[CONTINUED...]
Vagabond, in your mind a candidate is only good if they are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal, so I can see your bias. That's okay.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. But, as you once said, if you want your opinion to be law, start your own country (hey, just teasing with you man!). Otherwise, give others a chance.

As to isolationism, Buchanan denied this in a recent interview. A true isolationist is someone who feels that we should spend all our time and money on improving our own country, rather than spending it on foreign wars and helping other countries.

In some ways I like this philosophy because it means that we deal with crime and poverty here before we waste it meddling with other people's lives. Plenty of people in this country need our help already. It also means staying out of foreign conflicts that we don't have a vested interest in (like Kosovo where we killed more people than the "enemy" did).

[CONTINUED...]

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited August 25, 2000).]

[CONTINUED...]
However, it's a moral quandry for me, because of this:

People are starving and dying and suffering in the entire world. So who do we help? Are the lives of people in other nations worth less than the ones in our own country? No. So I can't answer that. From a patriotic standpoint, we should help ourselves, at lest FIRST, but from a humanitarian standpoint, we should help those who need it most, regardless of where they live.

[CONTINUED...]

[CONTINUED...]
Now, back to the Isolationist thingy. Buchanan is NOT a true isolationist. Yes he opposes involvement in foreign wars where we don't have Amercian interests at stake.

Now let me expain the other half of it:

We have a trade embargo against over a dozen some nations (I forget the exact figure) which basically accounts to an act of war against them. Yet we aren't fighting them directly.

Pat proposes we lift ALL non-military embargos on friendly nations (read "friendly"). That means we can send food and medicine to Cuba if we want. Of course we aren't sending them weapons or military technology, but we can help them. That's more than we have right now. Gore and Bush don't favor this position. People are starving and dying in other countries because we aren't helping them.
[CONTINUED...]

[CONTINUED...]
This strategy doesn't work because:

1) Most of the time, the dictator of enemy nation X just holds up in his palace and has whatever he wants, meanwhile the poor defensless peasants outside starve. Good job USA!

2) Their governments get pissed and get weapons, to throw at us.
Pat's opponents are calling him isolationist, when he's not. He wants to keep us out of foreign wars (how many presidents have campaigned on that?). It's a good thing. I don't want to have to fight wars that we have no chance of winning, or are over stupid stuff that doesn't concern us. Half the time we're not even fighting on the right side anyway. I have nothing against our military, but we don't have to send them to die for lost causes or to unjust ones that are just about money.

While he may be an isolationist when it comes to foreign wars (are we really the "World's Policeman"? Does the UN have the right to order us around?), he is NOT when it comes to foreign aid.

[CONTINUED...]

[CONTINUED...]
I don't think we should waste our soldier's lives and our resources (which could be better spent improving living conditions for our poor, or helping starving people), on foreign wars that don't directly involve us. Just because some big corporation has money tied up in some foriegn country, doesn't mean we need to start dying for them. I don't think we should be the World's Policeman. There needn't be any "American Empire" where we have imperialist control over the world and bully smaller nations and restrict their freedom. It's like we're trying to prove we're so much bigger than everybody else.

[CONTINUED...]

[CONTINUED...]
So in short, Buchanan will get a sizable number of votes, even if he doesn't win. And all that says is that people are disatisfied with the two "major" parties and the candidates they have chosen recently, and they are exercizing their Democratic rights to support an alternative. Third parties help because they bring up issues the establishment parties are afraid to talk about or take a stand on.

My suggestion: rather than asking a politicians enemies for information about him, find out what he really stands for. Don't go asking Bush what he thinks of Al Gore if you want a positive response.
You might as well ask Darth Vader what he thinks of the Rebellion! ; )

[CONTINUED...]

[CONTINUED...]
Okay, I agree with the Green Party on its environmental stance, I agree with the Libertarians on their self government stance, but the party I agree most strongly with (and the candidate) is the Reform Party and their candidate Patrick J. Buchanan.

Btw, that "black chick" has a name, Ezola Foster, and yes, she is a conservative. When picking a running mate, a candidate either selects someone with views very close to their own, or if the VP pick is different, it is the VP that changes to be on equal footing for the ticket. That happened with Bush Sr. when he ran with Reagan for example. So even if Buchanan had picked a more liberal running mate, he or she would have changed to be more in line with his views for the ticket. That's just how it works.

