found dead or have disappeared in the last thirty years du to the security forces of the government. Our intervention led to the 1996 peace treaty which led to the start of mass landmine removal. Our intervention was pushed by the U.N. on this matter.

In regards to the Sudan everything we do their is decided by the U.N. Read the attached link completely please and tell me what your thoughts are. My thoughts are that this country should be next.
http://www.survivorsrightsinternational.org/sudan/background_sudan.mv

Again I must reiterate that I respect your views and understand that we are in completely different countries with completely different thoughts.

Lets not forget who helped out when the japanese tried to take over the pacific. New Zealand may be owned by the Japanese now if not for us.
http://www.kithobbyist.com/rnzaf/rnzaf1.html

Lets also remember that South Africa is a much better place to live now.

Lets not forget who helped out when the japanese tried to take over the pacific. New Zealand may be owned by the Japanese now if not for us.
[/B]

Let's not forget which country Japan chose to attack first.Without the support of the rest of the world, you could just as easily been speaking Japanese by now.

Staying out of the debate or arguing going on and sticking to the original post. If all these actors have such a problem with the U.S. then I think they should just give up their citizenships and move out! Hell, Alec Baldwin said if Bush were elected he was going to move to Canada and give up his citizenship. Of course, he probably thought Gore would win and when Bush did he didn't know what to say. It's not that celebrities are stupid, its that their mouths move faster than their brains.

Originally posted by taranaki
.

Yes,George Bush was in the National Guard.Curiously,he never saw action,he went AWOL to campaign for his own self-interest.Funny how that never gets mentioned.Or that all of his buddies in the war room managed to worm their way out of Vietnam one way or another....

.

As I have already mentioned, Bill Clinton DODGED the draft by going to Oxford in England and protested the war openly in the streets. You might say,"Well good, its good to have someone who has morals and ethics and sticks to them." We all know what is sticky around Clinton and we all know about his morals and ethics, so don't even try to argue.

Just b/c you are in the Military doesn't mean you are going to see "action". My dad went into the Army around the same time Vietnam started. He didn't try and dodge getting sent or drafted, he just didn't ever get called to go.

Originally posted by Pick


As I have already mentioned, Bill Clinton DODGED the draft by going to Oxford in England and protested the war openly in the streets. You might say,"Well good, its good to have someone who has morals and ethics and sticks to them." We all know what is sticky around Clinton and we all know about his morals and ethics, so don't even try to argue.

I've never argued any points on Clinton,simply because he is totally irrelevant to the debate.

Originally posted by taranaki


I've never argued any points on Clinton,simply because he is totally irrelevant to the debate.

You did, however, call Bush a draft-dodger. Clinton was responsible for the same acts as you accuse Bush of.

Originally posted by Pick


You did, however, call Bush a draft-dodger. Clinton was responsible for the same acts as you accuse Bush of.

Clinton isn't running the country any more.He's not relevant to this debate at all.Why does every Bush apologist drag up Clinton as if his actions are the standard by which we should judge Bush?

I am amazed this thread hasn't degenerated yet. It all seems a bit futile anyway now.

I really wanted to contribute but I think Taranaki has pretty much covered evrything I wanted to say by himself. :)

Edit: here's an interesting article on the news services (the Washington post in particular) :

http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030324&s=greider

Originally posted by tomlong
I have been doing some research on some of the conflicts you listed. Since I was not well informed of them. In 1941 through 1947 we were not in china to fight against their government we were there to help them keep their northern front against the impeding Japanese(which we did) forces we were not there to restructure their government.

Guatemala 300,000 people have been found dead or have disappeared in the last thirty years du to the security forces of the government. Our intervention led to the 1996 peace treaty which led to the start of mass landmine removal. Our intervention was pushed by the U.N. on this matter.

In regards to the Sudan everything we do their is decided by the U.N. Read the attached link completely please and tell me what your thoughts are. My thoughts are that this country should be next.
http://www.survivorsrightsinternational.org/sudan/background_sudan.mv

Again I must reiterate that I respect your views and understand that we are in completely different countries with completely different thoughts.

