Stuart Moore's A THOUSAND FLOWERS, part 11 - My City in Ruins

[MattBrady]

<center><a href="http://www.newsarama.com/Thousand_Flowers_index.htm"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/flowers_banner.jpg" width="475" height="75" border="0"></a></center>

<center>A THOUSAND FLOWERS</center><center>Comics, Pop Culture, and the World Outside</center><center>Installment 11</center><center>by Stuart Moore</center>

My City in Ruins

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/25thhour.jpg" width="300" height="206" align="right" alt="Edward Norton in 25th Hour">Last week I saw the movie 25th Hour, which left me shaken to the core. I’m not sure it can really be appreciated by non-New Yorkers; the reviews were strangely split between East Coasters, most of whom got it, and West Coasters, who thought the 9/11 subtext seemed grafted on. Being naturally biased against Californians, it seemed to me their criticisms hinged on two points: (a) New Yorkers think they’re too damned important and (b) the film doesn’t follow the rules of the ridiculous Robert McKee Story Structure seminars (which will get a whole column soon, believe me), therefore it’s bad.

But the people who lived here in the months after 9/11 understood: 25th Hour uses its main plot to recreate the mood of those months -- a deep, slow, heavy sense of despair, a sense of slogging one’s life through quicksand. Of feeling bad all the time, and not really understanding why; after all, not many people I knew were friends with stockbrokers or even firemen. Of everything just getting so difficult, all of a sudden: trains taken out of service on the slightest security alert, mounted policemen with rifles patrolling Bryant Park, 42nd Street being closed for an entire morning because a homeless man dropped a suitcase in the middle of the road. We all went out a lot, shared a lot of drinks and made jokes and just kept moving, one stroke at a time through the quicksand. Joe Quesada said recently that the Heroes book was the proudest thing he’d done at Marvel. I’m glad I was there for that -- it really helped keep me going when, y’know, the next issue of The Punisher or Zendra seemed a little trivial all of a sudden.

I’m worried for New York now -- worried about the possibility of another attack as the Bush administration moves inexorably toward war. And I’m angry that our cynical, manipulative President has, by turns, opened my city up to attack; lied outright about providing it with aid to recover from that attack; used the attack as justification for an unjust war in a blatant, emotional appeal to the American people; and, through that very war, greatly increased the possibility of further terrorism in the city.

In times of war, people rally behind the President. Bush knows that, and exploits it to the hilt. But you know -- with his track record, it’s hard to think of a greater threat to my life, my security, my city, than George W. Bush.

Let’s see if I can justify that.

**

1. Opened my city up to attack

From the beginning, the Bush administration has dealt with most foreign powers, by turns, neglectfully and rudely. The administration’s refusal to abide by terms agreed to by their predecessors led directly to the current North Korea crisis. And a thousand similar moves have led to an increased hatred of America in the Islamic world.

<a href="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/howardduck.jpg"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/howardduck_t.jpg" width="250" height="121" align="left" border="0"></a>It’s probably too harsh to say that the Bush policies directly led to the 9/11 tragedies. But my gut tells me the Clinton administration would have been working a little harder, a little later at night, and would have paid a little more respect to the people they were negotiating with in the Arab world. So, on that basis, I’ll assign the Bush administration some measure of blame for 9/11.

No, it’s not provable. But neither is Saddam Hussein’s weapons capability. You might not be able to justify killing a guy for it, but you know it’s there.

2. Difficult closeness

I never thought I’d call New York my home. I grew up mostly in central New Jersey, and my father had an aversion to the city. His family had lived in Brooklyn till he was five, when his father died and the family moved to the Boston area. Dad found it oddly difficult to visit New York, in a way he could never really explain.

A friend and I started taking day trips to New York while we were in college -- partly because we’d read about this amazing store called Forbidden Planet. I’d been to comics/sf specialty stores before, but nothing this big: two full floors, racks and racks of books and comics, back issues lined up in the basement. It was unairconditioned, hot and sweaty in the summer, with giant floor fans that whipped your hair around while you peered curiously at Captain Victory. It seemed like the kind of place that could only exist in a real city.

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/detecinc.jpg" width="195" height="451" align="right" border="0">At the time, the direct market was just opening up, and in addition to weird British science-fiction books, there were comics here you couldn’t find anywhere else. On one trip, I picked up Cerebus #17; a great giveaway magazine called Stop! that featured early Peter Bagge work and an interview with Bill Scott, the voice of Bullwinkle; and the Detectives, Inc. graphic novel. I remember that one in particular -- it was weird and thrilling to look through Marshall Rogers’s meticulous renderings of Central Park while actually walking through the place.

After I graduated from college, I spent several months in California -- but then I started looking at jobs in book publishing. You want to be in publishing, you live in New York. Case closed.

The first ten years, I always assumed I’d move somewhere else -- to the Pacific Northwest, maybe. But somewhere along the line, I started to love the lifestyle. No car -- subways that take you everywhere. Neighborhoods like small towns, within the biggest city in the country. Incredible bookstores and libraries. Bars and convenience stores open late, later than I usually stay up, anyway. People who’re always a little hungry, a little dissatisfied; and who care, passionately, about their work and their art.

And more: the difficult closeness, the constant contact with people of all classes and races. The people I’ve known in Hollywood are terrified of Los Angeles proper -- they’re sure that if they set foot in the city, the poor people will kill them without a thought. Here, we rub shoulders with those people all the time. You might not especially like them, and they might not like you at all. But you’re both constantly reminded that we’re all the same species.

3. Lied outright about aid

Immediately after 9/11, President Bush visited Ground Zero in Manhattan and promised $21 billion in aid to rebuild the city. A few days later, Congress unanimously approved a $40 billion package to clean up the wreckage and wage war against Afghanistan. In the months since, the Bush administration has deliberately diverted vast amounts of that money away from New York -- usually to Florida, where the President’s brother Jeb sits as governor, bragging about the influence his connections give him with the federal government.

For example: The Small Business Administration made low-interest loans available to any U.S. company hurt as a direct result of 9/11. In the following nine months, more of this money went to Florida than to California, Texas, and New York combined. In June 2002, the transportation department allotted $92.3 million to increase waterway safety. Twenty-one percent of this money also went to Florida -- more than twice as much as to the New York/New Jersey port, which sees more freight trafficked than all the ports in Florida combined. And so on.

The bottom line is that New York City is a Democratic city, which did not support Bush in the 2000 election. You’d hope that a disaster of this magnitude would override such partisan considerations, as it did in Congress when the aid package was approved. You’d also think that the historic and economic importance of the city would be a factor in providing it with aid. You’d be dead, dead wrong.

This wasn’t just two buildings knocked down; it was a major component of the region’s economic life. Now the city faces a major fiscal crisis. Mayor Bloomberg has raised property taxes significantly, and has gone hat in hand to the (Republican) governor for assistance. This uneasy alliance is currently wrangling with the federal government to get a fraction of the originally promised $21 billion. Bloomberg’s no saint, but I wouldn’t want his job for anything right now.

4. Jane and me

As a book editor, I once met with Jane Pratt, then editor of Sassy magazine and now founder/publisher of Jane. Pratt’s an easy target for satire; she chatters a lot and dresses embarrassingly like a teenager. (The cartoon show Daria did a dead-on parody a few years ago.) But she’s also pretty damn smart.

A few years ago, for an anniversary issue, New York magazine asked several hundred prominent New Yorkers to share their thoughts about the city. Most of the replies ranged from embarrassing poesy to cute celebrity anecdotes. But Jane Pratt’s answer stayed with me. She described being young in New York, working a low-paying publishing job and sharing a crowded, overpriced apartment with three or four roommates. They’d hang out together all the time, get in each other’s way, drive each other crazy, and talk about what they’d do when they became successful.

Years later, Pratt continued, the roommates all had prestigious jobs and nice apartments. But they kept in touch, and whenever they got together, the conversation would inevitably turn to their days as roommates -- a time that held a very special place in their hearts. Pratt thought about that, she said, whenever she heard someone say that New York was only a good place to live if you had money.

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/ddevil.jpg" width="200" height="307" align="left" border="0">I had an apartment like that in Brooklyn, just a few blocks from where I live now. One summer, both of my roommates moved out within two months. I didn’t take it personally, but I had to replace them quickly to afford the rent. One of the new housemates moved in with her boyfriend, who was about to go overseas for the year on a Fulbright scholarship. I’d say it was a bad move on his part, but the relationship was bound to fall apart sooner or later. The new roommate and I got pretty close. Upshot: We’ve been married for years.

There were some awkward periods in that apartment, as you might guess. Some serious mixed emotions; some real hurt; some sneaking-around-deluding-yourself-that-you’re-fooling-people-in-a-living-space-the-size-of-a-shoebox. But I wouldn’t have traded it for anything.

5. Used the attack as justification for an unjust war/increased the possibility of further terrorism

I was in the air, flying back from a mini-vacation in New Orleans, during the State of the Union address. I’m just as glad. I knew it’d be a horror show, but I didn’t expect this.

Never mind the cynical interjection of humanitarian causes into a speech designed to distract from an economic policy that benefits only the rich. Never mind the ludicrous math of the speech -- if you read it in text form, you can keep a running tally of the money Bush is proposing for one initiative after another, all while pushing tax cuts and an expensive war. Never mind the blindness that would lead a phony man-of-the-people like Bush to think the average American would welcome abolishing taxes on dividends. Dividends? Who gets those? (Hint: It rhymes with “bitch people.”)

No, this was the passage that got to me:

“Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.”

Let’s see what Bush accomplishes in those four sentences. First, he’s implying a link between Hussein and al-Qaeda, although there’s no sign that they even like each other. Second, he’s using classic scare tactics on the public in order to whip them into a war frenzy, or at least make them think he’s their only hope in a doomed world. Third, he’s giving terrorists ideas.

And fourth…

He’s using the tragedy in New York -- the disaster in my city -- as justification for a war that will greatly increase the likelihood that it’ll happen again.

While hanging us out to dry economically. And lying about it.

6. Riots

Remember the Los Angeles riots of ’92? After the Rodney King verdict? I was on staff at DC Comics -- we were just starting to prep for the launch of the Vertigo imprint. Like a lot of big companies, DC closed the office early, fearful of violence. I sat around in Tom Peyer’s office with him and a handful of other people, drinking whiskey from paper cups, while we listened to a staticky all-news station. Tom commented later that it looked exactly like a scene from a George Romero zombie movie: three or four white guys, one woman, and a black guy trying to tune in the radio.

By mid-afternoon, we gave up and went out for drinks. Absolutely nothing bad was happening; the city was totally peaceful. On the way home, a black guy asked me where to find a pharmacy. I told him and he thanked me. I was a little drunk, but I had the feeling we were both being exaggeratedly polite with each other to make a point.

The moral: This is New York. We don’t riot just because they’re doing it in L.A.

7. Colin Powell and the American dream

All the danger wouldn’t matter if war were the right thing to do. If the invasion of Iraq were our solemn duty, with a strategy to avoid undue bloodshed and a solid principle of international relations underlying it. But it’s not.

As I write this, I’ve got Colin Powell speaking to the United Nations on the black-and-white TV above my desk. I haven’t figured out how to get the speech streamed over the cable-modem onto my computer, so I’ve resorted to this 1984 antique. It‘s not hooked up to cable; it doesn’t track a station very well anymore; and since the broadcast antennas on the Trade Towers were destroyed, it can really only get Channel 2. But it still does its job when it has to.

I feel for Powell, the way I do for Mayor Bloomberg. He’s a political creature, with a strong tendency to duck and cover in the face of criticism. But by all accounts, he’s also been a safety valve on Bush, convincing him at several stages to slow down, let diplomacy take its course. Now Powell’s been assigned to talk the entire U.N. into participating in the first-strike invasion of a sovereign nation, based solely on that nation’s unproven (though hard to deny) noncompliance with disarmament agreements. Good luck, buddy.

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/docfate.jpg" width="300" height="157" border="0" align="right">In a conversation we had about some of the topics in this column, Matt Brady compared Powell to Captain America, in the sense that, if Cap really existed, he’s the one Bush would send to the U.N. The calm, trustworthy one. The war hero and veteran who’s worked for peace. The man who’d gently bring the nations of the world around to America’s way of thinking -- then slam them up against the wall to get the final agreement, if he had to.

It’s not necessarily a view I agree with. I’d like to think Cap -- the Cap I grew up with, the Steve Englehart Watergate-era Cap who questioned the actions of his government while remaining true to the nation’s principles -- would see through this sham and politely decline, choosing instead to work in a food bank for the day or something. But you never know.

No sane Westerner wants to see Saddam Hussein continue in power. I have no doubt that he’s deceived the U.N. inspectors time and again. But this is the point Bush would like you not to consider: It’s a big step from that to a direct invasion of Iraq. An invasion introduces a dangerous new international doctrine: If we think you’re potentially dangerous, we’ll invade you and take you out.

Or, to use an analogy: Suppose you know I’ve killed people in the past, and you suspect I’m hiding a gun in my house. Are you justified in assaulting my home with a SWAT team and killing my entire family?

Let’s ratchet that up a notch to take into account the volatile nature of the Arab world -- which is always looking for reasons to hate the more heavily industrialized Western world. Suppose I’m a mafia chief who’s killed people in the past, but by his very presence has kept the New Jersey families from outright war. Now you suspect I’m hiding a gun in my house. Do you assault my home with that SWAT team, kill my entire family, and start a mafia war that will cause countless deaths throughout New Jersey?

Yes, Saddam is a mass murderer who’s used deadly chemical weapons on his own people. Yes, he’s documented practitioner of torture. But sadly, he’s far from the only world leader that’s true of. We Americans don’t like to think about that; we don’t like to consider that, while we live our prosperous lives, horrific abuses are perpetrated regularly, knowingly, deliberately, on the people who knit our sweaters and screw the lids on our baby food jars. It’s an enormity that’s difficult to live with.

We can’t invade them all, and we couldn’t expect their people to be grateful if we did. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to improve things around the globe. It certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to force Saddam Hussein from power. But we should be mindful of the enormous cost of such an effort -- both to our shaky economy and to the country we are supposedly trying to liberate. And we should think about what our actions say to the rest of the world.

I think Bush believes in this war. I think he’s managed to convince himself that it’s a happy coincidence that it’s in the interests of big oil companies to invade Iraq. He may even believe, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that he can win the war quickly and to the benefit of the Iraqi people.

But this doesn’t look to me like a clean war. And by Bush’s own admission, he’s not a big believer in nuance. That’s a problem. As the sole superpower in the world, the U.S. must be mindful of the nuances of its actions. Because the rest of the world will be. Why do you think North Korea panicked the way they did?

8. Cold shrimp

One of the strangest events I’ve ever attended was “9-11: Super-Heroes for Real Heroes,” a benefit Marvel co-sponsored in January 2002. A local promoter had invited a selection of firemen and policemen to this appreciation dinner and sold plates for something like $250 each to the local riche. A selection of Marvel Comics employees, freelancers, and hangers-on were there to fill out the audience, while Kevin Smith auctioned off art from the Heroes book. Somebody bought Sam Kieth’s Hulk piece for $6,000, and I’ve never seen a guy so happy to part with his money. The seafood buffet was excellent -- I remember chowing down on shrimp, looking out of the nicely-appointed private club onto the cold rush hour streets of midtown.

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/heroesshirt.jpg" width="300" height="258" align="left" border="0">Various corporations had donated other items to a silent auction, including a motorcycle and an exotic vacation trip. Glamour magazine donated the services of twelve models for the evening. (On hearing this story, an incredulous friend later asked, “There are places you can go to that will donate women?”) I haven’t spent much time around models (I know, I know -- working on it), and they’re pretty strange creatures, up close. Their necks are very long and their heads are very small. They don’t really look human.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say there’ll never be another night like this in the history of mankind. Firemen, cops, comic book people in suits, a few rich people, Glamour magazine models -- and Spider-Man. For what it’s worth, Spidey consistently had more people hanging on him than the models did. It might have been because there were twelve of them and only one of him, or it might have been because his outfit left even less to the imagination. If this guy’s spider-sense was tingling, you’d know it.

9. Let ‘em knock down the one next door

Possibly the most controversial scene in 25TH Hour is where Frank (Barry Pepper) and Jakob (Philip Seymour Hoffman) sit in Frank’s downtown apartment, directly overlooking the Ground Zero pit. Frank tells Jakob he’d never move because he’d never find another apartment for such a great price. Then, angrily, Frank invites bin Laden to knock down another one, next door.