As to Buchanan's chances, I guarentee you (based on what has happened in the past), he'll get more votes than the Green Party, or the Libertarians. The Reform Party has the best chance of any non-major party as of now. Perot had an impressive chance when he ran the first time.

[CONTINUED...]

[CONTINUED...]
Keep in mind that just because Ross Perot founded the Reform Party doesn't mean he's running it. In fact, he isn't. Neither is Buchanan.

All candidates have a CHANCE of winning. It would be more correct to say that Gore or Bush has MORE of a chance of winning because they have more money and they are each part of one of the two "major" parties (ie: more visible, media likes them, etc). That doesn't mean however that we should vote for them just because of that. Vote for them if you agree with them and want them to be president, it's that simple.

Kurgan
http://www.buchananreform.com/images/buchananfoster.jpg)

Okay, finally got that posted. I apologize for the great length of those posts.

That was accumulated over a few days, as I had trouble posting and had to break it up into chunks. I addressed alot of stuff, so please be patient and read through it all or you won't understand my point of view (if you care). ; )

Kurgan

Originally posted by Kurgan:
I don't think we should waste our soldier's lives and our resources (which could be better spent improving living conditions for our poor, or helping starving people), on foreign wars that don't directly involve us.

<font face="BernardMod BT"><font color="#117DF4">
In total agreement. I always thought of the US as the "policeman of the world."

I'll post more later when I have time.



------------------
Micro**** mind tricks don't work on me....

http://fan.starwars.com/Fishsticks/files/MadeWindu/Mace.gif)
Jedi Microsith Warrior

Go To The Rogue Federation Board @ http://pub22.ezboard.com/broguefederation)

What do a bunch of Star Wars loving, video game playing, young punks know about the government, anyway? http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)

More than you can possibly imagine. ; )

Kurgan

Well, ive skimmed very briefly through the topic, and i like what ive read so fa. Unfortunately, I have an increadible amout of work to do out in the orchard right now, so i will let you all know my views at a later time. Untill then:

GOD Bless,
-Calypso

Crap, Kurgan, what do you really think? I've said it before and I'll say it again: "Less is more" http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

With regard to sending troops to fight in distant wars, let me say this: if every nation took that stance, then the U.S. might not even exist. France helped us in our war for independence, and we very likely could have failed withour their assistance. If we took this stance to its logical extreme, the U.S. would not have gotten involved in either World War 1 or 2, and the world would likely be ruled by Nazis. The only reason people keep raising this issue is because of the fiasco in Vietnam. The military was ineptly lead and misued, shackled with ludicrious restrictions and limitations. I comletely agree with the belief of Norman Schwartzkopf, that if you're going to go in, go in with overwhelming force and go in to win. Totally. Like Sherman said, "war is hell", and if you're going to do it, then go in with your guns blazing.

Back to the topic of U.S. foreign involvement - the war in Bosnia and Kosovo had nothing to do with corporate interests. Those wars were fought in the name of what is "right". It's quite convenient for us, safe in our cozy little homes to casually remark, off-hand, that the suffering of people we don't even know, is none of our business. Yet, families are being killed. Brothers, fathers, sons, husbands, being lined up and executed merely for ethnic reasons. Put yourself in the place of these innocent people, suffereng at the hands of evil lunatics, and then say with a clear conscience that we should just let that carnage continue. Why should we involve ourselves in stopping such attrocities? Simple. Because we can. Of all the nations in the world, we are the most fortunate, the most wealthy, and the most powerful, and with these blessing comes certain inherant responsibilities. Among those include policing the world, where feasible, to stop the most horrendous of Human rights violations. If anyone could appreciate this, I thought it would have been you, Kurgan.

About Buchanan not being a true isolationist, whatever that is, let's not split hairs, shall we? He's against free trade, he's against U.S. involvement in foreign wars. If Buchanan was president, we'd have just let Europe get overrun by Hitler.

P.S. Did you get those images of my computer system I sent you?


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...



[This message has been edited by Vagabond (edited August 28, 2000).]

Vaggy, if I truly want to get my point across, I have to be long-winded. That's how politics work. I simply can't break it up into bite size sound bites (doh) for you to chew up and swallow easily. That's now how I do things.