Lets not forget who helped out when the japanese tried to take over the pacific. New Zealand may be owned by the Japanese now if not for us.
http://www.kithobbyist.com/rnzaf/rnzaf1.html

Lets also remember that South Africa is a much better place to live now.
South Africa- WHAT A LOAD OF HORSE SHIT!!!!!! What in gods name did the US do with South Africa- NOTHING- it was fellow commonwealth countries that made the difference- and even still South Africa is worse these days- poverty is rising- Crime is through the roof and the black government is penalising white people- especially if you want to get into a University- much more spots are gonig to people because they are black- these people are getting in instead of white, Indian or Colored South Africans who have the marks- and this has been told to me not by some BS media source- but by South African friends.


And in China- the US did stay on after the Japanese- they funded and backed Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist government against Mao Zedung's CCP Communist forces- Chiang lost- the Communists took over and the US left straight away- leaving China in more of a mess than what they found it in.

Just accept it guys, the US is the cause of most of the worlds problems. We go in with whatever intentions we have, and leave it worse than it was before. That's the new American way.

After we get all this great oil that we are supposedly fighting this war over, I don't think the US should try to help anybody anymore. To hell with em all, let's just do as the Swiss do.

Originally posted by Prelewd
Just accept it guys, the US is the cause of most of the worlds problems. We go in with whatever intentions we have, and leave it worse than it was before. That's the new American way.

After we get all this great oil that we are supposedly fighting this war over, I don't think the US should try to help anybody anymore. To hell with em all, let's just do as the Swiss do. If only.....j/k;)

Sorry, just a little venting the day prior. I'm just a little sick of arguing over the most mundane little details. This isn't a damn courtroom.

In response to the actual article, I do think it is sad that actors/actresses have all this influence, but little knowledge of the subject.. but once again, it's their right to open their mouth, no matter what comes out.

Originally posted by Prelewd
Just accept it guys, the US is the cause of most of the worlds problems. We go in with whatever intentions we have, and leave it worse than it was before. That's the new American way.

After we get all this great oil that we are supposedly fighting this war over, I don't think the US should try to help anybody anymore. To hell with em all, let's just do as the Swiss do.

:rolleyes:

Don't worry Yogs, just sarcasm.

Originally posted by Prelewd
Don't worry Yogs, just sarcasm.

Maybe it was,but I for one would much rather see a heavily armed Switzerland than a heavily armed America.I can't remember the last time the Swiss tried to manipulate the internal affairs of another country.

Originally posted by taranaki


Maybe it was,but I for one would much rather see a heavily armed Switzerland than a heavily armed America.I can't remember the last time the Swiss tried to manipulate the internal affairs of another country.

That's because the Swiss are rocks. They are neutral on everything form WWII to now. I heard they even have posts that rise on their roads near the borders to block cars from entering in case of neighboring conflict. I don't blame them though, they aren't constantly critisized...

...and like a spectator, they look after wallets for them while they are slogging it out......now that is a peace loving people - no hidden agendas.

I pulled some interesting info from amnesty internationals website about the treatment of their people by their government.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140052003?open&of=ENG-IRQ

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140122001?open&of=ENG-IRQ

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140042001?open&of=ENG-IRQ

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140082001?open&of=ENG-IRQ

I also found this which talks about the Iraqi oil proceeds being put in a UN Trust fund to benefit the people of Iraq.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-09.htm

I know that our government is not perfect. I also know that the reason I support this war is because I believe Saddam is an evil tyrant and that he and all he believes in must be destroyed immediately. I like the majority of this country support the people of Iraq and hope that they can soon experience the freedom many of us take for granted. I am sorry the people of New Zealand and other countries do not feel the way I feel. Our news is definately not censored I see many things that bother me but that is war. I also believe that the Iraqis have killed more civilians in the last two weeks than we have.

This final article read carefully because this is one reason why we fight.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/28/91809.shtml

Again I am sorry you do not agree with us, but look around your country at all the people and families that wish to help others out. Well when I walk around I see the same thing. People criticize us because we are always the one to intervene. Maybe this is because of some hidden political agenda. Maybe because we are the only one strong enough to get the job done, and maybe we are the only ones who care. I would hope that the majority of our interventions are because we want to help others and we have the superior forces to do so.

Wow good post tom, I especially found the last article interesting, although I do find it hard to believe the reasons implied by the article are among the reasons for the invasion, as it has been that way in Iraq for so long, and no one in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) cared before.