Roger Ebert, who liked the movie, interpreted this as showing that Frank was as trapped by his own desires (his cheap apartment) as Monty (Edward Norton), his friend who’s about to be sent to jail for seven years. I don’t think that’s the right reading. Frank’s crack about his apartment isn’t the reason for his actions; it’s the justification, the display of bravado.

After 9/11, I knew people who moved away from New York. Most of them would have left anyway. It’s that kind of a place -- people come here for a few years when they’re young, or for career reasons, then move on. Nothing wrong with that. But we did sneer at them a little bit. Go on, you rats. Bail out at the first sign of trouble. That wasn’t fair -- it had more to do with our frame of mind than anything to do with them.

But, you know, some of us live here. I never thought I’d be one of them, but I am. There are a hundred reasons, but the bottom line is: I don’t want to leave. I’m not saying I never would, but I don’t want to.

And I don’t want this place to go to Hell because of an immoral war.

You really saw the good side of New York after the tragedy. People weren’t angry so much as sad and helpful. It was tough on everyone, and sometimes people snapped. But more often, they gritted their teeth, heaved themselves upright, and got on with their lives. Drank a little whiskey. Bought a few comic books. Ate some cold shrimp. Hooked up with a roommate.

Be a shame to lose all that, you know?

<center><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/preacher.jpg" width="400" height="119" border="0"></center>

**

This has definitely been an atypical (and long) installment. But the subtitle of the column, after all, is “Comics, Pop Culture, and the World Outside” -- and this week, the World Outside just seemed too important. Back to normal next time…

**
Bibliography

“Congress Approves Use of Force; Military Patrols Cities and Ports; Bush Rallies Nation, Tours Disaster Area,” by David Von Drehle, Washington Post Staff Writer; The Washington Post, September 15, 2001, Page A1

“He Ain't Heavy: How You Help the President Help His Brother,” By Ryan Lizza; The New Republic, 07.29.02

Text of the STATE OF THE UNION address 2003:
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html</a>

Review of 25TH HOUR by Roger Ebert:
<a href="http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-hour10f.html" target="_blank">http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-hour10f.html</a>

Other resources:
The New York Times Online:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/</a>
(free registration required)

The Washington Post Online:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/</a>

Slate Magazine:
<a href="http://slate.msn.com/" target="_blank">http://slate.msn.com/</a>

The New Republic Online:
<a href="http://www.tnr.com/" target="_blank">http://www.tnr.com/</a>
(free registration required)

**

Because things are never too dire to plug your own work: Go to <a href="http://www.rocketcomics.com" target="_blank">http://www.rocketcomics.com</a> and <a href="http://www.newsarama.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000094" target="_blank"> here</a> for a look at LONE, launching in summer 2003, with a special 10-page stand-alone preview story in ROCKET COMICS: IGNITE, Dark Horse’s contribution to Free Comic Book Day in May. Issue #6 of ZENDRA: HEART OF FIRE, the conclusion of my epic science fiction series from Penny-Farthing Press, is out now; more info on the trade paperback of the first ZENDRA series can be found at <a href="http://www.pfpress.com" target="_blank">http://www.pfpress.com</a> . Then visit my message boards at <a href="http://www.joequesada.com" target="_blank">http://www.joequesada.com</a> to tell me to get back to writing about comics, dammit.

See you in 14…hopefully.

[Tank Abbot]

I usually enjoy Stuart's thoughts, but I have zero respect for people who pin recent problems with terror on President Bush. Moore speaks as if it's Bush's fault. Here's a wake up call Mr. Moore, they attacked us first. And these pyscho's aren't gonna stop. This country has an obligation to seek out its enemies. Sometimes, the best defense, is a good offense. And those who say, if and when another attack comes, that it's the President's fault for being proactive against our enemies, is a fool. I'm often baffled by the comic communities gatekeepers: Everything our super heroic comic book icons stand for agrees with what I've just said, yet many in the comics community are liberals, and most liberals have no spines when it comes to international policy. The world is a screwed up place, they hate us for what we have, our freedom, our democracy. Even Ghandi said, and I'm paraphrasing, When given the choice between violence and cowardice, I would highly recommend violence.
I guarantee Captain America wouldn't be a democrat.

[Tank Abbot]

Moore--"But this doesn't look to me like a clean war."

I'm sorry, when is war ever clean, you nitwit? I'm sorry, I just keep going back and reading the rantings of someone who is so detached from reality, that they're statements imply that there could be such thing as a clean war. I'm done, no more posts, I just hope others can see the lack of common sense on display here.

[Nick Adams]

I agree with Tank - I usually enjoy Moore's columns, but this one was hard to take.

The fact that he blames the Bush Administration for the atrocities in NY is unbelievable; if Clinton was a half-decent president he would have prevented this when he was in office. No one seems to remember the attacks on our embassies in in places like Kenya when he was in office, and when he had the chance to stop the AL Queda, he sat on his hands.

Look, in an ideal world we could avoid all kinds of conflict with discussion and meetings and understanding, but this is not an ideal world; there are lunatics out there who are killing their own countrymen as 'experiments' and they just can't be reasoned with, no matter how much leniency you give them.

I live in New York City and lost some friends in that horrible, horrible attack. Thinking that if these men who only wish our demise (and will stop at nothing to do so)are going to stop now is foolish. I think Bush and his men are doing all they can to ensure that an attack like that woun't happen again, doing what needs to be done.

[Holden Caulfield]

Great article! A clean and sharp analysis by one of the two best comic editors (the other is Axel Alonso)nowadays, in my opinon.
But you know, I'm just a young guy from a Third World country, so my opinion is irrelevant...

[can1]

Stuart,

A truly wonderful piece.

Thank you.

[Diamondrock]

Great column.

To "Tank Abbot"

"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."

-Mohandas Gandhi

That's all I'll respond to you. You and others like you aren't worth wasting my time on any further.

[Tank Abbot]

Diamondrock, I guess your friend Ghandi is just full of little surprises. Just because he said what you quoted, doesn't lessen what I quoted. He said it. And thanks for the personal attack, that's in the spirit of America. Way to go there buddy.

[dr.no]

Excellent column. Good to see that not all Americans have red spots in front of their eyes.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Posted by Holden Caufield
But you know, I'm just a young guy from a Third World country, so my opinion is irrelevant... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well you seem to have an internet connection, so you are probably some rich bastard that suppresses a lot of poor Brazilians. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> That makes your opinion valid! :)

[gOgIver]

What a wiener. To his credit, he did manage to get Daredevil shipping on a regular schedule. But it has been a much better comic since he left Marvel Knights. Coincidence?

[rundownthewayup]

To make up for Tank Abbott's comments, "You've hit the pin right on the head, Stuart!" War and violence is never the answer. Neither is vengeance. Has anyone noticed that this "President" has yet to even ponder the idea of a PEACEFUL solution; instead of being so gungho on blowing everyone up; and starting WW3. Two years left. Let's hope we're all still here to see him booted out of the office, and someone sane brought in.
Want some more truth? - <a href="http://www.truthout.org" target="_blank">www.truthout.org</a>

[Burke 0011]

Wow.
Excellent column - that was a great read. And I identify %100 with his take on 25th Hour. I live in Florida but was born and raised in Jersey so I always condier myself a Tri-Stater. There's soemthing that you really GET from that movie when you're from that area.

As for Moore saying Bush CAUSED the 9/11 attacks.... Moore's intimation that some responsibility can be laid at his Bush's door for maybe making it more POSSIBLE to happen is a nebulous thing, that no amount of talk or debate by anyone on here will be able to concretely prove 100% one way or the other.

"They attacked us first." Yep, they sure did. Al-Queda and Bin Ladin attacked us first. What the hell does Hussein have to do with that? I think the evidence could be there to find some serious link between them... but have we destroyed Al-Queda completely yet? Is Bin Ladin dead? To me shifting all the focus to this war on Iraq (which I cannot help but think has at least something to do with a son trying to finish his dad's half completed job) is like the Chewbaca defense in that episode of South Park. Misdirection. People would ask if we'd gotten Bin Ladin yet and out comes the monkey puppet for a distraction - "Lookit the monkey! Lookit the silly monkey!"

The economy in this country is so bad off and the focus just seems to be in the wrong places. Didn't we just pledge something like 20 billion in aid to Africa or something? Hello, I have feelings for people who are in trouble but we can't even afford to put the proper security devices in all our airports for our own country's security.

I for one find it highly disturbing that all the money promised to New York after the disaster has not gotten there - and the amount of money flowing down here to Florida and his brother is disturbing as well.

In the end, I found this a stimulating column to read and enjoyed it.

---> And in closing, I have always HATED, and let me say that again, HATED that J Scott Campbell picture from the HEROES benefit mag. Here we were just a little while after the disaster, and you have artists and writers contributing thought provoking, heartfelt pieces of art and writing.... and sticking out like a sore thumb in the collection, is Campbell's drawing with superheroes and cops and firemen and EMS workers ALL SMILING like they'd just come from a bachelor party. "Hey, look at us we're all HAPPY!!" Umm, why?...... What the hell is everyone smiling about?.....

I'm sorry but in the months after, I didn't see ONE cop or fireman walking around with a smile like that on their face. They were too busy going to funerals. I can understand if he wanted something to try and project some happiness of some kind into the situation but the timing was all friggin' wrong.

[S. Brett Lord]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Tank Abbot:
<strong>I guarantee Captain America wouldn't be a democrat.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You'd be dead wrong. Cap has been characterized as a "Roosevelt Democrat" by many of his past creators, including Mark Waid, whose work on the character is considered by many to be definitive.

Do your homework and open up your mind a little. Right-wing conservatives aren't the only ones known to wrap themselves in the colors of the flag and talk passionately of their country.

S! Brett Lord,
Recovering Comics Retailer

[Nick Adams]

Peaceful solution?

Where is the peaceful solution in bombing embassies and buildings? where is the peaceful solution in gassing your own people and killing them in the streets for having an opinion?

Wake up. or better yet, look to history. Hitler started out in similar fashion...

[Bullwinkle]

Wow! I hate to be the shallow one around here (or perhaps just non-argumentative), but I've just gotta love any column (and columnist) that mentions Bullwinkle and Detectives Inc so close together! If the folks out there haven't read any of MacGregor's Detectives Inc tales then I HIGHLY recommend it!!! :)

- Chris

[Your pal, Jim]

Wow, Stuart -

So those Al Qaeda guys thought we were OK from 1993-2000 (embassy bombings and USS Cole bombings aside), but sometime after Bush was inaugurated in January of 2001, Bush singlehandedly upset them and changed their opinion of the US, and they quick got sleeper agents into the country and trained, and planned and carried out the attacks all within 8 months? Wow, you are truly informed and not ignorant at all! What else does your alternative weekly paper tell you?

[Rand]

Huh. I always thought Stuart Moore was a writer, not an editor. I admit it... I'm not big at keeping track of the names on my comics.

Having said that...

Don't know why this article had so many nay-sayers. I thought it was a very nice piece. A lot of the stuff in previous columns have been a little overwhelming for me... went into too 'technical' stuff that was beyond me... but this one really hit it home for me.

I'm looking to move into New York. Because I want to get into (comic, or simple) book publishing. My parents think I'm out of my mind, leaving a 'safe' country (over here in Asia) to go to a racist (their words) country with a glass ceiling, and worst yet, seems hellbent on war.

I kind of feel ashamed that one of the thoughts that -did- occur to me during the whole digesting the mind-boggling act that 9-11 was... was that "I'm glad I'm not in the U.S. right now"

Anyways. Back on topic.

I know people in New York, and they've never been able to articulate their 'feel' for the city. How they felt about it. Most of them went into a rage... or a sort of stunned silence. A year or so after the event, it's -still- not the sort of topic you bring up in casual conversation.

But hey, it was done so here. In a slow sort of way, with a background on the history, personal life, those little touches that make it much more palatable than a speech jammed down your gut.

I guess what I'm trying to say is... cool article. Hope to see more on a similar vein next time.

[Tank Abbot]

Burke 0011, you've got a good argument about Iraq. I'm willing to admit it's not a black and white situation. However, I Trust our president. You may not, that's your right.

[Jonathan]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Tank Abbot:
<strong>Diamondrock, I guess your friend Ghandi is just full of little surprises. Just because he said what you quoted, doesn't lessen what I quoted. He said it. And thanks for the personal attack, that's in the spirit of America. Way to go there buddy.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How about this quote then "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Also Ghandi.

Violence should always be the very last option. I don't think the Bush Government has really even given much thought to trying to be rational and finding a peaceful solution. They just want a war to divert from the problems America is having right now financially.

[can1]

Tank

I am not a liberal. I am a NYer that lived through that day on the streets of Manhattan. Like so many NYer I felt the loss around me. I passed by ground zero just days after 9/11. I saw the destruction and knew the healing would not come quickly. I witnessed the aftermath for months afterward as that impossible 'pile' began to shrink. Like all NYers (and Americans) I swallowed hard on my new reality. I felt angry and righteous. I felt the need to be strong and to demonstrate that strength to the world.

Still the question is asked. Is there in fact American culpability? I guess thats up to each individual to decide. I myself find it hard not to accept that there ARE ALWAYS consequences for decades of foreign policy. Right or wrong. Is this country solely to blame? Hardly. I just find it impossible not to understand that its about actiona and reaction. I find it impossible to see this in black and white. Maybe in some way I feel NYers should have that privelage to see this in black and white, in terms of good and evil. The fact is I just can't. I know there is more to it and knowledge acn not be denied.

[Your pal, Jim]

Maybe if Gandhi had protected himself, we could have some additional insightful quotes from him.

[Nick Adams]

First of all, I am not looking to attack anybody personally - not my intent. )I just get heated about this)

But, to those who don't know, there is documented proof of Al Queda ties to Saddam Hussein (Colin Powell has shown the proof, documentation that links them by Hussein providing financial backing to the group)

And I would also want a solution where no one dies, no one gets hurt, and we all live happily ever after. Unfortunately, that just doesn't look like it will happen.
Also, the fact that people think Bush is being all 'gung-ho' about this is rediculous, he has been giving Iraq EVERY possible chance to show that they do not have WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that is in violation of a treaty they signed years back (They are breaking that treaty - officially sanctioned by the UN)

[Jdogg]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Tank Abbot:
<strong>I usually enjoy Stuart's thoughts, but I have zero respect for people who pin recent problems with terror on President Bush. Moore speaks as if it's Bush's fault. Here's a wake up call Mr. Moore, they attacked us first .</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, "They" attacked us first. So, how come we aren't invading Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebonon, Syria, Libya, Iran, Jordan, Yemen, the Palestinian areas, etc. Are they not considered part of "they"? While I agree that it is unfair to say 9/11 was Bush's fault, we should hold him accountable for his recent actions: Alienating far too many arab and non-arab countries, pushing for an unprecedented policy of pre-emptive war, and going after the second largest oil reserve in the world.

[Hebime]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Diamondrock:
<strong>That's all I'll respond to you. You and others like you aren't worth wasting my time on any further.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, the standard response of the intellectual bigot who doesn't understand that his opinion was not handed down by god...

Mr. Moore has done little more than shill for the far left in the same fashion that he accuses Bush. Lots of little convenient ommisions to paint a vibrant picture why he is right and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.

Anyone with a brain(of which I see little to no evidence on this board, between the back slappers and the ham fisted) will realize that the truth lies somewhere between the poles. Simplisitic arguements and a bajillion yesman replies do not change this fact.

While we are quoting Ghandi, hey here are few for you-
Do you know that Ghandi suggested that all of the Jews in Nazi concentration camps commit suicide?

Or that during the Muslim/Hindu rioting after independance, Ghandi was present when Jawarhoral(sp?) ordered 2 Muslims be rounded up and shot(murdered) for every Hindu killed in the rioting, and he said NOTHING to prevent it?

Ghandi was the same sort of politician the far left has blasted-using whatever means he has at his disposal to get what he wants. People seem to think his practice on passive resistance is some sort of universal panacea. It is not. It is a specific tactic that can only be applied in specific situations. Do you honestly believe Hitler, or saddam Hussein would think even ONCE about massacreing hundreds or thousand, or millions of people who defied him? Oh, wait, they both did....

As to you Mr. Moore, this was your mulligan.

I have already broken my personal rule to never join the bleating masses of the newsgroup, but it actualy takes something this far off base to get a response out of me. Enjoy your flame war and the warm self righteous feeling each of you is bound to get from posting here.....

[Nick Borelli]

My question is why did Magneto seem to care about the fall of the towers in Spiderman #36?
Doesn't he want to kill all the humans?