Read all I write, and then you will be closer to understanding my point of view.

I said before that you seem to be dissing on certain candidates (which leads me to think you are stearing towards the one you hate the least.. ). I'm simply showing you what I think, etc.

I'm not "crazy" for seeing things how I do, and I am not "crazy" for disagreeing with your's, and I showed you why above. There are reasons...

Kurgan

Vagabond. The idea behind Kosovo (for example) was that this big bad dictator was killing people, and we better do something about it, fast, or we're all a bunch of heartless slobs.

So we go over there, and guess what? We don't find the mass graves and death camps they told us had to be there. Something like only 2,000 people were killed (I know, it's still sad that anybody was killed), rather than 100,000 or 10,000 as I heard from the media before we started bombing.

Did you know that NATO actually killed MORE victims than the enemy? We killed the very people we were trying to protect! So by our entering the war, we actually caused more innocents to die needlessly than if we hadn't done anything.
[CONTINUED...]

Is that clicking? We did more HARM than good. They would have been better off had we done nothing. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

What if I told you that Hitler only wanted to instill national pride, and build Germany back up after it was unfairly bullied and depressed by the rest of the world? What if I told you that he had great plans for peace in the future after the war? Does that make all the evil he did right because he had good intentions? No, it doesn't.

As to the Holocaust, we in the US didn't really know that it was happening until after the war was over. We didn't enter the war because of that. We stayed out of the war until Japan bombed us in a "sneak attack." (rumors are that some of us knew about that too, and just wanted an excuse to get involved). Realize that before WWII, there was a debate whether we should get involved or not.
[CONTINUED...]

The Crusades had a good idea behind them too, does that make them right?

If you think you disagree with what Buchanan says in a book or speech, I suggest you actually read that book or speech in its entirety. If you just want anti-Buchanan rhetoric, then read quotes out of context from his enemies.

I know Buchanan's position, and I agree with pretty much all of it. I can't say that about any other running candidate's platform.

He's not the conniving monster he's been painted as. He's not the boogey man, ok?

Kurgan

Kurgan, I don't know where you're getting your information, but there were more than 2000 people in mass graves, and the U.S. did not kill 2000+ Kosovars. Perhaps civilians in Serbia were killed, regrettably, but NATO targeted military installations. Therefore any Serbian civillian casualties were accidental and incidental. While there were some accidental killings of Kosovars by NATO aircraft, most of the deaths were among the Serbian military. So again, while there were some civilians deaths that can be attributed to NATO, I am confident that more innocent lives were saved in the long run if NATO had maintained its stance of inaction.

You shouldn't try to lump the serbian military in with the innocents because it makes you appear deceptive, Kurgan http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)



------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

Those aren't the figures I read, so I'll have to do some research and post my findings for you. You are confidant that our peace mission was a success, I am not.

My point was that if evil dictator A kills X people, but we, the good guys, kill 2X people, then are we better or worse than evil dictator A? Obviously with a war like Vietnam behind us, people who are supporting new foreign wars don't want public opinion to turn on the effort. Thus if they compare it to WWII, where it is commmonly held that we were the good guys fighting a just war (and won), then it's good, but if we compare it to Vietnam (where we lost, badly), people won't like it.

They were basically trying to say this guy was Hitler (evil bad guy who killed 12 million people) and that this was a second Holocaust. To avoid all the guilt we went through with WWII, we should bomb them quick, was the idea. However, we hit all kinds of non-military targets.
[CONTINUED...]

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited August 28, 2000).]

Incidental you say? Tell that to the families and loved ones of those killed as they tried to flee the country or tried to get some peace in a hospital. I suppose I could mention that in WWII we bombed civilian populations in Japan. Our aim of course was to end the war to prevent further casaulties. So civilans are acceptable losses I guess. I question the whole "war" mentality. It seems to bring out the worst in human beings.

War is hell, pure and simple. So we do we feel so righteous and think we need to go around starting more of them? If that means being labelled an "isolationist" then so be it. We'll just ensure that more people die, is all we ever do.

Kurgan

In a war, the only people that are supposed to die are those who are fighting against you (the enemy). You aren't supposed to kill people that aren't involved, and you aren't supposed to kill your own people (friendly fire).