Tomlong, when you find something that indicates Amnesty International's support for this invasion, please post the link. Otherwise do not presume to use the name of this organisation in support of the actions of the coalition. To quote amnesty international:

Amnesty International neither condemned nor supported the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan and our position is the same with respect to Iraq.
We ask that due consideration be given to exploring all diplomatic and judicial avenues.
The US has called for a "regime change" in Iraq. Amnesty International is not a political organization and does not support or oppose "regime change" in any part of the world.
The effects of UN sanctions on the Iraqi population have been documented by UN agencies, NGOs, journalists and academics. There is a general consensus that sanctions are significantly contributing to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. Although access to food, medicines and other commodities has reportedly improved since 1998, the situation overall remains critical. And do you know which countries governments were adamant that the sanctions remained while other countries were pushing to get them lifted? Try listing coalition members on one side and non coalition members on the other and it will be pretty damn close:mad: While your belief that the oppression of the people by Saddam Hussein should stop is a just and noble one, the actions of the US and UK governments prior to the war are not consistent with those beliefs.

I was not using their name to support why the coalition forces are in Iraq. I was just introducing a completely non biased source of information as to why many americans support this war.

Originally posted by tomlong
I was not using their name to support why the coalition forces are in Iraq. I was just introducing a completely non biased source of information as to why many americans support this war. Read my previous post again, I've added to it - more non-biased views.

Originally posted by MattyG
Wow good post tom, I especially found the last article interesting, although I do find it hard to believe the reasons implied by the article are among the reasons for the invasion, as it has been that way in Iraq for so long, and no one in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) cared before.

That was good post. Although nobody stepped in to stop what was going on in Iraq before doesn't mean that it should never happen. The vast majority screaming of people about the innocent civilians in this conflict were nowhere to be heard before now. Its incredible to hear the Arab nations speak out for the civilians being hurt, but they never said a damn thing when the Kurds were murdered. Or when Iranians were dieing by the bushells in the 80s. There is documented oppresion and murder all over the middle east against arabs by arabs. Not one peep out of them. To them its not a matter of innocent civillians getting killed - its which ones and by whom it matters. (not to all, but its a damn large piece of duplicity on their governments parts)

Originally posted by T4 Primera
And do you know which countries governments were adamant that the sanctions remained while other countries were pushing to get them lifted? Try listing coalition members on one side and non coalition members on the other and it will be pretty damn close:mad: While your belief that the oppression of the people by Saddam Hussein should stop is a just and noble one, the actions of the US and UK governments prior to the war are not consistent with those beliefs.


So what diplomatic tool would you use to force Saddam to disarm? If you don't want war and you don't want sanctions what do you have left? Don't say inspectors, they only work if your employing another form of action. The whole "oil for food" program was to help the Iraqi people, but of course Saddam kept what he wanted and left his people with little to nothing. For some reason a lot of people think that if sanctions were lifted that all would be just peachy keen and Saddam would turn into this nice and reasonable fellow.

Originally posted by YogsVR4


That was good post. Although nobody stepped in to stop what was going on in Iraq before doesn't mean that it should never happen. The vast majority screaming of people about the innocent civilians in this conflict were nowhere to be heard before now. Its incredible to hear the Arab nations speak out for the civilians being hurt, but they never said a damn thing when the Kurds were murdered. Or when Iranians were dieing by the bushells in the 80s....More selective memory - anybody care to remember who was supporting Saddam when the Kurds were gassed?, and the Iraninans?, and who supported the Talibans rise to power while chasing the Russians out of Afghanistan?
Originally posted by YogsVR4
There is documented oppresion and murder all over the middle east against arabs by arabs. Not one peep out of them. To them its not a matter of innocent civillians getting killed - its which ones and by whom it matters. (not to all, but its a damn large piece of duplicity on their governments parts) It would seem that the Arabs are not the only ones who think that way - especially in the light of who was supporting who when all this happened with training money and weapons to fight wars by proxy. Duplicity? - you bet. The only difference this time around (Afghanistan and Iraq) is that these people will have some of their own blood spilled. I don't condone terrorism, but was it so surprising given the history here?