[Grendel Prime]

It would be cool if Mr. Moore would include a list of comic books that provide a nice tribute (or snapshot) of New York City, its personality and its people. Obviously Preacher #26 would be on that list (Moore uses a panel from that issue in his column), along with Amazing Spider-Man #36 and no doubt at least one issue of FF. But I'd like to see what else Moore would consider to be fitting tribute to NYC, and I think it would be nice to try to tie this editorial back to our common love of comic books if possible.

[IanZL]

I really liked the column stuart. Political commentary, social commentary, movie annalysis and comics all thrown in together. How can you not love it?

Well unless you're a republican, but really since when do they count as people?

[Nick Borelli]

Why aren't you saying anything about the millions that died in Genosha?
It seems you people don't shed any tears for mutants.
Biggots.

[can1]

Hebime

What would you do about China?

How can everything be so black and white?

I found Mr. Moore's column representative of more than you are willing to indicate.

I don't agree with everything that was said, but I can not deny that the reality he describes does in fact exist.

Hitler and Big Energy. How is it that Enron can be corrupt when it comes to picking American's pockets, but big energy could never be responsible for dictating foreign policy?

[Frank]

Mr Moore!

Great column. You've verbalized a lot of things many New Yorkers feel. And, how I feel about this upcoming war and living in New York. After reading through some of the responses on this board, my heart sank a bit at how dense some comic fans are. Love the comics. Hate the fans. Anyway, I don't usually post here but I just thought I should add some kind words to the white noise.

As a comic fan and as a New Yorker -- thanks.

Frank

[can1]

Grendal.

Excuse me. I hated the very notion of that issue of Spiderman. In an attempt to honor Marvel failed miserably. It was heavy handed and utterly ridiculous.

[Michael P]

Stuart, this column is going to make a lot of people angry. You're going to get them calling you names, from "idiot" to "traitor" to something I can't type here. They'll forward it to their friends, flood your e-mail box, and maybe forward it to the Attorney General. You've made some enemies with this one.

I'm not one of them. Good job. See you on the 25th.

[Julio Diaz]

Ignore the right-wing reactionaries, Stuart. This is a great, powerful column and I appreciate your thoughts. I'm always amazed that the public can't see through the screen of lies and treachery.

[Michael]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by John Osen:
<strong>How about supporting our President and our military in this time of crisis? What is wrong with being a patriot? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Although I don't agree with Stuart's assertion about Bush being responsible for the 9/11 attacks (as another poster said, they are more likely the result of various foreign policies implemented by several generations of presidents, Bush Sr. included), I do agree with many of his other assertions about the impending "war."

Nothing is wrong with being a patriot, but being a patriot is NOT standing unquestioningly behind the president. A patriot by definition ("a person who loves, supports, and defends his country") does what is right for his country - and that means questioning and challenging the leadership when it is wrong. The president is not the country and when he chooses to engage in a course of action detrimental to this country, I will speak out against it because I am a patriot.

I also support our military. I support not needlessly killing off many soldiers in a military action that has no merit and little international support. I support not sending them to fight for a cause based on unsupported claims and designed to benefit the rich friends of the president.

God Bless America. And keep us all safe from our current leader.

Good column, as usual, Stuart.

[can1]

And of course now we get the opposite response.

One side says liberals are bad, so naturally the other needs to joke that Republican's don't count.

sigh

Where are you John McCain?

[pickard]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Julio Diaz:
<strong>Ignore the right-wing reactionaries, Stuart. This is a great, powerful column and I appreciate your thoughts. I'm always amazed that the public can't see through the screen of lies and treachery.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anyone with a single viewpoint in concert with the right wing of the Republican party is a "right-wing reactionary".

You can't support enforcement of the UN resolutions on Iraqui disarmament and inspections and also support a woman's right to choose.

You can't support a tightening of our immigration policies and favor increasing education funding.

Everyone has to be pigeonholed into a role you can easily dismiss. Right?

Even if the board is full of "right-wing reactionaries", that doesn't mean that they can't make logical arguments on this issue. Or is logic and reason the sole property of "liberal extremists" like Stuart.

[Jonathan]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Hebime:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Diamondrock:
<strong>That's all I'll respond to you. You and others like you aren't worth wasting my time on any further.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, the standard response of the intellectual bigot who doesn't understand that his opinion was not handed down by god...

Mr. Moore has done little more than shill for the far left in the same fashion that he accuses Bush. Lots of little convenient ommisions to paint a vibrant picture why he is right and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.

Anyone with a brain(of which I see little to no evidence on this board, between the back slappers and the ham fisted) will realize that the truth lies somewhere between the poles. Simplisitic arguements and a bajillion yesman replies do not change this fact.

While we are quoting Ghandi, hey here are few for you-
Do you know that Ghandi suggested that all of the Jews in Nazi concentration camps commit suicide?

Or that during the Muslim/Hindu rioting after independance, Ghandi was present when Jawarhoral(sp?) ordered 2 Muslims be rounded up and shot(murdered) for every Hindu killed in the rioting, and he said NOTHING to prevent it?

Ghandi was the same sort of politician the far left has blasted-using whatever means he has at his disposal to get what he wants. People seem to think his practice on passive resistance is some sort of universal panacea. It is not. It is a specific tactic that can only be applied in specific situations. Do you honestly believe Hitler, or saddam Hussein would think even ONCE about massacreing hundreds or thousand, or millions of people who defied him? Oh, wait, they both did....

As to you Mr. Moore, this was your mulligan.

I have already broken my personal rule to never join the bleating masses of the newsgroup, but it actualy takes something this far off base to get a response out of me. Enjoy your flame war and the warm self righteous feeling each of you is bound to get from posting here.....</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well that certainly told us us to shut up!

Can I get you to break your personal rule again and perhaps enlighten me as to what a 'mulligan' is?

I can't answer for everybody here as I'm also pretty new to this newsgroup but I don't think anyone gets a warm self righteous feeling from posting here. It's just a newsgroup where peolpe think to share their thoughts or ideas.

[Stuart Moore]

I expected a big response to this one, but...wow. Thanks, everyone. A few additions & responses:

First off, I should have mentioned the "World Says No to War" rally this coming Saturday, the 15th, at 1st Avenue & 49th Street (near the U.N.) in Manhattan. Details at <a href="http://www.unitedforpeace.org" target="_blank">http://www.unitedforpeace.org</a> . I have no connection with the organization, but this is part of a series of coordinated peace rallies all over the country. Of course, CNN will probably ignore it as usual, but hey.

I've pretty much said my piece on the big political questions, so I'll let that stand and let the debate continue.

To Bullwinkle: That's not shallow at all. A lot of the point of the piece was the little joys of life. I could write a whole column about Bullwinkle (not you, the show)...

I can't talk about Ghandi without thinking of a hilarious little Tijuana Bible comic where he indulges in various depraved sexual acts. So I'm useless in that part of the conversation.

And my favorite response so far: "To his credit, he did manage to get Daredevil shipping on a regular schedule." I'm going off now to get that carved on my tombstone.

Best to everyone,
Stuart

[DasKlein83]

I very rarely post here, but this column has prompted me to do so. While I agree that it was very well written and raised a number of valid points, it did fail to take into account a number of key issues. First of all, why should America not attack Iraq. The Islamic World consists of barbaric tribal theocracies that are a danger to the rest of civilization. America is no longer able to do a blasted thing about North Korea since they have nuclear weapons, so we should now just sit around and wait for Saddam to develop them, making him untouchable as well? 9/11 was an attack on American soil by a group of derranged lunatics who epitomize the political climate of the Arab world. Overthrowing Saddam will create a domino effect that will lead to the fall of other dictatorships in favor of more secular governments. For the record, I am a libertarian and do not like Bush, but I feel that the time for an attack on Iraq has come, if for no other reason than to pursue American intrests.

[JimHughs4]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by can1:
<strong>Excuse me. I hated the very notion of that issue of Spiderman. In an attempt to honor Marvel failed miserably. It was heavy handed and utterly ridiculous.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whereas I, on the other hand, greatly enjoyed it. It was heavy handed, but I found it effective and it did bring a tear to my eye. Different strokes, I guess. I've heard a lot of people criticize that particular issue, saying Dr. Doom and Magneto wouldn't care, but it wasn't intended as a "Spider-Man story". It's a tribute issue, and I think it works on that level. JH

[Stuart Moore]

Grendel: Nice idea about NYC comics -- I'll see if I have time. The PREACHER shot is actually from issue #5; the HOWARD THE DUCK is from #24 (first series), which is reprinted in ESSENTIAL HOWARD THE DUCK and is a great little New York story. The DETECTIVES, INC. panel is from the original DI graphic novel, A REMEMBRANCE OF THREATENING GREEN. And that's a little DOCTOR FATE panel from the run I edited, too.

At first I agreed with the poster who complained about J. Scott Campbell's 9/11 piece, but I really grew to like it as a bright spot in the understandably bleak HEROES collection. And it worked great as a t-shirt (which is where I took the scan from).

Best,
Stuart

[1.5]

WOW

there are some stupid people on this board, both those on the "left" and those on the "right"

I say this not because i think myself to hold all knowledge, but because it is just plain true.

stuart says some very intelligent things in his column, some of which are true, some of which may be not, and some of which are simply up to each person to decide the validity of.
To paraphrase one of the smartest men to ever live (since people seem to have a thing for that today) "I know only one thing, that i don't know anything for sure, but that one thing more than anyone else."

the truth is not a single one of us KNOWS whether iraq has ties with AL Quaeda or whether they are harboring deadly weapons, but we should all know this.

A war with them wil accomplish nothing. We will not kill hussein, nor will we throw him from power unless we committ atrocities on the level of what was done to us. in which case ill personally beat bush to a pulp on the lawn of 1600 penn ave.

Hussein is a megolamaniac and a murderer who deserves to lead a country like I deserves to fly a B2 bomber.

Bush is a liar ( I say this because it has been PROVEN time and time again) and a coward and a magician of the highest rank.

given the choice between the two I'd still take bush because he is answerable (somewhat) to his people where hussein has never been.

But ask yourself this, will war change a god damn thing but the population of Iraq and the # of or soldiers who live, or will it, JUST like last time, be full of sound and fury, but ultimately signify nothing.

Socrates personal whipping boy

1.5

[can1]

Jim

Fair enough.

Truthfully it was more than just the Doom and Magneto sequence. I thought this was far to serious and 'raw' issue to be addressed in such a way. I greatly enjoyed all of the other tribute books that choose not to inject comic characters into the new frightening reality.

[Marc-Oliver Frisch]

Best comics-related column I ever read -- and not just because I agree with every single word (as far as I can presume to, anyway, without having ever visited New York City).

--Marc

[JimHughs4]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DasKlein83:
<strong>I very rarely post here, but this column has prompted me to do so. While I agree that it was very well written and raised a number of valid points, it did fail to take into account a number of key issues. First of all, why should America not attack Iraq. The Islamic World consists of barbaric tribal theocracies that are a danger to the rest of civilization. America is no longer able to do a blasted thing about North Korea since they have nuclear weapons, so we should now just sit around and wait for Saddam to develop them, making him untouchable as well? 9/11 was an attack on American soil by a group of derranged lunatics who epitomize the political climate of the Arab world. Overthrowing Saddam will create a domino effect that will lead to the fall of other dictatorships in favor of more secular governments. For the record, I am a libertarian and do not like Bush, but I feel that the time for an attack on Iraq has come, if for no other reason than to pursue American intrests.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For the record, I'm also a Libertarian and I disagree with just about everything in your post except the puctuation.

The Libertarian Party- I'd vote for us if we weren't all insane. :cool:

[can1]

Jim

Do you advocate mental flossing?

[KingStalin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by rundownthewayup:
<strong>To make up for Tank Abbott's comments, "You've hit the pin right on the head, Stuart!" War and violence is never the answer. Neither is vengeance. Has anyone noticed that this "President" has yet to even ponder the idea of a PEACEFUL solution; instead of being so gungho on blowing everyone up; and starting WW3. Two years left. Let's hope we're all still here to see him booted out of the office, and someone sane brought in.
Want some more truth? - <a href="http://www.truthout.org" target="_blank">www.truthout.org</a></strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Right and you do remember all the peacful talks in europe in the 40's when england and france just let hitler keep poland and made all kinds of treaties. Peace is great. But sometimes you can NOT sit and let evil continue. To allow innocents to die while we think of peaceful means of a solution is bullsh!# Sometimes thye only way people respond and stop is violence.

[JimHughs4]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 1.5:
<strong>...in which case ill personally beat bush to a pulp on the lawn of 1600 penn ave</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In case you don't know...threatening the president in a public place is exactly the kind of thing the Secret Service looks for (It may be a crime, but I'm not sure). There've been multiple instances of people being detained in the past for comments just like yours. Unless you're 100% serious, think about that before you write it- what kind of lists and files do you want to end up in? JH

[JimHughs4]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by can1:
<strong>Jim

Do you advocate mental flossing?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">LOL :D

[can1]

Thanks all for an interesting discussion. Be safe. Perserver.

[Christopher.Walton]

The debate caused by this column proves the old adage -

"You are now entering the United States of America , always think on the right"

I would say their is palpable fear amoung the peole of New York at the moment over what an attack on Iraq would mean for their city and this Stuart expressed them elegantly.

I could launch into an anti-Bush rant, but I think those arguemnts are well played already. I will say he is not a well respected man throughout the world. Including here in the UK, the USA's closest ally.

I believe to win the war on terrorism you have to promote peace, tollerance and respect among all nations, cultures and religions. I am of the opinion that Bush has not.

This is an excellent topic for Newsarama to touch upon and proves the comicbook reading and producing community can punch above its weight.

Here here.

[SpaceDog]

Wow.

This is Mr. Moore's best column ever. It's intelligent, and well thought out. The points are valid and infrequently discussed.

I really don't know how he could ever top this one.

[Michael]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DasKlein83:
<strong>First of all, why should America not attack Iraq. The Islamic World consists of barbaric tribal theocracies that are a danger to the rest of civilization. America is no longer able to do a blasted thing about North Korea since they have nuclear weapons, so we should now just sit around and wait for Saddam to develop them...Overthrowing Saddam will create a domino effect that will lead to the fall of other dictatorships in favor of more secular governments. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, because we perceive a society to be barbaric by our high moral and cultural status, we should try and wipe it out? I'm not sure where we get the moral authority to decide how or if another country gets to exist. To briefly put this in the (possible) realm of science fiction and comics again, God forbid some alien race should land in America, decide we are too barbaric and dangerous to the rest of the galaxy and wipe us out. America is not the arbitrator of who should live and not live simply because a lifestyle is deemed "dangerous." Military action is only warranted when there is a real, physical threat.

As for North Korea, I don't believe it's firmly established that they really _do_ have nuclear weapons. Quite possibly, they're bluffing. And by Bush's own logic, we should be invading them as well as Iraq at this point. But, hmmm, we're not. Is it because we're afraid of North Korea? Is it because if they do have nuclear weapons, we don't mind California being blown up? (if those weapons can even reach that far?) Are we afraid of losing military lives? Or is there no oil interest or true interest in North Korea that will diverts American's fromthe failing economy (after all, Koreans didn't attack us, Muslims did!)?

Attacking Saddam at this point will likely do nothing other than provoke more terrorist attacks at home. I find it unlikely that he will be disposed. Daddy couldn't do it and Jr. couldn't do it with Osama. Instead, fantatical Muslims will see this as (rightful?) provocation to launch even more terrorist attacks on Americans. And, if Saddam does have capabilities to attack us or other countries, attacking him will simply push him into a corner where there is nothing to lose and he will use his weapons.

There is no domino effect - the link between Saddam and Bin Laden has never been shown and likely cannot be shown. These are not countries that are buddy-buddy. Bush simply wants to link them because he could not get Bin Laden as he promised (what a stupid promise that was) and now wants to get some kind of trophy that he can show around.

Finally, your post implies that Muslims are primitive and violent. I assure you that is not the case from personal experience. That image of Muslims is exactly the type of stereotyped portrait Dubya has been trying to paint to justify his war.

[Michael P]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Ian:
<strong>What about people who won't play nice though? What do you do about stuff like 9/11 or smaller stuff like a bus blowing up killing 20 people who didn't deserve it?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Go after the people who actually perpetrated it, instead of use it to justify a war with a marginally related third party you were going to attack anyway?

(Which reminds me: What prison is Bin Laden in again? Because I missed the news reprot where we caught him and shut down Al Qaeda for good.)