Yes, in war, it seems kind of silly to make "rules." But if you're going to be inhumane and fight a war on your own species, it seems that even then to ease our consciences we should try to be as humane about our already inhumane actions as possible. So don't exterminate people in death camps, don't torture civies etc. Recall the Geneva Convention. I'm not just making this stuff up.

You say you are "confident" not that you know, so there is some doubt, is there not?
[CONTINUED...]

When I say "innocents" I mean non-combatants. I don't care if they are serbians, kosovars, russians, etc. They are human beings, and they aren't the enemey (they aren't fighting) so they shouldn't be attacked. If we are so bungling that we can only hit the enemy half the time and the other half hit people in hospitals and poor refugees fleeing the country, then I guess we shouldn't be fighting. Leave it to somebody who knows what they are doing.

It is difficult for me to answer all of your objections, because they require more than a paragraph of text in most cases, and I keep getting "server hangups," hence why I break up these posts, I apologize.

Kurgan

One last note before I head off to class again.

I do believe in the concept of a "just war." I do not believe that we need always submit to what we feel is wrong, and we have a right to defend ourselves. Of course there are martyrs, but if the person wants to survive, they sometimes must fight back.

However, I have not yet seen evidence to convince me that the US has ever fought a "just war." I should dig up the source where the principles of a Just War were laid out (they were pretty good I thought).

Media propaganda would have you believe that just about every war we have won was a just war. I disagree.

Kurgan

Yes, incidental. People die in wars. These are the same soldiers who lined up all the males from a village and then proceeded to pop a bullet in their brains. You want to console them and their families, you go right ahead. You're free to form your own opinions. I, however, do not have any sympathy for the death of any Serbian military soldiers. Is it regretable? Yes, but they deserve it.

I do have sympathy for the civilians who died during the NATO raids. Many of them very likely do not support their current leader and were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. They didn't deserve to die. However, the blame rests is the Serbian leader for instructing and allowing his military to conduct ethnic cleansing. If you want someone to blame, Kurgan, blame him.

And, Kurgan, did you get those pics I sent you this weekend?


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

Yes, thanks. Well by the same logic then I could say that the thousands that we burned up with fire and condemned to death from radiation exposure and cancer with the Atomic Bombs were "incidental."

I would then say, no, they were intentional. Intentional because we wanted to hurt Japan so badly they would surrender. So we bombed civilians.

Now I don't care if a group of unarmed people gives their mental agreement to your enemy or not. We have no right to kill them just because they disagree with us. If somebody has no weapons and they aren't attacking, then they aren't your enemy.
[contd]

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited August 31, 2000).]

[contd]
That is my objection, not anything about what somebody else did.

We are responsible for the people we kill, and they are responsible for the people THEY kill, not the other way around. When we bombed civilians, it wasn't because we were forced to by somebody else. That doesn't make any sense. We didn't have to get involved, and most likely fewer people would have died had we (NATO) not gotten involved militarily. But, I speculate. I just know that we did alot of unnecessary damage.
[contd]

That's why war is hell. People get hurt who shouldn't. Still, even admitting that does not excuse the wrongness of these kinds of wars.

The bottom line is that it's this notion that the US of A is the world's policeman (or the attack dog of the UN, whatever you want to call our military role), wielding the big stick, striking fear into the hearts of everyone who dare disagree with our culture or our methods, and bombing the hell out of everyone and marching troops through their cities, is ridiculous.
[contd]

Are we supposed to be the Roman Empire reborn? How are we supposed to condemn people like Adolf Hitler and Mussolini and Castro when we do stuff that is just as bad, if not worse, in some cases, as the stuff they have done?

Why is it always patriotic to stomp on other people's rights while we defend our own? I don't understand it. Isn't this taking patriotism too far? Sure we have a world stage to be involved in. Sure we have a right to defend ourselves and petition for our interests. However that doesn't mean we have to be an Imperial bully-nation, beating up on everybody until they hate us.
[contd]

The same (or a very similar) angle was being argued in the whole Elian Gonzales case (and no, I do not wish to re-argue that whole debate). The point, Vagabond, you made was that since we're the USA and we need to keep up our rep, we can't take crap from anybody or show any sign of weakness. We have to be swift and brutal and if people don't like it, too bad for them. Somebody takes a piss on us, we have to take a bigger piss on them, or something like that.