Originally posted by YogsVR4
So what diplomatic tool would you use to force Saddam to disarm? If you don't want war and you don't want sanctions what do you have left? Don't say inspectors, they only work if your employing another form of action.Now hang on a minute - the reasons given for going to war in the first place were those of disarmament. None were found that weren't undergoing the process of being disabled and destroyed. If the weapons inspectors had found that Iraq was unco-operative under UN Resolution 1441 they would have said so. Had that been the case, the use of force would probably have been sanctioned by the UN. So in answer to your first question - the UN.
Originally posted by YogsVR4
The whole "oil for food" program was to help the Iraqi people, but of course Saddam kept what he wanted and left his people with little to nothing.
Do you see any emaciated Iraqi's? - no. In fact, in the months leading up to the war, the food ration was doubled and each home was encouraged to accumulate a 6 month supply of food - which they did. As the coalition moves through they find warehouses of food stocks in the cities towns and villages of Southern Iraq - supposedly the most discriminated against population in the country. When you see them coming out to collect food from the coalition - they are merely stocking up more in preparation for a long protracted war.
Originally posted by YogsVR4
For some reason a lot of people think that if sanctions were lifted that all would be just peachy keen and Saddam would turn into this nice and reasonable fellow.Unfortunately we will never get to find out now will we?...Nobody to my knowledge has said that Saddam would turn into a nice guy, but as far as dictators go - prior to the sanctions being imposed there were others far less benevolent than him. Lifted sanctions also means that as trade and industry flourish, international influence begins to take hold in Iraq, the people and government are exposed to alternative cultures and ideas and their horizons are broadened as a result. Education begins to replace ignorance and attitudes begin to change. Many countries are well on the way to being reformed in this way - but this is not an overnight process. However it is a process that has far more promise for lasting peace than to try to enforce it overnight.

T4

After giving Suddam over a decade to comply with UN Sanctions I would also like to know what your thoughts would be on how to proceed. If not war? What!

Originally posted by tomlong
T4

After giving Suddam over a decade to comply with UN Sanctions I would also like to know what your thoughts would be on how to proceed. If not war? What! Sanctions are IMPOSED by the UN on Iraq to prevent access to weapons and as a punishment. Iraq is required to comply with RESOLUTIONS in order to get the sanctions lifted.

After Iraq complied with resolution 1441, which I believe they did by allowing the weapons inspectors free reign, along with the destruction/disabling of non-compliant missiles under the supervision of the weapons inspectors, then the sanctions should have been lifted. The rest is in my previous post.

I believe that world opinion will change after this is all over. They will see that we are trying to help.

Help what? Let's see....2 weeks of war and the U.S. still has to uncover any solid evidence of WMDs in Iraq. It seems people have forgotten that point by America, and now focus solely on getting Saddam. The true reason for going to war--to unseat Saddam and put in a puppet government?

T4 is right--Iraqis aren't starving. Our mediamen had access to Iraqis not afforded to Western (and particularly American) media. What they found was in stark contrast to what American media claims: there's food, lots of food, in Iraq. In fact, Iraqis are so generous to foreigners and visitors to their homes. Food was in abundance, not the starving Iraq that American media tried to convey. Iraqis were, contrary to Western media again, quite open in talking about Saddam. There were those who were against him, but are also against the U.S. war; they see it as an invasion. Iraqis want to solve their problem their way, not have some foreign force come in. Now they are armed--to fight against their "liberators". They see the war as an intrusion, an act of invasion, not "liberation".

Originally posted by T4 Primera
Sanctions are IMPOSED by the UN on Iraq to prevent access to weapons and as a punishment. Iraq is required to comply with RESOLUTIONS in order to get the sanctions lifted.

After Iraq complied with resolution 1441, which I believe they did by allowing the weapons inspectors free reign, along with the destruction/disabling of non-compliant missiles under the supervision of the weapons inspectors, then the sanctions should have been lifted. The rest is in my previous post.

Let me ask you this: Do you think that Saddam should be removed?

Originally posted by Milliardo
Help what? Let's see....2 weeks of war and the U.S. still has to uncover any solid evidence of WMDs in Iraq. It seems people have forgotten that point by America, and now focus solely on getting Saddam. The true reason for going to war--to unseat Saddam and put in a puppet government?


Yea.. 2 weeks! Not a very long time when you are concentrating on fighting a war and not focusing on finding WMDs. Not to mention the difficulty in finding something that doesn't want to be found. Also not to mention that there are places that we haven't even been to yet, say Baghdad.. where all that shit probably is.

T4 is right--Iraqis aren't starving. Our mediamen had access to Iraqis not afforded to Western (and particularly American) media. What they found was in stark contrast to what American media claims: there's food, lots of food, in Iraq. In fact, Iraqis are so generous to foreigners and visitors to their homes. Food was in abundance, not the starving Iraq that American media tried to convey. Iraqis were, contrary to Western media again, quite open in talking about Saddam. There were those who were against him, but are also against the U.S. war; they see it as an invasion. Iraqis want to solve their problem their way, not have some foreign force come in. Now they are armed--to fight against their "liberators". They see the war as an intrusion, an act of invasion, not "liberation".