[Elayne Riggs]

Wonderful column, Stuart. I kept nodding throughout, at everything from your analysis of our current political situation (albeit that it just skimmed the surface, but if it had been more detailed I think you would have straddled two screens) to your overview of the HEROES benefit (not only was Spidey's outfit very form-fitting but he had a hell of a grip! and yes, those models looked a lot more surreal than the guy in the costume) to Why We Live in New York. I haven't read the responses yet but since I suspect many of them will be negative I just wanted to remind you that, while your opinions may be in the minority, you're far from alone.

- Elayne

[Ian]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Michael P:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Ian:
<strong>What about people who won't play nice though? What do you do about stuff like 9/11 or smaller stuff like a bus blowing up killing 20 people who didn't deserve it?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Go after the people who actually perpetrated it, instead of use it to justify a war with a marginally related third party you were going to attack anyway?

(Which reminds me: What prison is Bin Laden in again? Because I missed the news reprot where we caught him and shut down Al Qaeda for good.)</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What if you can't find out who is directly responsible? What if you are a world power who's paradigm consists of defending oneself militarily against other attacking nations or defending your own interests abroad in that same fashion? What if the only link you have is your limited intelligence pointing to a nation that is a known enemy and is in direct violation of global sanctions placed upon it? What if this is the only way to punish violators, exact revenge, gain some recompense for a grievous loss?

Lastly, how would you find bin Laden if he is truly the one to blame? Didn't the same country that linked Al-Quaeda with Hussein also lay blame upon a supposed terrorist from Afghanistan named bin Laden? At precisely what point do you choose to believe what your are told and not?

[Raphael Sutton]

First of all, great column Mr. Moore! I've been reading columns here for years but never felt an overwhelming need to reply to anything before. I was born and raised in Brazil, but when I came to New York in 92 to go to college I found out that I had been a New Yorker my whole life, I just didn't know it.

Here are some of my thoughts on this issue.

I watched the State of the Union address, and I found it to be a deplorable display. Basically everything that was said then was at best an attempt at misdirection, and at worst an outright lie. Here are some examples of this:

1. Contrary to what we where told, the tax cuts proposed will do very little to stimulate the economy, simply because they're aimed at the 1% richest segment of the population. When someone who has millions of dollars gets a hundred thousand break he/she doesn't go on a shopping spree, the money ends up being reinvested, and given the current economy, in all likelihood this is done overseas where you can get a much better rate of return, and at less risk than the stock market (so it does nothing to improve the US economy).

2. The Medicare reform that would give senior citizens a better prescription drug coverage would require them to forego traditional Medicare and sign up with an HMO to get those benefits. This was glossed over during the speech and the letters "H", "M", and "O" didn't figure in it at all. That's because we all know the terrible track records of HMOs.

3. The promise of money to fight AIDS in Africa is something that I doubt will ever happen. This is the same administration that for the past 2 years has consistently cut funding to international organizations engaged in AIDS relief (in Africa and other places), because said organizations insisted in promoting condom use as a way to slow down the infection rate (apparently the administration feels that anything other than total abstinence is unacceptable, it's true that it would be the most effective solution, but it's also totally unrealistic). Besides, it's not like this administration hasn't reneged on its money commitments before. The 21 billion promised to NY is an example; another is the billions that were supposed to go to help cities hire more police officers and increase their security measures, but then where pulled because of "budgetary constraints" (meaning we have no money).

4. The promise of money for research on a hydrogen car seems laudable, until one stops to think about it. Even in a best case scenario, those cars wouldn't hit the streets in less than 15-20 years, which means at least that much more time of fossil fuels dependence. Not only that, but the proposal later sent to congress stipulates that the hydrogen necessary to power the cars would be extracted by means powered by Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal; the same fossil fuels it purports to replace. Meanwhile, more stringent rules on fuel efficiency for cars being sold today, which would do a great deal to immediately ease the current problem, where never mentioned.

I could go on, but you get the point. What does this have to do with the war? A whole lot, because it shows the attempts to sell the image that the administration is worried with this Country, and Humanity, and that it doesn't care that much about Oil. If we believe this then of course that the War will be fought for the right reasons (note my sarcastic tone here).

This war is being fought for two main reasons, Oil and as a red herring to distract people from the fact that Osama wasn't captured and no one knows where he is. Saddam's problem is that we know where he is (we think). Just watch, I'm willing to bet that, next year, if this war isn't going stellarly well for the US then another threat will surface, probably North Korea. Don't get me wrong, I think that Saddam is a despot that should be deposed, but this should be done right. If the US goes at it alone, then it will only isolate itself further from the rest of the world. I travel a lot internationally and I never saw this much animosity towards the US as I'm seeing now, and that's in every country I've been to. And if you still think that the US has enough to justify a war, then how come it's failed to convince the UN of it (remember that Collin Powell was supposed to share with the UN all the information the government has on Iraq).

I've written a lot here already but there are a couple more things I'd like to mention.

First, it's true that the Bush Administration is not the sole responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Something like that takes years of planning and Osama already hated the US when Clinton was President. That said, however, before 9/11 Bush didn't seem any more concerned with Osama than Clinton had been. He was too busy doing things like pulling out of the Kyoto Accords and further isolating this country from the rest of the world.

Second, the current administration has been using the 9/11 attacks for its political gain ever since they happened. Some of you may thing I'm being cynical but just look at the countless measures that have been passed since then, almost exclusively on the arguments that we'd be at greater danger if we don't pass them, and that if you're against them then you're "unpatriotic" (why do you think the "Patriot Act" was given that name?). And is it a coincidence that right before last year's elections we suddenly started getting security warnings every other day? Warnings that distracted people from the problems in the Economy and then magically stopped after the elections. And is it a coincidence that now that the administration is trying to convince people to go to war that suddenly the National Threat Level was raised to Code Orange?

Raphy

[gmull528]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Diamondrock:
<strong>Great column.

To "Tank Abbot"

"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."

-Mohandas Gandhi

That's all I'll respond to you. You and others like you aren't worth wasting my time on any further.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[Marcus Ferrell]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well unless you're a republican, but really since when do they count as people?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spoken like a Nazi to a Jew.

[GrayHaven]

Long time reader, first (or 2nd) time poster.

The consequences of living in a country with so many freedoms is that we have to allow for the right to columns like these to be printed, too. Stuart is a gifted editor, talented writer and (from the few times I was able to meet him) a pretty nice guy, but this piece irked me to no end.

I'm going to try and keep this short, since my own emotions can get the better of me and I don't want to go too far off topic. No one is going to change their minds about whether Bush is lying or a danger to the country or whether Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, etc. Me? I believe in the President and the government. If I didn't, I'd get the hell out of here. Canada has some beautiful cities and I recommend that the people who spend so much time criticizing our government and policies divert their energies into packing and getting out. We are in a war against terrorism and the nations and people who sponsor them. Saddam is an evil man who Colin Powell has tied to Al Queda in his UN address last week (unless your one of those conspiracy theorists who chooses to believe that the government is lying about the evidence presented and again, in that case, why are you here). Regardless of whether these battles are resolved in the form of sanctions, coups, diplomacy or outright invasions, it's out duty to support the people fighting in those wars and our government, no matter who you voted for. We need to be unifed first in order to do what's best for our country. You don't have to like our government officials, but you need to respect and support them, especially in times of crisis. You can try and vote them out another day but name calling and propaganda does nothing.

What I find amusing is this feeling from some that New York is a target because of our impending war with Iraq. New York is a target because it's the greatest city in the world and these animals despise our way of life. All major cities and institutions are at risk. Do you all truly believe that if we did nothing in Iraq, lifted sanctions and gave more money to the Middle East that terrorist would decide that we're all a bunch of cool people and join hands and sing 'We are the World' together? Get real. The fact of the matter is that there are a hell of a lot of dangerous people out there developing or possessing the means to inflict a lot of damage on innocent people just for the sake of doing it. We can choose to do nothing and watch our cities fall and people die or we can go around the world and start picking them off one by one. We are the superpower of the world and the responsibility of being the world's policemen have fallen on our shoulders because everyone else has abandoned it. To that end, we need to do what is right for us, regardless of what a few modern day leftist hippies want.
<a href="http://www.ghmonline.com" target="_blank">www.ghmonline.com</a>
<a href="http://www.preordercomics.com" target="_blank">www.preordercomics.com</a>

[amorphis]

Am I the only one who actually READ this article? Where does Mr. Moore state that 9/11 is all Bush's fault? The writer CLEARLY points out that while our current situation is not solely the fault of the Dubya, our chief executive has used it to forward his own selfish agendas. I'm disturbed at this whole "Anything the president says or does is right!" attitude. Did 9/11 mean we should stop questioninng authority? The buildings fall, and suddenly Bush is honest, a genius, a philanthropist? Everyone has the right to an opinion as long as it's an informed one. Some only hear what they want to hear. Others struggle to find as much information as possible. Since 9/11, I have tried to learn as much as possible about the conditions that led to it. In my quest for knowledge, I discovered much about George W. Bush. I learned of his rich spoiled coddled upbringing. I also discovered he is probably the most illiterate president this nation has ever had. But the thing that shines through the most about Bush---his lies. His double talk. His utter contempt for the people he claims to protect. He has done, in his short political career, more to stunt education and the environment than anyone in recent memory. What do all of the Bush/War supporters have to say about the way relief funds have been re-directed to florida--more evil liberal lies? Liberal is supposed to mean good things--curious, open minded--when did these become bad evil things?
I'm possitive that anyone who supports or loves Bush is simply not well informed. The facts speak for themselves. Don't take my word for it. Please discover the truth and vote accordingly.
I the president were to one day get on television and declare that pigs had wings, there would be that group of nuts nodding their heads sluggishly agreeing and trying to convince everyone else that pigs could fly. Don't be one of them.

[Marcus Ferrell]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">From GreyHaven:
Canada has some beautiful cities and I recommend that the people who spend so much time criticizing our government and policies divert their energies into packing and getting out. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, the old adage, love it or leave it. Why do you have to leave if you disagree?

Personally, I thoroughly disagreed with Mr. Moore's article, but nonetheless, he shouldn't be told to get out of the country. Our differing opinions are what makes democratic countries such as the US and UK great. Our diversity causes constant change, adaption and evolution. Therefore, more often than not, we become better because of it.

Personally, I'm becoming more isolationist. To hell with the rest of the world. I say we pull out of the UN and form a trading coalition with our true partners - UK, China, Japan, etc and we'll protect each other. Since the rest of the world hates our involvement in global affairs, let em stew for a while with out British and American aid and product. But that's me.

[Craig K]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by GrayHaven:
<strong>We need to be unifed first in order to do what's best for our country. You don't have to like our government officials, but you need to respect and support them, especially in times of crisis. You can try and vote them out another day but name calling and propaganda does nothing.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The United States of America was founded by a group of men protesting against their government. In doing so, they revolutionized the world.

If our founding fathers had done as you ask--to support their leaders in a time of crisis--then there would be no United States. No Declaration of Indepence, no Bill of Rights, and uncountable other things we enjoy today because a group of people--who were very much in the minority--believed the actions of their rulers were wrong, and did not wait patiently for things to change.

Protesting--questioning leaders, challenging government--is as American as Apple Pie and Baseball. To disagree, openly, pubicly, loudly, against those in power is the greatest freedom we have in this country, and if we do not utilize it--if we do not embrace the very freedom we claim to champion for the entire world--then what the hell is point of being an American?

[Marcus Ferrell]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">From scorpysue:
I learned of his rich spoiled coddled upbringing.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why is it always a "liberal" POV that being raised in a rich family is a bad thing. You'd be surprised at how many in-office Democrats are rich and have been their entire lives. Al Gore, Hilary Clinton, and on and on and on. You're not evil if you're raised wealthy.

[gmull528]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Diamondrock:
<strong>Great column.

To "Tank Abbot"

"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."

-Mohandas Gandhi

That's all I'll respond to you. You and others like you aren't worth wasting my time on any further.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">By "you and others like you", do you mean that you have no time for people who you believe to misquote Ghandi, or do you mean that you have no time for people who don't see things the way you see them?

I notice that Stuart's list of references at the end of his piece includes only sources who agree with and reinforce each other's, and apparently Stuart's, world view. Is it generally wise to ignore contrasting points of view?

For instance, the New Yorker isn't on his list. Not exactly a clone of the National Review, the New Yorker recently published (to my recollection) an article by a writer who links Saddam with bin Laden. Well, we might still conclude that a more subtle response to the problem would be preferable to the military response. But at least we would be including in our analysis some information that we wouldn't get from reading only the sources that reinforce our own conclusions.

[gmull528]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by rundownthewayup:
<strong>To make up for Tank Abbott's comments, "You've hit the pin right on the head, Stuart!" War and violence is never the answer.

Never the answer? How do you come to that conclusion? Well, whether or not it's the answer depends on the question, doesn't it? I suppose we could have averted the extinction of European Jews by holding hands and singing "We Are the World".

[Neither is vengeance. Has anyone noticed that this "President" has yet to even ponder the idea of a PEACEFUL solution;[/URL]</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How would YOU know whether or not he's pondered this? Are you in on the White House conferences? Does Bush personally tell you everything he's thinking?

I don't know for sure all of the options he's pondered, and neither do you.

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Burke 0011:
<strong>As for Moore saying Bush CAUSED the 9/11 attacks.... Moore's intimation that some responsibility can be laid at his Bush's door for maybe making it more POSSIBLE to happen is a nebulous thing, that no amount of talk or debate by anyone on here will be able to concretely prove 100% one way or the other.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Even the White House admitted <a href="http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/05/17052002094852.asp" target="_blank">last May</a> that they had <a href="http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html" target="_blank">prior warning</a> that something was up. But I also agree with those who point out that Al-Qaeda (or, as Ronnie Raygun called them, <a href="http://www.irr.org.uk/2001/october/ak000004.html" target="_blank">"the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers"</a>) were very active during the Clinton administration, which continued and even escalated the abhorrent, ultimately destructive actions begun by Bush Pere in Afghanistan (no fly zones, sanctions on medical supplies and food, etc.). Clinton's domestic policies may have produced the largest surplus the country's ever seen, and he seemed to be better at diplomacy than Bush Fils, but when it came to foreign matters, for a Democrat he was a pretty good moderate Republican. :)

- Elayne

[DasKlein83]

[/qb][/QUOTE]So, because we perceive a society to be barbaric by our high moral and cultural status, we should try and wipe it out? I'm not sure where we get the moral authority to decide how or if another country gets to exist. To briefly put this in the (possible) realm of science fiction and comics again, God forbid some alien race should land in America, decide we are too barbaric and dangerous to the rest of the galaxy and wipe us out. America is not the arbitrator of who should live and not live simply because a lifestyle is deemed "dangerous." Military action is only warranted when there is a real, physical threat.

As for North Korea, I don't believe it's firmly established that they really _do_ have nuclear weapons. Quite possibly, they're bluffing. And by Bush's own logic, we should be invading them as well as Iraq at this point. But, hmmm, we're not. Is it because we're afraid of North Korea? Is it because if they do have nuclear weapons, we don't mind California being blown up? (if those weapons can even reach that far?) Are we afraid of losing military lives? Or is there no oil interest or true interest in North Korea that will diverts American's fromthe failing economy (after all, Koreans didn't attack us, Muslims did!)?

Attacking Saddam at this point will likely do nothing other than provoke more terrorist attacks at home. I find it unlikely that he will be disposed. Daddy couldn't do it and Jr. couldn't do it with Osama. Instead, fantatical Muslims will see this as (rightful?) provocation to launch even more terrorist attacks on Americans. And, if Saddam does have capabilities to attack us or other countries, attacking him will simply push him into a corner where there is nothing to lose and he will use his weapons.

There is no domino effect - the link between Saddam and Bin Laden has never been shown and likely cannot be shown. These are not countries that are buddy-buddy. Bush simply wants to link them because he could not get Bin Laden as he promised (what a stupid promise that was) and now wants to get some kind of trophy that he can show around.

Finally, your post implies that Muslims are primitive and violent. I assure you that is not the case from personal experience. That image of Muslims is exactly the type of stereotyped portrait Dubya has been trying to paint to justify his war.[/QB][/QUOTE]

We have the moral authroity because we say we do. We make moral judgements on others because that is our nature as human beings. We judge and decided and we have found Iraq and the Islamic world to be a threat. And yes, I would certainly call any country with an Anit-American agenda that is trying to develop nuclear arms a threat. And you've met muslims. Good for you. Those are muslims that live in the United States and have embraced a secular life style. Go to Palestine, Lybia, Iran and Iraq and you will see firsthand how primitive and violent the average joe is. I know this is the antithesis of political corectness, but I feel it has to be said. Islam has not matured as a religion like Judeaism and Christianity is. As a society, it's where Christianity was at the time of the Inquisition. And North Korea is a perfectly valid comparison. An insane ruler who hates America, is a threat to the region, massacres his people, and wanted, but now has nukes. Sounds like Saddam to me.