That's the whole philosophy I disagree with. I didn't use to feel that way, but I've come to see that this old way of thinking only leads to trouble. All of the great empires of the world eventually met with disaster and decadence. That shouldn't be our fate as well. Let's put an end to this "Manifest Destiny" fixation. It's gone too far already.

Kurgan

It's nice and noble that we want to protect people that we feel are being wronged. But falsifying information to gain sympathy (the exaggerated figures presented by the newsmedia of mass graves with at least 100,000 civilian dead) is not acceptable to condone a bombing campaign. Nor is it excusable to be so clumsy (if not outright incompetant) as to kill the very people we are trying to protect.

The families of the civilians we killed are the ones we owe our apologies. "Hi, we were trying to protect you, but we're too stupid to do anything right, so we killed your families and friends instead, our bad."

This is a friendly debate/discussion, but I feel the subject is a very serious one, and I feel strongly about it. Human lives vs. ideas.

Kurgan

Kurgan, you seem to be defending the right of Milsovic (sp) to conduct ethnic cleansing. He commited atrocities of the foulest kind in Kosovo, and you seem to be saying, "Well, that's okay because if we intervene, there might be some innocent people that we kill". While I concede that some innocent lives were lost, I firmly believe that more innocent lives were saved because of our intervention.

At the very least, can you agree that ethnic cleansing is wrong, Kurgan?

And again, I'm not saying that the US should strike fear into people who disagree with us. I'm saying that the US should use military force when clear, obvious, and massive Human rights violations are occuring. Again, why? Because we can, and because we should.

Tell you what, Kurgan, if it were possible to turn back time, and make you an ethnic Kosovar, I'd like to see you live in Kosovo when the ethnic cleansing was taking place. And then I'd like to hear you say that you wouldn't like NATO to intervene to stop the attrocities. If you could say that, under those circumstances with your own life in peril, then I'll be impressed.

In my opinion, to do nothing to prevent such an attrocity, when one has the means to do so, is just as bad as commiting the attrocity oneself.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...



[This message has been edited by Vagabond (edited August 31, 2000).]

Of course I think it's wrong. However, we basically did his work for him.

Let's use an analogy.

Let's say we knew about the Holocaust ahead of time (not just rumors, we knew about the final solution before the end of WWII). So this is what we do, we send a nuke over to take out Hitler. But let's say we miss it by a country mile and instead hit a few prison camps full of Jews.

Let's say we wipe out about 12 million people with that. Now, hypothetically, are we better, or worse than Hitler?

The people are still dead, whether it was intentional or not.

Or, maybe this will make sense: I see a robber running around with a gun. He could kill somebody, so I start shooting at him, and hit ten innocent bystanders, killing them. Now am I better or worse than the robber?
[contd]

Obviously the war in Kosovo was not an easy decision to make, and I'm not saying I would be happy to have made it either. The thing is, this big stink was made about WE HAVE TO INTERVENE, etc. etc, then we do and we kill a bunch of innocents as well as the "bad guys." So we do a crappy job of whatever it was we were trying to do.

Actions speak louder than words (be they speeches, press releases, etc).
[contd]

Now, why Kosovo? Aren't there dozens if not hundreds of other trouble-spots in the world that have been going on for years? What about the ethnic cleansing going on in other countries? Kosovo wasn't even the worst spot.

So, I don't think we're these big heroes when we go over there and bomb them, but miss and hit hospitals and fleeing refugees, then call them acceptable losses.

Can you say propaganda? It reminds me of the wars we've had with Iraq. Yeah, this big bad boogeyman, Sadaam Hussein (who is a dictator who has killed some people) is our enemy, so we bomb the hell out of his country a bunch of times. But guess what happens? His people die, but he stays in power, he kills more people, BECAUSE of our involvement (the Kurds for example) than without.
[contd]

Alot of the conflicts we make seem to tie into either alliances (like NATO or the UN) where we are pressured into a fight because of some piece of paper that's a few decades old; or for political reasons. Example: some country bad mouths us and parades their armies around the border of some country. We get pissed because we're this big tough empire and they don't dare mess with us, so we attack them.

When folks talk about foreign policy anymore, I just get sick. What is this crap we all keep doing?