What type of proof do you have that Iraqis are not starving, because we see reports every day that they are. I am not talking about somebody saying it I am talking video after video of Iraqis fighting over a simple bottle of water.

Originally posted by tomlong


What type of proof do you have that Iraqis are not starving, because we see reports every day that they are. I am not talking about somebody saying it I am talking video after video of Iraqis fighting over a simple bottle of water.

I heard from somewhere (I'll try looking for source) that before the war started 60% of the Iraqi population were completely dependent on food from the oil-for-food program for sustainance and 72% of the children of Iraq suffered from malnutrition......so I don't think there's "lots of food" in Iraq. However, one could easily argue that this starvation was caused by the UN Sanctions imposed during the 90's. According to UNICEF, 6000 infants and young children in Iraq die of starvation every month as a direct result of these sanctions and since the first Gulf War, 1.8 million Iraqi citizens have died from starvation and malnutrition.

Originally posted by Prelewd
Yea.. 2 weeks! Not a very long time when you are concentrating on fighting a war and not focusing on finding WMDs. Not to mention the difficulty in finding something that doesn't want to be found. Also not to mention that there are places that we haven't even been to yet, say Baghdad.. where all that shit probably is.

That was the same excuse given last week. Initially, American experts claimed that WMDs will be found "soon". American military officials claim to have 40% or so of Iraq out of Saddam's control. I guess they've bombed so much of Iraq to oblivion that the supposed WMDs and their factories went up in smoke, or are now rubble. I doubt Saddam would be dumb to put his WMDs in a very crowded area like a city. Unless he is totally clueless, he'd put his chemicals and bios in remote, sparsely populated areas.

Originally posted by Milliardo


That was the same excuse given last week. Initially, American experts claimed that WMDs will be found "soon". American military officials claim to have 40% or so of Iraq out of Saddam's control. I guess they've bombed so much of Iraq to oblivion that the supposed WMDs and their factories went up in smoke, or are now rubble. I doubt Saddam would be dumb to put his WMDs in a very crowded area like a city. Unless he is totally clueless, he'd put his chemicals and bios in remote, sparsely populated areas.

Just like his soldiers and munitions... uh huh.

Originally posted by Prelewd


Yea.. 2 weeks! Not a very long time when you are concentrating on fighting a war and not focusing on finding WMDs. Not to mention the difficulty in finding something that doesn't want to be found. Also not to mention that there are places that we haven't even been to yet, say Baghdad.. where all that shit probably is.

If Saddam has these weapons,and is as evil as some in this forum would have us believe,he would have deployed them by now.The difficulty in finding something that doesn't want to be found is nothing compared to the difficulty in finding something that most likely doesn't exist.I'm sure that the powers that be would dearly love to find chemical and/or nuclear weapons that the U.N. inspectors couldn't,but it hasn't happened yet,and there have been none deployed.

Originally posted by T4 Primera
It would seem that the Arabs are not the only ones who think that way - especially in the light of who was supporting who when all this happened with training money and weapons to fight wars by proxy. Duplicity? - you bet. The only difference this time around (Afghanistan and Iraq) is that these people will have some of their own blood spilled. I don't condone terrorism, but was it so surprising given the history here?

So? Are you saying that because a bad decision was done in the past, that the right one can't be made now? Isn't that being shortsighted? Following your line of logic then we should never have fought Germany in WWII because US companies supplied goods and materials that were used to wage war in Poland.

If Saddam has these weapons,and is as evil as some in this forum would have us believe,he would have deployed them by now.The difficulty in finding something that doesn't want to be found is nothing compared to the difficulty in finding something that most likely doesn't exist.I'm sure that the powers that be would dearly love to find chemical and/or nuclear weapons that the U.N. inspectors couldn't,but it hasn't happened yet,and there have been none deployed.

I believe the reason he has not deployed them is the same reason he did not destroy the Dam he had wired with explosives, or the bridges he had wired to blow, or for that matter appear on T.V. live. Because he is DEAD! I do not think that his second in command has the balls or maybe even the knowledge of everything Saddam was doing.