[KingStalin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Michael:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DasKlein83:
<strong>First of all, why should America not attack Iraq. The Islamic World consists of barbaric tribal theocracies that are a danger to the rest of civilization. America is no longer able to do a blasted thing about North Korea since they have nuclear weapons, so we should now just sit around and wait for Saddam to develop them...Overthrowing Saddam will create a domino effect that will lead to the fall of other dictatorships in favor of more secular governments. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, because we perceive a society to be barbaric by our high moral and cultural status, we should try and wipe it out? I'm not sure where we get the moral authority to decide how or if another country gets to exist. To briefly put this in the (possible) realm of science fiction and comics again, God forbid some alien race should land in America, decide we are too barbaric and dangerous to the rest of the galaxy and wipe us out. America is not the arbitrator of who should live and not live simply because a lifestyle is deemed "dangerous." Military action is only warranted when there is a real, physical threat.

As for North Korea, I don't believe it's firmly established that they really _do_ have nuclear weapons. Quite possibly, they're bluffing. And by Bush's own logic, we should be invading them as well as Iraq at this point. But, hmmm, we're not. Is it because we're afraid of North Korea? Is it because if they do have nuclear weapons, we don't mind California being blown up? (if those weapons can even reach that far?) Are we afraid of losing military lives? Or is there no oil interest or true interest in North Korea that will diverts American's fromthe failing economy (after all, Koreans didn't attack us, Muslims did!)?

Attacking Saddam at this point will likely do nothing other than provoke more terrorist attacks at home. I find it unlikely that he will be disposed. Daddy couldn't do it and Jr. couldn't do it with Osama. Instead, fantatical Muslims will see this as (rightful?) provocation to launch even more terrorist attacks on Americans. And, if Saddam does have capabilities to attack us or other countries, attacking him will simply push him into a corner where there is nothing to lose and he will use his weapons.

There is no domino effect - the link between Saddam and Bin Laden has never been shown and likely cannot be shown. These are not countries that are buddy-buddy. Bush simply wants to link them because he could not get Bin Laden as he promised (what a stupid promise that was) and now wants to get some kind of trophy that he can show around.

Finally, your post implies that Muslims are primitive and violent. I assure you that is not the case from personal experience. That image of Muslims is exactly the type of stereotyped portrait Dubya has been trying to paint to justify his war.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The reason I believe we are targeting iraq and not n. korea is because korea is using their nuclear threats to try and get aid form us again. it's a bluff, hopefully, and the US won't risk war for what they know is just a desire for aid and to get our attention, tohugh the threats should be taken seriously. As for iraq. well they didn't do what they were told to do after the last war and well fuck them. it's time for them to listen and do as they are told or else. As for this provoking terrorist attakcs? I'm sorry but the day we must tip toe around what could happen if we don't go to war we are no longer a wreold power. Remember the past is doomed to repeat if we don't remember it. Isolation and not acting caused a sadistic painter from berlin to slaughter countless and damn near rule the world. I think you should all shut up and go do something about your stance on this. Go to antiwar rallies or peace rallies if you want. Don't sit here and argue with fellow comic fans. I thank Mr. Moore for giving us a great topic to yak about but let's do something about it. Oh and to the person who p[osted earlier about john mccain, I wish McCain was my president. lol

[Ronan]

It's nice to see some political debate on a comic's board, you'd almost think that we didn't all come here for escapism :)

However, seeing such nasty responces to such a wonderful article makes me want to remind people set on war why democracy is better then dictatorship, fascism, monarchism, and communism, because they don't seem to remember.

Democracy is fair and free, and provides for human rights.

1) Any person can say what they want in the knowledge that their views won't mean their imprisonment or punishment. Saddam Hussein believes in killing people because he disagrees with him, democracy says this is wrong.

2) Everyone is equal, and should be innocent until proven guilty. Human life is worthwhile, and we don't mistreat people because we are more powerful then them.

These two ideals mean a number of things, which form the basis of living in a democratic country. We don't attack people on the street because they have something we want. If someone does that to us, we try to make sure they are guilty before punishing them, and because their life is valuable to us, we don't lock them up and throw away the key. And if we are having an arguement, we listen to the other person anyway, and do not shoot them.

But for the war with Iraq? Or Afganistan before that? We think they are guilty, and they disagree with us even if they're not, so lets kill them. Who cares what they think or why they think it. Who cares if they deserve punishement or not. To quote George Bush "We want him dead or alive", a direct removal of human rights. Which sounds an awful lot like fascism, and not very much like democracy.

So going back to democracy being a better system then the despotism of Afganistan, the monarchies of most of the Arab world, and the dictatorship of Iraq. We prove that by *not* acting as they do. By being fair, listening to the people we despise, not using force when words still have a chance. If you really love America and Democracy, how can you ask for it's worth to be thrown away by acting so unjustly?

And more importantly to the future of our world, and removing terrorism from it: Do you realy think they will stop fighting you and become democratic if you don't bother being democratic? There's an old saying in writing which Stuart Moore will doubtless know, "Show, don't tell". Because you will not convince people what you are saying is true if all you do is order them to believe it.

[Kevin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by GrayHaven:
<strong>Long time reader, first (or 2nd) time poster.

The consequences of living in a country with so many freedoms is that we have to allow for the right to columns like these to be printed, too. Stuart is a gifted editor, talented writer and (from the few times I was able to meet him) a pretty nice guy, but this piece irked me to no end.

I'm going to try and keep this short, since my own emotions can get the better of me and I don't want to go too far off topic. No one is going to change their minds about whether Bush is lying or a danger to the country or whether Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, etc. Me? I believe in the President and the government. If I didn't, I'd get the hell out of here. Canada has some beautiful cities and I recommend that the people who spend so much time criticizing our government and policies divert their energies into packing and getting out. We are in a war against terrorism and the nations and people who sponsor them. Saddam is an evil man who Colin Powell has tied to Al Queda in his UN address last week (unless your one of those conspiracy theorists who chooses to believe that the government is lying about the evidence presented and again, in that case, why are you here). Regardless of whether these battles are resolved in the form of sanctions, coups, diplomacy or outright invasions, it's out duty to support the people fighting in those wars and our government, no matter who you voted for. We need to be unifed first in order to do what's best for our country. You don't have to like our government officials, but you need to respect and support them, especially in times of crisis. You can try and vote them out another day but name calling and propaganda does nothing.

What I find amusing is this feeling from some that New York is a target because of our impending war with Iraq. New York is a target because it's the greatest city in the world and these animals despise our way of life. All major cities and institutions are at risk. Do you all truly believe that if we did nothing in Iraq, lifted sanctions and gave more money to the Middle East that terrorist would decide that we're all a bunch of cool people and join hands and sing 'We are the World' together? Get real. The fact of the matter is that there are a hell of a lot of dangerous people out there developing or possessing the means to inflict a lot of damage on innocent people just for the sake of doing it. We can choose to do nothing and watch our cities fall and people die or we can go around the world and start picking them off one by one. We are the superpower of the world and the responsibility of being the world's policemen have fallen on our shoulders because everyone else has abandoned it. To that end, we need to do what is right for us, regardless of what a few modern day leftist hippies want.
<a href="http://www.ghmonline.com" target="_blank">www.ghmonline.com</a>
<a href="http://www.preordercomics.com" target="_blank">www.preordercomics.com</a></strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I couldn't have said it better myself, GrayHaven. As a proud American, I support my president, my government, my military and my country in our fight against terrorists and those who support them. We've talked peace with the likes of Saddam Hussein until we're blue in the face. Sometimes, it's actions that speak louder than words. War is the last thing anyone wants, even you lefty-liberals understand this, but there comes a time when we as Americans must stand up and fight against these evil men to protect ourselves from further terrorist attacks. We gave peace a chance and were attacked by these monsters nonetheless.

-Kevin

[Taylor Porter]

Well, I liked the article. And a few points for consideration:

-"They attacked us first."- Well, from the viewpoint of much of the Arab world, America attacked them first. I'm not saying that the attacks were justified (because they weren't), but the fact remains that al-Qaeda believed they were justified. They considered the attacks to be a retaliation, and even if they are wrong, I don't think we can dismiss them so easily. America has commited many wrongs in the Middle East (and elsewhere) and while these wrongs did not justify 9/11, they still need to be addressed. What did the US do to the Middle East that would make anyone even think about this kind of terrorism?

-Ghandi.- Some ideas are bigger than the people who initiated them. Ghandi was not perfect and he definitely had his faults, but pointing them out does not take anything away from his accomplishments. The US Founding Fathers had good ideas, too, but they weren't perfect either. Should we think less of the Constitution because its authors owned slaves? I don't think so. Should we think less of Ghandi because of what he said about the Jews? I don't think so.

-Supporting the President.- I heard a quote a while ago: "This is no time to question the president." In a democracy, it's ALWAYS time to question the president, especially when it concerns life and death. You elected Bush to represent your ideas; you did not elect him to a position of unquestioned authority. The strength of a democracy is that the people can express their voices. Bush must be held accountable to the American people.

-DasKlein83, Tank Abbot.- I don't want to turn this into a personal attack or anything, but I strongly disagree with every single thing that both of you have said. I am offended to my very core.

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Nick Adams:
<strong>But, to those who don't know, there is documented proof of Al Queda ties to Saddam Hussein (Colin Powell has shown the proof, documentation that links them by Hussein providing financial backing to the group)</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Um, no. The Al-Qaeda operatives of which he spoke are in the northern part of Iraq, not controlled by Hussein at all (due in part to the US/UK-led no-fly zones). Also, much of the info he "proved" came from detainees who were being <a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/talkingpoints.htm" target="_blank">tortured or threatened with torture</a> during their interrogation; I know if I'd been in that position I would have admitted to anything to stop the pain.

- Elayne

[rlwatson]

I agree with the poster who said we should pull out of the UN and form a trade federation. I would like to see more of the money sent to aid other countries that hate us used for our own citizens. I

I think Moore wrote a decent article and it is his opinion, but opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I don't think Bush has been good or bad. I think he acts just like every other politician. You show me a truthful politician, I'd like to see it. I'm sure things would be soooo much better right now if we had Al Gore in office.

Unfortunately Saddam Hussein is a problem that should have been taken care of during the first Gulf war. I don't care what reason was given for not doing it, it was a mistake that we now have to deal with.

I understand there are some citizens of the U.S. who want to go to Iraq and act as human shields. I wish them all the luck in the world and hope they have thier wills made out. I won't feel bad at all if they die. They have the freedom to make that decision because they live in this country.

I spent a little under five years in the army. I was stationed in Korea during the first Gulf war. I don't want to see any soldier lose thier life, but that is always a possibility when you serve in the armed forces. I would hope the people that don't support the president, will at least have respect for our troops and support them.

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
<strong>I should have mentioned the "World Says No to War" rally this coming Saturday, the 15th, at 1st Avenue & 49th Street (near the U.N.) in Manhattan. Details at <a href="http://www.unitedforpeace.org" target="_blank">United For Peace</a> . I have no connection with the organization, but this is part of a series of coordinated peace rallies all over the country. Of course, CNN will probably ignore it as usual, but hey.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">People planning to attend this rally should be aware that the mayor, etc. have denied United For Peace a permit to march, and this decision was upheld in a ruling by Federal Judge Barbara Jones ruled on February 10. More information <a href="http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=801" target="_blank">here</a>. The rally at First and 49th will still take place, but given the expected crowd I can't envisage the stationary rally (for which they do have a legal permit) not turning into a march.

- Elayne

[JimHughs4]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Elayne Riggs:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Nick Adams:
<strong>But, to those who don't know, there is documented proof of Al Queda ties to Saddam Hussein (Colin Powell has shown the proof, documentation that links them by Hussein providing financial backing to the group)</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Um, no. The Al-Qaeda operatives of which he spoke are in the northern part of Iraq, not controlled by Hussein at all (due in part to the US/UK-led no-fly zones). Also, much of the info he "proved" came from detainees who were being <a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/talkingpoints.htm" target="_blank">tortured or threatened with torture</a> during their interrogation; I know if I'd been in that position I would have admitted to anything to stop the pain.

- Elayne</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Good link, Elayne. It doesn't disprove any of Bush and Powell's claims, but it accurately points out that all the information they've presented needs to be investigated before decisions are made. JH

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DasKlein83:
<strong>First of all, why should America not attack Iraq. The Islamic World consists of barbaric tribal theocracies that are a danger to the rest of civilization... Overthrowing Saddam will create a domino effect that will lead to the fall of other dictatorships in favor of more secular governments.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As reprehensible as Hussein's dictatorship is, he leads a secular government, not a theocracy. (That's one of the reasons bin Laden hates him.)

- Elayne

[GrayHaven]

This is just in response to Craig and Marcus who both touched on a particular point I want to follow up with and then be done. This is Stuart's forum and I'm not going to cause this all to sidetrack based on my comments. You all can debate politics with each other, but I just wanted to give my 2 cents.

Anyway. In regards to the 'love it or leave it argument', I was speaking mainly to the point of people who are not just critical of the government (hell, we all are about something with the government) but those who are out and out suspicious of them and have accused our leaders of being just as bad as the terrorists and calling them liars, etc. It's one thing to disagree, protest and cast your vote for the other person. But when you take it to the point where one is so disgusted with the politics and policies of the place we live, why not get out because you're just aggrivating yourself and those around you who happen to love their country.

As far as the Revolutionary War goes...come on. How many times is the Revolutionary War going to be brought up in relation to people's right to challenge the government. The argument is like the 'last resort' method people use to try and defend statements they know are inflamatory. But okay, if everyone really thinks what President Bush and company are doing is wrong, then revolt. Start a new revolution, gather up the militia and storm Washington and usher in a new era of government. If in your hearts, you compare the attitudes of Bush and military bashes to those who rebelled against the English centuries ago, then go on with your revolution. But if you're not willing to stand by your convictions and go that far, please be quiet and stay out of our way while the President and our true heroes go on and defend your way of life, because all you're really doing is bitching.
<a href="http://www.ghmonline.com" target="_blank">www.ghmonline.com</a>
<a href="http://www.preordercomics.com" target="_blank">www.preordercomics.com</a>

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by GrayHaven:
<strong>Me? I believe in the President and the government. If I didn't, I'd get the hell out of here.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wow, I haven't heard "America, Love It Or Leave It" in awhile, thanks for the nostalgia kick! :)

Seriously, you're saying that anyone who disagrees with an administration's policies doesn't deserve to live here? That's just weird. I know a lot of Republicans who didn't agree with Clinton's policies, but I didn't consider them traitors or suggest they move to Canada. Part of what makes (or what used to make) this country so strong is our long history of dissent against perceived injustice; in fact, it's what helped get the country going in the first place.

- Elayne

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Marcus Ferrell:
<strong>You'd be surprised at how many in-office Democrats are rich and have been their entire lives. Al Gore, Hilary Clinton, and on and on and on. You're not evil if you're raised wealthy.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well no, but it sure helps!

- Elayne

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JimHughs4:
<strong>Good link, Elayne. It doesn't disprove any of Bush and Powell's claims, but it accurately points out that all the information they've presented needs to be investigated before decisions are made. JH</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are several very good analyses of Powell's UN speech, which folks can find through a search of many of the blogs I've linked to from mine. Unfortunately, it won't be a quick search (which is why I didn't do it) because blogs are updated so quickly it's sometimes hard to remember who linked to what even a couple days after the entry, and this was about a week ago already (almost a year in blog-time!).

- Elayne

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by GrayHaven:
<strong>In regards to the 'love it or leave it argument', I was speaking mainly to the point of people who are not just critical of the government (hell, we all are about something with the government) but those who are out and out suspicious of them and have accused our leaders of being just as bad as the terrorists and calling them liars, etc.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I honestly don't see the difference, to me they're both just varying degrees of the same healthy skepticism.

- Elayne

[MattBrady]

While Fox and CNN have gone out of their way to demonize him, William Rivers Pitt's book, War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know features a large interview with Scott Ritter, and he has the time and space to explain what he's been trying to say before Paula, Connie, and the Foxheads, especially the one with the bad eye-lift, cut him off.