Kurgan

<TR><td bgcolor=#00000 valign=top><font color="000000">.</font color><td bgcolor=#00000><font face="BernardMod BT"><font color="red" size="2"> Jedi Calypso, where are you and your views on this topic you said you would post?



------------------
Micro**** mind tricks don't work on me....

http://fan.starwars.com/Fishsticks/files/MadeWindu/Mace.gif)
Jedi Microsith Warrior

Go To The Rogue Federation Board @ http://pub22.ezboard.com/broguefederation)

Kurgan,

Are we living in the same timeline? Sometime I wonder, because in the universe that I inhabit, NATO didn't kill a fraction of the number of people that Serbia ethnically cleansed.

See, Kurgan, you seem to represent the extreme faction of people to whom one single innocent death is unacceptable, even if it saves 1000 other innocent people - that the needs of the minority outweigh the needs of the majority.

Sorry man, but I disagree. Those who don't stand up against agression, stand with the agressors. Pick a side.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

The only way I can continue this is if I get the evidence. I understand the burden of proof is on me to convince you. So I'm off to find it. Take care until then!

And no, I'm not saying the needs of the minority always outweigh the needs of the many. But, by the way, isn't that the socially liberal position (that you seem to champion)? That the minority right must be upheld at the expense of the many?

My position is our involvement in the Kosovo war (NATO's involvement) actually caused more human suffering. I understand you feel that Milosovic (sp?) and his soldiers deserve to be killed off in large numbers, and I was never arguing that they were "innocents" it was the people we (NATO) killed that were non-combatants, civilians, refugees, wounded, prisoners, etc.

Kurgan

So, Kurgan, since you feel so strongly that NATO shouldn't have prevented Serbia from ethnically cleansing Kosovo, what would you have done to stop the atrocities? What is your elegant solution to end the wholesale slaughter of innocents? And doing nothing isn't an acceptable answer. I'm listening. Oh! What's that?!

*crickets* *crickets* *crickets*

You see, there aren't any good options, any easy answers when faced with a situation like this. In this the possibilities were (1) Do Nothing, or (2) Do Something.

Time was a critical factor because every day more and more Kosovars were either being killed or expelled from their country. So, doing nothing wasn't acceptable because that's what was currently happening Kosovo, and what was currently happening in Kosovo wasn't acceptable. Since doing nothing wasn't acceptable, that meant something had to be done.

So, what could be done in a hurry to convince Serbia to end its campaign of ethnic cleansing? NATO's answer was several weeks of warnings, followed by sustained air strikes, which eventually ended with Serbia agreeing to end its campaign. Was that the perfect solution? No. Was it the only feasible solution to save lives and stop the exodus from Kosovo? Probably (unless you have managed to think of something that all the other world's top diplomats had overlooked).

Kurgan, you have to read your history books, especially on Europe. And recall the phrase:


"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

- George Santayana


Both world wars began the way the war in Kosovo began. Fortunately our world's current leaders remember the past and they chose to nip this one in the bud.

http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

Our noble purpose was thwarted by our contribution which made the situation worse.

My point is that just because we want to stop evil doesn't justify us doing more evil, and in the process, doing more evil than the people we set out to stop in the first place.

It would be wrong to try to insist that I am condoning "ethnic cleansing" (genocide), or that I somehow am sympathetic to ethnic cleansing. I am mearly criticizing our response to a percieved problem. I have a few links I am going to post hopefully later tonight that support what I'm talking about.

I am also condeming the attitude that we must bomb people to make peace (what kind of sense does that make?).

Kurgan

Oh, and in answer to my thinking of something new, no, I had not.

Several folks had suggested other solutions, however, they were not listened to.

I am not in command of the armed forces of NATO, nor do I have control over what they decide to do with their weapons or diplomats. If I was, I would not have done what they eventually did. That is my whole point. I had no choice in the matter. And neither did you.

Kurgan

Yes, but if you were in command of NATO, it sounds like you'd have just sat there while innocent people were slaughtered, forced from their homes, and their villages burned.

Damn it, sometimes you just have to kick someone in the ass to knock some sense into them. This tends to be the case with the world's warmongers since they're not exactly the most rational bunch. That's the sad truth, whether you like it or not.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

Originally posted by Vagabond:
Jedi Master Mace,

What does Clinton's actions have to do with this discussion? He's not the one running for President. Otherwise, let's talk about Nixon's actions. Or how about how both Reagan and Bush lied about Iran/Contra.

<TR><td bgcolor=#00000 valign=top><font color="000000">.</font color><td bgcolor=#00000><font face="BernardMod BT"><font color="red" size="2"> OK, let's talk about Gore's raising campaign funds in a Buddist temple. Or his ridiculous statement,“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” (Al Gore, CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,” March 9, 1999) But, he says, "“I’m not an expert on computers.” (Al Gore, Fox’s “Special Report With Brit Hume,” June 14, 2000)
















------------------
Micro**** mind tricks don't work on me....

http://fan.starwars.com/Fishsticks/files/MadeWindu/Mace.gif)
Jedi Microsith Warrior

Go To The Rogue Federation Board @ http://pub22.ezboard.com/broguefederation)

[This message has been edited by Jedi Master Mace Windu (edited September 01, 2000).]

Dude, Kurgan and I's discussion disgressed, as it usually does, meandering wherever the debate happens to lie http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

BACK ON THE SUBJECT...

I'm a Republican.

All I can say about Bush's campaign is:
He'd better start really going negative on Gore hard, fast, and soon.
There's only been one time in U.S. history that the candidate who was behind on Labor Day won.
Guess who's behind now?
BTW, last night, I saw Bush's commercial about the Buddhist temple thing and the Internet thing. It's a start, but it's not enough.
I'd like to see Bush knock Gore clean outta the galaxy! (Not literally, of course.)

------------------
"Bring 'em on! I prefer a straight fight to all this jumpin' around."
Feel free to visit my Fan Site:
Mark-enobi's Site (http://fan.starwars.com/MarkenobisSite/HomeScreen.html)

<TR><td bgcolor=#00000 valign=top><font color="000000">.</font color><td bgcolor=#00000><font face="BernardMod BT"><font color="red" size="2"> I am on the subject. Are we talking about NATO strategies or Politics?



------------------
Micro**** mind tricks don't work on me....

http://fan.starwars.com/Fishsticks/files/MadeWindu/Mace.gif)
Jedi Microsith Warrior

Go To The Rogue Federation Board @ http://pub22.ezboard.com/broguefederation)

<TR><td bgcolor=#00000 valign=top><font color="000000">.</font color><td bgcolor=#00000><font face="BernardMod BT"><font color="red" size="2"> Let's also talk about his so called supporting the death penalty.

He said: "I’ve always supported it because I think society has a right to make careful judgments about when that ultimate penalty ought to be applied." (The Associated Press, 11/19/99)



The Truth
Gore Voted Against the Death Penalty. Gore voted against the death penalty for drug kingpins. (CQ Vote #140: Adopted 66-32: R 38-6; D 28-26, 6/28/90)


Gore voted against the death penalty for terrorists. (CQ Vote #12: Rejected 25-72: R 5-38; D 20-34, 2/20/91)

There, another lie.


How do you respond to my latest two comments concerning Gore's lies Vagabond?





------------------
Micro**** mind tricks don't work on me....

http://fan.starwars.com/Fishsticks/files/MadeWindu/Mace.gif)
Jedi Microsith Warrior

Go To The Rogue Federation Board @ http://pub22.ezboard.com/broguefederation)

[This message has been edited by Jedi Master Mace Windu (edited September 02, 2000).]

I respond by saying that you have to look at the messenger. Where did you get your information? From Bush's campaign or the RNC?

So, he may have rejected those bills. Do you know his reasons? Was it, perhaps, that the Republicans attached unacceptable ammendments to the bills? Things such as fiscally irrespnsible tax cuts? Bans on a woman's right to choose abortion? Unless you can see the big picture, these individual votes are taken completely out of context.

Members of Congress and Presidents vote against bills that support things that they are in favor of all the time - quite often these bills are laden with other unacceptable provisions. These types of bills are put together all the time, with the clear knowledge that they'll never pass, and are simply orchestrated to be used as political ammunition, as you are doing right now.

I pray that Gore does get elected, for our nation can not afford to have another numbskull republican president.

Fiscal responsibility, social liberalism, and freedom - that's what I believe in.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...