In it, both Pitt and Ritter explain the history of the region, and the culture of the tribes of the region, and the divisions between Islam in the region (as well as pointing out that Hussein has always been a secularist, and has persecuted fundamentalist Islamics) before Ritter expalins his views on the potential of complete political destabilizatoin of the Middle East, as well as the possibility of going nuclear in Iraq.

He also points out why Iraq will not be a democracy within any of our lifetimes (probably, due to tribal culture and politics), and answers/lays to rest the major citicisms against him, including his previous quotes, and the rumor that he accepted money from the Iraqi government.

The main point of it is that the book raises several questions that have never been asked/considered by the media in the rush to war, as producers are too busy drooling over ratings and ad revenue a war will bring - and if you piss off the government who's going to be checking ID's at the door into Iraq, you can kiss those ratings and revenue goodbye.

Unfortunately, like most of Ritter's interviews and book, it's been massively underordered/ignored by the chains, so it's hard to find, but it's a quick read if you can, and only runs $9. I'd recommend it, if for nothing else, to offer a different viewpoint on what, so far has been a pretty one-sided presentation to the American people.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893956385/qid=1044990100/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-7456298-4559253?v=glance&s=books&n=507846" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de tail/-/1893956385/qid=1044990100/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-7456298-4559253?v=glance&s=books&n=507846</a>

MattB

[Stuart Moore]

Grayhaven: You're not derailing anything, and this isn't my forum (see below for that!). But I'll point out that it's the duty of patriotic Americans to voice their dissent when their government is acting in ways they believe are wrong -- and not just every two years at the ballot box.

I think if you'll read my article carefully, at no point do I say that Bush is morally worse than terrorists -- just that, at this point, he's aggravating the threat to me. The British people agree, overwhelmingly: A poll just released shows that 32% of them believe the U.S. is the greatest threat to world peace, followed by 27% for North Korea and 23% for Iraq. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/11/british.survey/index.html ) These are our closest allies.

As for "stay out of our way while the President and our true heroes go on and defend your way of life," until recently the military -- including Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf -- opposed an invasion of Iraq. It's only under recent pressure from the administration that they've changed their tune. The military will follow orders; that's their nature, and their job. That doesn't mean those orders are right.

Best,
Stuart

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by MattBrady:
<strong>While Fox and CNN have gone out of their way to demonize him, William Rivers Pitt's book, War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know features a large interview with Scott Ritter, and he has the time and space to explain what he's been trying to say before Paula, Connie, and the Foxheads cut him off.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">While Ritter is easily the most palatable of the ex-weapons inspectors, and seems to be the only one not in someone's pocket (unlike Richard Friggin' Butler), he does appear to be something of an opportunist, so I'd advise a certain amount of healthy skepticism regarding his pronouncements as well.

- Elayne

[MattBrady]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Elayne Riggs:
<strong>[QUOTE]While Ritter is easily the most palatable of the ex-weapons inspectors, and seems to be the only one not in someone's pocket (unlike Richard Friggin' Butler), he does appear to be something of an opportunist, so I'd advise a certain amount of healthy skepticism regarding his pronouncements as well.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I treat everything with a healthy does of skepticism, but so far, even including Powell's presentation, Ritter is the only one who's taking the time to explain everything and put it in persepctive with the larger picture, without invoking God or labeling entire cultures, countries or religions as "evil."

Like I said, Ritter is the one who's asking questions that no one in the media is, like why bin Laden would accept anything from Hussein, when, as said above, Hussein has persecuted fundamentalist Islams, and bin Laden is all about the fundamentals.

Ritter also pointed out the danger Hussein would face if he helped any of the fundamentalist groups - they would use the resources he gave them on him. It's the US and the "Afghanistan freedom fighters" all over again, and we all know how well that turned out.

Not that I'm completely discounting what Powell is claiming, but it doesn't make sense. It's as if Powell went out and said that cats and dogs have formed an alliance against birds - and everyone went, "cats and dogs, working together. okay - I beleive him...because he's Colin Powell."

but yeah, I've wondered if Ritter has larger plans beyond this, but after the hatchet job the press has done on him (on Greta's show, they brought him on for a discussion, but within five minutes turned it into a grilling, and had a graphic with one of his quotes on the screen that Greta demanded he defend (which he does in the book) - suggesting to me, given the readiness of the graphic, that this attack was planned all along) if anyone would vote for him if he ran for anything above dog catcher in his hometown.

As for Butler, he goes after him in the book, and backs everything up with facts - including the '98 bombing and how it was pretty much coordinated and manufactured by Clinton and Butler.

and then, this:

<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0211-04.htm" target="_blank">http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0211-04.htm</a>

is an interesting look at Powell's report, including the fact that one of the "chemical factories" he identified from satellite photos isn't even in lands controlled by Hussein, but by Kurds, and German intelligence refuting Powell's named Al-Qaeda-Iraq link...among other things.

And then there were these eggheads over here...

<a href="http://www.fourthfreedom.org/php/t-si-index.php?hinc=dossier_report.hinc" target="_blank">http://www.fourthfreedom.org/php/t-si-index.php?hinc=dossier_report.hinc</a>

that show the Iraqi military budget to have been about $6 yearly for the entire decade of the '90s, and how several of the things that now have the hawks frothing at the mouth are things we helped the Iraqis put into place when they were fighting Iran, but they haven't used since the Gulf War...such as Rumsfeld's "underground labs"...

MattB

[Julio Diaz]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by pickard:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Julio Diaz:
<strong>Ignore the right-wing reactionaries, Stuart. This is a great, powerful column and I appreciate your thoughts. I'm always amazed that the public can't see through the screen of lies and treachery.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anyone with a single viewpoint in concert with the right wing of the Republican party is a "right-wing reactionary".

You can't support enforcement of the UN resolutions on Iraqui disarmament and inspections and also support a woman's right to choose.

You can't support a tightening of our immigration policies and favor increasing education funding.

Everyone has to be pigeonholed into a role you can easily dismiss. Right?

Even if the board is full of "right-wing reactionaries", that doesn't mean that they can't make logical arguments on this issue. Or is logic and reason the sole property of "liberal extremists" like Stuart.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nope. Didn't say any of that.

I'm open to logical arguments on this and any issue. I just haven't seen them on this topic here today, other than Stuart's essay. I wouldn't call him a "liberal extremist," I'd call him a realist.

Heck, people call Martin Sheen a "liberal extremist," too, conveniently overlooking the fact that he's "pro-life."

I didn't mean to sound dismissive of all "conservatives," but I did mean to sound dismissive of the knee-jerk "love it or leave it" mentality, of the people that can't see that all this impending "war" is about is oil and making the rich richer (if it were about our national security, we'd be focusing on North Korea or on Al-Quida, as we should be).

If you can come up with a reasonable argument for why we need to go into Iraq right now, I'll listen. But given that the Bush Administration can't do it, I don't give anyone else much hope.

[gOgIver]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
<strong>And my favorite response so far: "To his credit, he did manage to get Daredevil shipping on a regular schedule." I'm going off now to get that carved on my tombstone.

Best to everyone,
Stuart</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey Mom, I wrote the inscription for a former Marvel Comics editors' tombstone today!
:)

[gOgIver]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Nick Borelli:
<strong>My question is why did Magneto seem to care about the fall of the towers in Spiderman #36?
Doesn't he want to kill all the humans?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ultimate Magneto is much, much meaner :mad:

[Stuart Moore]

"It's as if Powell went out and said that cats and dogs have formed an alliance against birds - and everyone went, "cats and dogs, working together. okay - I beleive him...because he's Colin Powell.""

Matt, you've got to write that op-ed piece I told you to!

To prove I do read THE NEW YORKER once in a while, here's a quote from a Hendrik Hertzberg piece in this week's Talk of the Town:

"The other day, Secretary of State Colin Powell was reminded that his boss is in bed by ten and sleeps like a baby. Powell reported replied, 'I sleep like a baby, too -- every two hours I wake up screaming.'"

Best,
Stuart

[pickard]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Julio Diaz:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by pickard:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Julio Diaz:
<strong>Ignore the right-wing reactionaries, Stuart. This is a great, powerful column and I appreciate your thoughts. I'm always amazed that the public can't see through the screen of lies and treachery.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anyone with a single viewpoint in concert with the right wing of the Republican party is a "right-wing reactionary".

You can't support enforcement of the UN resolutions on Iraqui disarmament and inspections and also support a woman's right to choose.

You can't support a tightening of our immigration policies and favor increasing education funding.

Everyone has to be pigeonholed into a role you can easily dismiss. Right?

Even if the board is full of "right-wing reactionaries", that doesn't mean that they can't make logical arguments on this issue. Or is logic and reason the sole property of "liberal extremists" like Stuart.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nope. Didn't say any of that.

I'm open to logical arguments on this and any issue. I just haven't seen them on this topic here today, other than Stuart's essay. I wouldn't call him a "liberal extremist," I'd call him a realist.

Heck, people call Martin Sheen a "liberal extremist," too, conveniently overlooking the fact that he's "pro-life."

I didn't mean to sound dismissive of all "conservatives," but I did mean to sound dismissive of the knee-jerk "love it or leave it" mentality, of the people that can't see that all this impending "war" is about is oil and making the rich richer (if it were about our national security, we'd be focusing on North Korea or on Al-Quida, as we should be).

If you can come up with a reasonable argument for why we need to go into Iraq right now, I'll listen. But given that the Bush Administration can't do it, I don't give anyone else much hope.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Julio,
I admire that about Sheen. Too many Catholic liberals are so lock-step in line with the party that they ignore the teachings of their faith, IMHO.
I'm not pro-life, but I've never understood how good catholics can be pro-choice. Religion, especially the Catholic religion, is not a buffet where you get to choose which part of the church's teachings you're going to accept.

That being said, it's one of the few things I admire about Sheen outside of his acting skill. His "moron" comment went too far and crossed the line between dissent and rudeness.

[hy23glic]

....i am amazed how minds who consider themselves well
informed and wll read are filled with the usual knee jerk
reactionism posted by all of the post 11 september rhetoric
served up by an obvious propogandarist media drunk on
rating points and powered by the high corporate dollars
and swagger....

thus to tank abbot and his overkill in killing them because
they struck and killed us first:

ronald reagan negotiated the release of the hostages weeks
before his 'assured' victory as our two-term president of
the loathsome eighties by giving arms and monies to the
nation of iran: for the short term memory sufferers then --
under the presidency of jimmy carter the american embassy
was seized by the s0-called religiou extremists who rose
against the shah of iran (..put into power by american dollars and cents and was a violator of human rights against
the peoples of iran...) and did not want american influence
in their country (..gee -- i would why..):

..the s0-called extremists, as dubbed by the media, held
american hostages for over a year and in spite of then
president jimmy carter's attempts to resolve the situation
peaceful.... and while his administration was slammed by
the triple attack of double digit inflation: double digit
unemployment: double digit interest rates on loans: the
republicians launched former governor of california and b-
rated movie actor ronald 'bedtime for bonzo' reagan into the
political race for presidency against the incumbent carter
beseiged by bad economic times home and a very sticky
situation in iran with the american hostages held by the
religious extremists (..dubbed by the media...) in iran in
the american embassy...

and while mr. reagan spoke about his tough foreign policy
against any and all acts of terrorism -- he was secretly
negotiating with these s0-called extremists to release
the hostages in iran by giving them weapons of mass
destruction and monies to fund further purchase of weapons of mass destruction to these s0-dubbed extremists.....

following so far mr. tank.....

.....now with ronald reagan installed into the white house:
and with his creation of a truly terrorist nation state in
iran -- the brain trust of the reagan administration had to
hedge their bets now and contain the beast which they had
create:

enters the nation state of iraq: who had been fighting against the nation state of iraq for many years... going back
to the mid to late sixties: and the man called saddam hussein would be the next receipent for weapons of mass
destruction and monies under agricultural funds given to
the nation state of iraq to sit on iran given iraq's hatred and
battles against iran:

...now mr. tank we have a developing situation: under the
reagan admininstration who was attempting to gain a foot
hold in the middle east region because of the oil the oil and
did i say the oil and also because of the military positioning
of troops in the region (...hence the early stages of poppa
bush's 'new world order' regime...) of the world (..at this
point mr. tank i would suggest taking a breather and do
duly research with a simple map of the world to understand
the military positionings now secured under the bush 2
regime of lies and deception...).

furthermore: the nation state of iraq also received great
preferential treatment from the cia which at the time was
being overseen by donald 'donny' rumsfeldt under the
reagan admininstration and if you have done any television
watching mr. tank you have seen donny shaking hands with
the dreaded bad guy called saddam husssein when donny
personally oversaw weapons of mass destruction and their
'proper' useage program with iraq to watch over those
deadly religious extremists in iran led by that bad dangerous man the ayllotah khommeni (...exiled by the shah
of iran who considered the ayllotah khommeni a threat to
his brutual reign of terror and torture....) --

..to interject here: the reports of saddam hussein being a
supporter of the dreaded al-qadea are false since saddam
do not back any isalmic factions of any type because he
sees them as unstable elements that bring about troubles
against his own reign a la the shah of iran who was backed
by u.s. government policies mr. tank and soon overthrown
by those dangerous religious extremists once more dubbed
s0 by the media...

and while the reagan administration sold arms to iran --
what would be called the iran-contra affair which saw
oliver 'ollie' north rise into the attention of the public for
his staunch support of secret weapons of mass destruction
sold to iran and to the contras in el salvador who wanted
to destroy the democratic system in el salvador who was
not willing to play footsy with washington and the reagan
administration --- and fought the 'evil empire' ( ... a term
that would be co-oped by bush 2 into 'axis of evil'...) of
russia in an arms race which led to the dissolution of not
only russia but would also create that uber-nation called
north korea (...to explain this mr. tank -- by destroying
the s0-called evil empire of russia: russian scientists became free agents to the highest bidder willing to pay the
price for their knowledge of nuclear weapons and nuclear
weapons of mass destruction....): saddam hussein would
soon launch an attack against kuwait for two reasons:

1) kuwait was slant drilling into iraq's oil fields
2) kuwait represents an ally to whore dog israel

whore dog israel - who received 16 billion dollars from
the united states last year to support their own weapons
of mass destruction and their ongoing slaughter of the
palestine peoples... - remains a hated enemy by saddam
hussein who supports the right of the palestine people's
claim to live in israel as a soverign people on the gaza strip
while ariel sharon wants the gaza strip as lands to be used
to further economic policies (...the shared values of bush 2
and his mad hard-on for oil and military occupation of iraq
and the middle east..) and who suffered an attack on iraq's
nuclear arms facilities (..once more mr. tank -- a result of
the dissolution of that evil empire called russia who by the
way mr. tank never was a threat to america at all, and when russia attempted to invade afghanistan mr. tank --
the rebels under a certain osama bin laden received billions
of dollars and aged weapons of mass destruction from the
united states and from the cia under donald 'donny' rumsfeldt because of the reagan administration's fear that
russia that s0-called evil empire would gain a stronger
foothold in the middle east and thus more oil than the united states....) from the airplanes and figher jets given
to israel through the kind monies of the united states
government:

..therefore mr. tank -- the infamous gulf war used by poppa
bush to further his wimpy persona as a soft president with
no balls and also to secure those great oil fields of iraq:
the excuse being saddam hussein was a bad bad man who
did bad mean things to his own peoples and would therefore
create a sad situation in the wealthy oil country of kuwait
an ally to israel and a friend to poppa bush's interest in...
yes mr. tank oil oil oil and did i already mention.. oil.....

and poppa bush went into iraq with troops:
and saddam hussein (..like former cia man norreiga of
panama....) feeling betrayed and bitch slapped by poppa
bush who also negotiated with iraq and donald 'donny'
rumsfeldt that sweet deal of agriculture monies to iraq
to help them receive weapons of mass destruction from
the united states during the reagan administration, burned
his oil fields and attempted to throw missles and bombs
given to him by u.s. intelligence (...the cia mr. tank..) and
those agriculture monies at israel for their attack upon
iraq's nuclear facilities (...helped built by those misplaced
russian scientists usurped by the reagan administration's
gamble to bankrupt the 'evil empire' by orchestrating a
drawn out and overly funded arms race program that would
create the great 'star wars' initative program of deterence
by placing killer satelites in orbit to shoot down any weapons of nuclear mass destruction from that evil empire
called russia....

..need to take a drink mr. tank -- gee real knowledge seems
so much different from watching tv around the clock .....

the gulf war would call upon a sanction ordered by the
other whore dog called the united nations onto iraq that
would cause the death of over half a million children in
iraq and the damages done to iraq's intrastructure from
the infamous and ultimately useless gulf war (.. a war
carefully orchestrated by poppa bush and members of
the kuwait government to given poor old oil rich kuwait
some protection against big bad saddam hussein: and of
course because kuwait represents an important ally to
whore dog nation state israel...) that saw saddam hussein
not overthrown but given a bitch slap by the government
who gave him monies for weapons of mass destructions
to bitch slap iran who represented a threat to the region
of the middle east because of that bad dangerous man
called the ayllotah khommeni mr. tank......

but long dead and long defanged: iran no longer posed any
'threat' but like iraq mr. tank was used to create a reason
for u.s. involvement in the affairs of other nation states
in particular the middle east due to their vast oils (..and by
the way mr. tank: the saudi investors of american stock
markets have withdrawn to date over a trillion dollars of
monies in protest against bush 2's lunacy and utter stupidity
in invading iraq once more....):

..oil represents the new black gold in the old power structures of bush 2's current regime harkening back to
the days of joe mcarthy mr. tank and the s0-called 'read
scare'....

and while israel continues to slaughter the palenstines:
and while saddam continues to hate israel and as his own
country suffers from whore dog the united nations sanctions on iraq for their 'act of aggression' against kuwait
there lies the faction of rebels who fought the evil empire
in afghanistan led by that bright young mind of osma bin
laden who like saddam hussein received weapons of mass
destruction albeit aged and ancient to defend that region
of afghanistan which represents the foot step between
the great 'evil empire' dubbed by the reagan administration
and the valuable oil fields/military positioning of the middle
east......

and with his monies and weapons gained from the cia and
the united states: and with the training and monies received
from the cia under the watchful eyes of former cia head
donald 'donny' rumsfeldt: and with his own hatred of the
whore dog nation state israel and the wholesale slaughter
of the palenstine peoples by israel using monies and weapons of mass destruction given to israel by the united
states government (....meaning mr. tank -- your monies
as a tax payer...): a birght and alluring man named osam
bin laden launches the infamous attack upon the twin
towers in new york city on 11 september 2001 killing many
peoples and devastating the psyche of new york city....

the same devastation visited daily on the palenstines in
israel as part of that nation state's slow meticulous program of genocide:

the same devastation funded by u.s. dollars each year to
israel -- a much hated arabic nation state...

and u.s. policies that have extended to terror regimes in
cambodia (...pol pot...) and other nations of death continues
to silently back despots in the name of power and monies
and military positions (..cambodia + pol pot = 3 million of
his own peoples exterminated while the u.s. turned their
heads and ears and eyes so that they had a military position
during the early seventies under the nixion administration
mr. tank....)....

now with all of this said mr. tank --- and with what mr.
moore has brilliant illuminated: don't you think you should
turn of your television and do some real required reading
insteading of letting your mind remain... in the dark.....

[Tank Abbot]

hy23glic,
That would be Mr. Abbot. No, I'm not following you, because I was too bored by the second paragraph of your stream of conciousness typing. Must be because I have a short attention span, with all that tv I watch.
I did catch the part about the oil oil and yes you said oil. But you're probably one of those people who doesn't want the U.S. to be able to drill it's own oil supply. So we can't get it elsewhere because it's bad, we can't get it here, because that would be bad. Do you take a horse and carriage to work, Mr. hy23glic?

[Craig K]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by GrayHaven:
<strong>As far as the Revolutionary War goes...come on. How many times is the Revolutionary War going to be brought up in relation to people's right to challenge the government.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I'll admit everything takes place within its own time and its own circumstances, but I find it highly ironic that we live in a country that came about people people question their leaders, a country whose core tenaments--the Constitution and the BIll of Rights--were created to give the people the ability to challenge and question their leaders; and yet here you are advocating the exact opposite of the very principles our country was founded on. If we continue to celebrate America's independance every 4th of July, why not continue to celebrate the ideas and actions that caused that liberation to occur?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>
The argument is like the 'last resort' method people use to try and defend statements they know are inflamatory.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Depends on what you consider inflammatory. To say "We have a right, even a duty, to question and protest the decisions of our leaders" doesn't sound as inflammatory as say "We have a right to kill our leaders, burn down the White House, and have a kegger when were done." If you find the two equally outrageous, or even complimentary, then I think there's a greater issue at stake than the validity of points raised during a discussion.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> But okay, if everyone really thinks what President Bush and company are doing is wrong, then revolt. Start a new revolution, gather up the militia and storm Washington and usher in a new era of government. If in your hearts, you compare the attitudes of Bush and military bashes to those who rebelled against the English centuries ago, then go on with your revolution. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OK, take a step back and breathe. Inhale. Exhale. Inhale, exhale.

Good. Now, re-read what I wrote. Did I say we need to revolt? Did I say we need to overthrow our government?

No, I did not. What I said was the American Revolution (and all its consequences) came about because people QUESTIONED and PROTESTED. In fact, what I said was:

"The United States of America was founded by a group of men protesting against their government. In doing so, they revolutionized the world.

. . .

Protesting--questioning leaders, challenging government--is as American as Apple Pie and Baseball. To disagree, openly, pubicly, loudly, against those in power is the greatest freedom we have in this country,"

I said one needed to question and to protest. I said the founding of the USA revolutionized the world. That you took my call for protest to mean "overthrow the government" is your doing, not mine. I don't like our current administration but I'm not about to kill anyone in government or burn down the White House because of it.

"Protest" does NOT equal "revolution". I did not say they were, and you make a mistake to think they are.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>
But if you're not willing to stand by your convictions and go that far, please be quiet and stay out of our way while the President and our true heroes go on and defend your way of life, because all you're really doing is bitching.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Firstly, considering I am voicing my opinion, I think I am standing by my convicitions, thank you very much. Daring me to overthrow the government--something I have no intrest or convicition in-- does nothing but come across as condescending and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Secondly, considering I feel my "way of life" is to question my leaders when I feel they are acting wrongly--to take advantage of the very freedoms so many have died to defend--then wouldn't it be insulting to the memory of those who died NOT to utilize them?

Thirdly, I'd like to suggest that think twice before you throw around terms like "true hero". A guy named Niles Bohr once said: "the opposite of a true statement is a false one, but the opposite of a profound truth is another profound truth". Just because you consider one type of person to be a true hero does not automatically negate someone else from being the same, just because their point of view is in opposition to your own.

[Storm]

Thank you Stuart for a well-written and well-thought out response to timely events. I enjoyed how you wove together the "real" life with the "colorful" world of comics in a tapestry of enlightened thought.

Storm

[Wolverine]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Tank Abbot:
[QB]This country has an obligation to seek out its enemiesQB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">perhaps they do but the USA has got absolutly no justification to attack a country that while it may have weapons does not pose any sort of threat to you. They have no facilities to lauch weapons from and they have no defence against you. you say that it has an obligation to seek out its enemies but now you send your troops in by the tens of thousands and surround Iraq but then if they tried to defend itself from attack America would cry "we are under attack we must fight back. The USA has got absolutly NO obligation to seek out its enemies. Iraq does not pose any threat. Korea is threatening to nuke America and they are ignored. Their is no real justification First it was " Iraq is harbouring terrorists" then its " Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" They have neither. The war is not Just!

[hjcho]

Wow, no shortage of opinions here. Glad to see comic readers are largely up to date on current events.

So, my question for all those who favor rallying around the president and bombing Iraq is this: North Korea is firing up its reactors and has already field tested an intercontinental delivery system. They could easily hit any number of major cities with severe political and economic consequences. We're negotiating a "diplomatic solution" there but are not "ruling out any option."

Iraq most likely has some sort of nuclear and/ or biochemical weapons program, but no evidence has thus far surfaced. In all probability, they do not have strike capabilities yet, even though they are probably trying to hide their efforts. It is unclear if they have any delivery system other than dumping mustard gas from helicopters above Kurd villages. There is no concrete evidence that ties the Iraqi government to 9/11, the Cole bombing, or any of the embassy attacks. The president wants to go charging in with a pre-emptive strike.

So, ask yourself, "Why does North Korea, one of the Axis of Evil countries, get preferential treatment over Iraq, one of the other Axis of Evil countries? What is it about Iraq that makes it a target, and not North Korea?"

It has been reported in the media that even Colin Powell is more concerned about North Korea than Iraq, and that he has expressed as much in private with the president. It is obvious that a pre-emptive strike is in the president's agenda, and I would speculate that it boils down to a few key points: 1. Iraq has poor defense capabilities and we could kick their ass. 2. He wants the wartime rally to draw attention away from the economy tanking. 3. North Korea is similarly poorly equipped to deal with the American military but has launch capacity and may be able to mount a counterstrike (conventional or otherwise) before being overrun.

I'm all for sanctions on Iraq. The oil-for-aid deal obviously failed, and Saddam has no qulams about defying UN resolutions. Put a lid on him, starve him out, get tough, but don't use war as a tool of domestic policy. If there is any arena that requires serious consideration for pre-emptive strikes, it is in Asia, not the Middle East.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[Justin M. Campbell]

I miss the Monroe Doctrine

[Michael]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DasKlein83:
We have the moral authroity because we say we do. We make moral judgements on others because that is our nature as human beings. We judge and decided and we have found Iraq and the Islamic world to be a threat. And yes, I would certainly call any country with an Anit-American agenda that is trying to develop nuclear arms a threat.
[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just because we have the ability to make a judgment does not give us the right to act on it. We are not the moral arbitrator of the world.

Although I certainly suspect Saddam would love to, if able, develop nuclear weapons, nobody has shown that he has. If I concede that he actually has some secreted away, I doubt they could ever reach us. Missles from Iraq are no threat. Missles from North Korea, who we are completely ignoring, are. And saying that somebody is Anti-American is not a basis to invade their country. I am certainly no fan of Saddam, but quite frankly there are people out there that are Anti-Michael and probably able to beat me up or go buy a gun and shoot me with it, but I don't get the right to pre-emptively shoot them first because they might do the same to me.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>And you've met muslims. Good for you. Those are muslims that live in the United States and have embraced a secular life style. Go to Palestine, Lybia, Iran and Iraq and you will see firsthand how primitive and violent the average joe is. I know this is the antithesis of political corectness, but I feel it has to be said. Islam has not matured as a religion like Judeaism and Christianity is. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And so we throw in cajoling just for good measure. No, the Muslims I know have NOT embraced a secular life style - they are HIGHLY religious and devout people. Thank you for describing my friends, co-workers, and aquaintances to me.

And screw PC, I could care less about it, but dammit, Muslims and Arabs (not the same people necessarily) are not some proto-humans that need our great superior moral and cultural help and guidance. people still commit atrocities in the name of every single religion out there, even Judaism and Christianity.

[amorphis]

Good God...
And here I was thinking most comic fans are perceptive and open minded. So far, almost all the posts here have one thing in common: take a quote from someone elses post, attack it by blowing it completely out of context, and ignore the point that is being made. In a two paragraph post, I referred to Bush as being spoiled and coddled. Then someone responds frustrated that all liberals think that being rich makes you evil. But nowhere in my post did I declare I was liberal, or that I thought rich people were inherently evil. I guess it just helps to support another thing I said in my post--" Most people only hear what they want to hear."

[Marcus Ferrell]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">From scorpysue:
In a two paragraph post, I referred to Bush as being spoiled and coddled. Then someone responds frustrated that all liberals think that being rich makes you evil. But nowhere in my post did I declare I was liberal, or that I thought rich people were inherently evil.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Technically you said "rich spoiled coddled upbringing".

Then why point it out, SS? Why does it matter if he's rich or not? I wasn't hearing only what I want to hear, or read in this case, I was perceiving a connection in your argument, i.e., he's rich and therefore that somehow automatically leads to a person's evilness or them making bad policy.

And it doesn't matter if you're liberal or not - that's an argument I ALWAYS hear from Democrats about any Republicans - they only care about the rich because they're rich. Absurdity.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">From scorpysue:
I'm possitive that anyone who supports or loves Bush is simply not well informed.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And you're calling Republicans closed-minded? Maybe they simply have another point of view. Many Repubs thought the same of Dems back in the Clinton era.

[Bill Lange]

Hi,

I kinda like the message I see in a lot of these post.
If you want something, just kill'em and take it.
I can get behind that. Let's get the Saudi's stuff next.

Bill Lange

[Zonker]

What an odd, spiteful installment.

I'll not wade into the pages of no-doubt flames (on both sides of the debate) that have already followed. But consider: Maybe one of the things the Clinton Administration could have done with a bit more diligence was going after bin Laden with the full power of the US Armed Forces prior to 9/11. (Instead of ineffectually lobbing a few Cruise missiles in the desert).

And that's the best argument for the pro-active liberation of Iraq: In the nuclear age, absorbing a first strike and then responding as we did in Afganistan will carry a very high cost indeed.

Regards,
Z.

[Your pal, Jim]

Anybody read any good comics lately?

[eleven11]

magneto didn't care, he was just rendered that way.

why do you guys take what each person types down so serious???

[amorphis]

I didn't expect anyone to prove my point so quickly. Thanks Marcus. Here--just to make you happy--
ALL RICH PEOPLE ARE EVIL!!! REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES ARE EVIL!! GEORGE BUSH IS EVIL--BOTH OF THEM!! ALL REPUBLICANS ARE CLOSED-MINDED DRONES!!
There you go--quotes you wont be able to misinterpret or put your own spin on?
Love ya

[Michael]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by KingStalin:
<strong>I think you should all shut up and go do something about your stance on this. Go to antiwar rallies or peace rallies if you want. Don't sit here and argue with fellow comic fans. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So is it okay if, in my free time, I post on this board? I can't be at rallies all day. I have to goof off at work sometime. :)

Posting here doesn't preclude me from acting on my beliefs at other times. Why are you posting here arguing with fellow comic fans if it's such a waste of time?

[can1]

Jim

I reread Happy Endings last night. Damn snappy book.

[Fourthman]

Thanks Stuart, for the article. I used to work about 2 blocks from the Towers and I missed being under them (for the first crash - I'm not going to kid myself, I would never have been in any real danger that morning) by about 15 minutes. It's been a hard time getting back to some semblance of a positive reality. Neither the extreme right nor the extreme left is are places where I can take solace since, although one is certainly much more prevalent than the other. But I don't want to start flame war 2; it's not my point.
My point is this. The world that we in NYC and the USA knew became a lot more fragile on that day. I don't want war, but I don't want Hussein either. I just want to fear a little less, I just want to feel like all the talk we're doing is going towards something non partisan and constructive rather than destructive - I don't care which side sponsors/suggests it. Anyway, that's what I got out of your article, please flame this or tear me apart, I don't care. This is for Stuart; I wish you peace.

[hy23glic]

to mr. tank (abbot):

...to mainstream this for your attention span:

when hidden agendas are done not in the name of the people of the united states but in the name of money
and power and the further violations of basic human
rights -- then what happened in new york city on 11
september 2001 will occur once more:

the true ties to al-quaeda lies in u.s. monies given to that
regime when afghanistan was threatened by russia during
the reagan administration -- american imperialism can be
traced by to 1953 when the shah of iran was placed into
power by u.s. forces and hidden monies....

when any president practises this kind of foreign policy:
the overthrow of governments to bring about interests of
dollars and cents and not real change but the status quo --
then that leader becomes a detriment to this nation and
its people (...as witnessed in the vietnam war: a s0-called
police action that saw young men killed for no reason and
saw those who did survived deeply scarred..):

bush 2 has nothing to justify his actions against iraq -- but
he does have a legacy of lies and dangerous deceptions to
uphold as ronald reagan did during the iran-contra affair
of giving weapons and monies to s0-called religious
extremists.....

as for as this overblown hype about oil shortages: pop
ecologists who tout such claims are most ignorant of
alternative fuel sources currently being used in prototype
vechiles and other working theories of non-oil alternatives:

i would highly recommend more reading and less believing
what the media tells you to think..... learn to see and read
between the lines mr. tank (abbot)

[Conor Kilpatrick]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by MattBrady:
<strong>Unfortunately, like most of Ritter's interviews and book, it's been massively underordered/ignored by the chains, so it's hard to find, but it's a quick read if you can, and only runs $9. I'd recommend it, if for nothing else, to offer a different viewpoint on what, so far has been a pretty one-sided presentation to the American people.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893956385/qid=1044990100/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-7456298-4559253?v=glance&s=books&n=507846" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de tail/-/1893956385/qid=1044990100/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-7456298-4559253?v=glance&s=books&n=507846</a>

MattB</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks, for the recommendation, Matt. I ordered myself a copy. Which I really shouldn't have done because I don't have a job. But, hey, tax cuts are coming. Right?

[Michael C Lorah]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">the fact that people think Bush is being all 'gung-ho' about this is rediculous, he has been giving Iraq EVERY possible chance to show that they do not have WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that is in violation of a treaty they signed years back (They are breaking that treaty - officially sanctioned by the UN)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It seems to me that Bush has wanted to go in for several months now and only lack of UN backing or cooperation has prevented him from doing so.

The main thing about Bush that has scared me virtually since he took office, and continues to do so several years later, is how quickly he seems to find international crises to get enraged over.
I thought he was going to start a war with China over that stupid spy plane incident (which is kinda like getting caught peeping into a girl's room and then acting like it's her fault when you get caught).
But Sept 11th derailed that and started a real war.
Now Iraq, with Korea waiting in the wings.

Maybe we should target Vietnam next, just to make up for all our blatant military screw-ups of the past 50 years.

I agree with a friend of mine, Iraq is trouble, Hussein is bad news. His human rights abuses are intolerable. That is a reason to go in and stop him. Weapons production is something that can be dealt with economically and politically. But if anybody goes in to stop him, there has to be a clear objective, a clear plan for the aftermath, and it has to be a UN initiative.

I'd like to see Stuart write a political column concerning the things about Bush that REALLY offend me, like "going to war on AIDS" while cutting funding for sex education and other such brilliant homeland policies. I wonder how he sees some of those concerns.

[William Satterwhite]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by MattBrady:
<strong>
Not that I'm completely discounting what Powell is claiming, but it doesn't make sense. It's as if Powell went out and said that cats and dogs have formed an alliance against birds - and everyone went, "cats and dogs, working together. okay - I beleive him...because he's Colin Powell."

MattB</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, cats and dogs working together isn't as implausible and unlikely as you make it out to be.

In 1939, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia entered into an alliance despite the fact that a)the two nations were historical rivals and enemies and b)Russians (Slavs) were the most hated race to the Nazis after the Jews. They formed this alliance because it served a purpose at the time, neither nation had any intention of that alliance lasting long and both knew what was going to happen when that alliance ran it's course. In 1882, Germany, Austria and Italy joined together to form the Triple Alliance despite the fact that Germany and Austria were historical rivals over which nation was preeminent among the Germanic states (they had fought a major war less than 20 years prior) and the fact that Italy and Austria were also historical enemies who had been engaged in fighting since before the rise of Napoleon. Again, these natural, longtime rivals and enemies formed an alliance because it was convienent and necessary at the time. Going back to WW2, the USA and Great Britain both found themselves active allies with Soviet Russia despite the fact that less than 20 years prior, both nations led a coalition to destroy the Soviet Union in it's infancy. I could go on and on, history is full of so called "cats and dogs" playing nice and teaming up for whatever reasons they might have. Just some historical perspective to keep in mind.

[chipmunk]

Since everyone's opinions seem to be flying, I might as well air mine out a little.

1. It's not Bush's fault. This applies to terrorism and the economy in equal measure. Economic cycles and effects are measured in years, not in polls. Terrorists don't need anybody to do anything to them in order to hate. They hate anyway.

2. Prove it. The article (and some of the comments afterward) site an impressive array of figures, but nobody has ever said where they got those figures. If you want me to believe what's being spelled out on here is anything other than rhetoric, then give me unbiased numbers. The RNC and DNC don't count as unbiased by the way.

3. My biggest complaint is this: this is a comic book site. It's about entertainment. It's connected to something we all do for fun and relaxation. Can comic books express serious issues, absolutely. However, the majority of comics (and I'm going to guess that this is because it's what the the majority of comic book readers want comics to be) are escapist fantasy. It seems to me that a column about entertaining escapist fantasy is no place for a huge one-sided political diatribe. If I wanted to read about someone's political views, I'd visit CNN or the New York Times. I wouldn't come to a comic book website.

I can understand that everyone has opinions and given the chance to express them, everyone will be tempted to do so. I'm doing it right now. However, I find using an entertainment site to preach ones political views to be very distasteful, and I have lost some measure of respect for Mr. Moore as a result.

[hy23glic]

...most foreign policies undertaken by the united states
government has never added to the overall quality of the
citizens of foreign concerns:

despots are backed by quiet monies disguised as agriculture
funds (..ergo iraq and saddam hussein...) to fight other s0-
called 'rogue nations' (...ergo iran and the infamous ayllotah
khommeni..) while the massacre in rwandha which murdered
over 2 million peoples and was never intervened by kofi and
the other whore dog call the united nations (...ergo the
united states' bitch dog...) as men and women and children
were slaughtered wholesale....

...and while human rights are the most basic assumption to
know in life (...basic medicine and education provided to all
citizens equally...) -- this concept seems to be constantly
undermined by acts of legislation more concerned with
hidden agendas than the basics of life......

bush 2 reminds me more and more of a man without a real
purpose other than maintaining the crumbling power
structures of old money in the light of the 21st century's
steps into computer software/hardward/programs and
the re-evolution of humanity as we are witnessing:

...how does industrial revolution mentality survives the
new realms of wireless communications: chat rooms:
fuel cells: cloning: and other aspects of 'brave new world'
meets 'bladerunner' danses with 'the matrix'.....

bush 2 represents the dying gasp of the good old boy
network where men were white: women was kept in
their place: blacks were made to obey jim crow laws:
gays and lesbians not heard from at all: the poor kept
poor and plentiful for cheap labor: and conformity was
the god to worship.....

....this makes bush 2 as ineptly dangerous as poppa bush
was in his time....

[Todd VerBeek]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Tank Abbot:
<strong>I guarantee Captain America wouldn't be a democrat.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It may surprise you to learn that the America that Captain American was created to represent, the America that was helping to defend the world from fascism in Europe and imperialism in the Pacific, was in fact very Democratic. Not only did it repeatedly elect a very liberal (some would even say socialist) Democrat to the presidency, the Congress was about 2/3 Democratic... with labor/progressive parties represented as well. Republicans (who were generally more moderate in those days, and even supported public works programs) were respected as the loyal and patriotic opposition, but the archetypal patriot of the 1940's was a left-leaning Democrat. So it stands to reason that Captain America would be as well.

It wasn't until after WWII, when leftist Communism emerged as the greatest threat to American influence overseas, an army general ran as the GOP nominee for president, and Cap was put on ice, that the military came to be associated with the more conservative Republican party.

In any case, I would hope that people of whatever political identity would give Moore's comments some critical consideration, rather than just applauding them because you're a Democrat or pro-peace or hate the Bush, or denouncing them because you're a Republican or pro-war or like George W.

[hy23glic]

3. My biggest complaint is this: this is a comic book site. It's about entertainment. It's connected to something we all do for fun and relaxation. Can comic books express serious issues, absolutely. However, the majority of comics (and I'm going to guess that this is because it's what the the majority of comic book readers want comics to be) are escapist fantasy. It seems to me that a column about entertaining escapist fantasy is no place for a huge one-sided political diatribe. If I wanted to read about someone's political views, I'd visit CNN or the New York Times. I wouldn't come to a comic book website.

I can understand that everyone has opinions and given the chance to express them, everyone will be tempted to do so. I'm doing it right now. However, I find using an entertainment site to preach ones political views to be very distasteful, and I have lost some measure of respect for Mr. Moore as a result.[/QB][/QUOTE]

..totally biased:

i respect staurt moore's thoughts --as a writer he has a
allegiance not to the masses but his own conscience and
his own will...

nothing remains in a vaccum -- escapist fantasy amounts
to jacking off: fine for a short term but then one would
hopeful desire a connection with another individual....

i personal want my 'entertainers' to express their thoughts
on a level that has nothing to do with kissing ass public relations methods to make the 'stars' look good before
the masses.... like the great jim brow, and muhammad ali
i want my 'entertainers' to have substance and to have
depth and to have balls....

if you want pure 'entainment' then perhaps you should
consider becoming a britney spears groupie....

stuart: continue to press on and fight always your fight.

[Taylor Porter]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Todd VerBeek:
<strong> It may surprise you to learn that the America that Captain American was created to represent....was in fact very Democratic.It wasn't until after WWII, when ... an army general ran as the GOP nominee for president, and Cap was put on ice....
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Good points. I'd never really thought about that. When you said this, I also realized that Cap wasn't thawed out until another Democrat, JFK, was put in office.

[MattBrady]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Conor Kilpatrick:
<strong>[QUOTE]I really shouldn't have done because I don't have a job.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I wouldn't worry about that as much as the Department of Truth and Ministry of Homeland Security acting with Patriot Act, and subpoening the Amazon.com sales records to see who bought the book. :) We'll have our own special section in the camps!

MattB

[MattBrady]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by William Satterwhite:
<strong>[QUOTE]I could go on and on, history is full of so called "cats and dogs" playing nice and teaming up for whatever reasons they might have. Just some historical perspective to keep in mind.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sure, and I won't argue 'em, but the majority of the strange bedfellows are from politically and culturally differnt viewpoints, not based on their interpretations of religion - fundamentalists vs. secular schhols of thought. Historically, those are even far stranger bedfellows, especially when one has a history of persecuting the other.

Not saying it's absolutley not possible, but a whole lotta improbable, especially given the holes the non-American media and other intelligence services are poking in the "connection" between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Link was above somewhere...the Four Freedoms one.

MattB

[KingStalin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Michael:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by KingStalin:
<strong>I think you should all shut up and go do something about your stance on this. Go to antiwar rallies or peace rallies if you want. Don't sit here and argue with fellow comic fans. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So is it okay if, in my free time, I post on this board? I can't be at rallies all day. I have to goof off at work sometime. :)

Posting here doesn't preclude me from acting on my beliefs at other times. Why are you posting here arguing with fellow comic fans if it's such a waste of time?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I diodn't mean the casual post, and i know this is fun. I meant the people posting like every 30 seconds and seem to be high pissed or motivated by someone. Basically don't use your passion to attack fellow uisers but to make a differnce. sorry mike :) does that clear it up?

[chipmunk]

<Quote>

nothing remains in a vaccum -- escapist fantasy amounts
to jacking off: fine for a short term but then one would
hopeful desire a connection with another individual....

i personal want my 'entertainers' to express their thoughts
on a level that has nothing to do with kissing ass public relations methods to make the 'stars' look good before
the masses.... like the great jim brow, and muhammad ali
i want my 'entertainers' to have substance and to have
depth and to have balls....

if you want pure 'entainment' then perhaps you should
consider becoming a britney spears groupie....

<End Quote>

I agree that entertainers who have "substance" are a good thing. However, I think there's a time and place for public debate on political issues for everyone. I support programs that allow everyone to voice their opinions to an audience interested in listening to political discourse.

I simply maintain that comics newsarama is not such a forum. In particular it's not such a forum because there's no equally-treated other side. Is there going to be a Republican-biased editiorial tomorrow? No.

When there's debate over comics-related issues, newsarama does a great job IMHO of being unbiased. It let both Peter David and Bill Jemas debate the merits of a Captain Marvel price hike. It let everyone else affected, associated, or just interested professionally give their thoughts. That's fair, unbiased discourse about comics and I think it belongs here.

In this case, a left-winger got to take some shots. There's not going to be a right-winger taking shots in response on equal time. This forum isn't set up for that. Hence, I don't feel personally that it's an appropriate political debate arena.

Also, while I enjoy a good debate over just about anything, I think the Britney comment was hitting below the belt. Personal insults are never constructive. In my opinion, personal insults only serve to undermine the merits of any other opinions expressed. Your other opinions are well-stated, but I really didn't appreciate that comment.

[Conor Kilpatrick]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by MattBrady:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Conor Kilpatrick:
<strong>[QUOTE]I really shouldn't have done because I don't have a job.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I wouldn't worry about that as much as the Department of Truth and Ministry of Homeland Security acting with Patriot Act, and subpoening the Amazon.com sales records to see who bought the book. :) We'll have our own special section in the camps!

MattB</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, if they serve us three -- no, at this point even two would do -- square meals a day, that might not be so bad.

At least we'll be the well read section.

[OM]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Nick Borelli:
<strong>My question is why did Magneto seem to care about the fall of the towers in Spiderman #36?
Doesn't he want to kill all the humans?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...And Doom. And the Kingpin. Hell, I'm surprised Modok, Quasimodo, Mr. Sinister, the Super Skrull and the Red Skull weren't there having a group hug consoling one another.

[JayQ]

Alrighty, First thing this is only like my first or second post. Id just like to say one thing, and thats I think this war against Iraq, and the war on terrorism, ignores the real problem. Which is basically sustainable development. Basically the gap between the west and the east. Like one quarter of the world, controls the majority of the worlds resources, like 75-85%, while the 75% do not have control, over these resources because of things like colonialism. As a result, environmental problems, terrorism is what happens. I think the war ignores this, and doesnt solve the problem, and basically keeps the cycle going. I agree that if Saddam has WMD's then he should be ousted, but it solves a small problem, not the overall one.

Just my humble opinion :)

[d. emerson eddy]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
<strong>And my favorite response so far: "To his credit, he did manage to get Daredevil shipping on a regular schedule." I'm going off now to get that carved on my tombstone.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Despite being true, I thought that was a backhanded comment/joke in reference to statements like "Even Mussolini made the trains run on time", but maybe I'm assigning too much credit. ;-)

d.

Oh, and some people should research what the States did to the Sudan, just for fun.

[d. emerson eddy]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Michael:
<strong>So, because we perceive a society to be barbaric by our high moral and cultural status, we should try and wipe it out?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just to point out some of the ridiculity of this, on the above standpoint, if we were to operate from it, we Canucks would be fully justified in attacking the US and trying to overthrow Bush. Heh.

Just wanted to add a little levity. ;-)

d.

[Rich Johnston]

In times like this, we must turn to Chris Morris.
Go to <a href="http://www.thesmokehammer.com" target="_blank">www.thesmokehammer.com</a> now...

[d. emerson eddy]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Rich Johnston:
<strong>In time's like this, we must turn to Chris Morris.
Go to <a href="http://www.thesmokehammer.com" target="_blank">www.thesmokehammer.com</a> now...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Heh. Love that, Rich. Thanks. :)

d.

[jharper]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by KingStalin:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by rundownthewayup:
<strong>To make up for Tank Abbott's comments, "You've hit the pin right on the head, Stuart!" War and violence is never the answer. Neither is vengeance. Has anyone noticed that this "President" has yet to even ponder the idea of a PEACEFUL solution; instead of being so gungho on blowing everyone up; and starting WW3. Two years left. Let's hope we're all still here to see him booted out of the office, and someone sane brought in.
Want some more truth? - <a href="http://www.truthout.org" target="_blank">www.truthout.org</a></strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Right and you do remember all the peacful talks in europe in the 40's when england and france just let hitler keep poland and made all kinds of treaties. Peace is great. ....</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Um, no I don't remeber those because they didn't happen. From 1939 to 1945 the UK was at war with Hitler, and France was occupied in the 40's. No-one had peace talks which let Hitler keep Poland. The analogy falls down there.

A far better analogy is the Gulf war, we got Saddam out of Kuwait as soon as feasible, but we didn't get rid of him because we didn't have a mandate. Since then he's been powerless. He needs keeping an eye on but what has he done since the Gulf War to make the situation worse than it was then?

[hjcho]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Rich Johnston:
<strong>In times like this, we must turn to Chris Morris.
Go to <a href="http://www.thesmokehammer.com" target="_blank">www.thesmokehammer.com</a> now...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A ha ha ha... juvenile but very amusing!

[BoyWonder]

My two cents:

Saddam Hussain is a bad guy.
George Bush is a bad guy.
The leaders of the Arab countries are bad guys.
The leaders of Israel are bad guys.

I can't see a decent person anywhere. I believe that Saddam needs to be removed, but I know that the agenda is oil and money, not moral superiority. So lets get rid of Saddam, but who is going to remover Bush from the US, Sharon from Israel, the King of Saudi and all the rest of these very dangerous people? And why the hell has Bin Laden not been caught?

I read previous post about how 'they' started it by attacking the WTC. Well actually all this started around the time the Romans were in Jerusalem. Talking about who started it is actually incredibly infantile and doesn't deal with the core problems. The fundamental problem in the region is between Jews and Muslims with both side believing they must adhere to the will of God and having to control Jerusalem in order to do so. Neither side will give up this fundamental religious belief. The Palestinian/Israeli issue is actually a seperate matter. The resentment in the Muslim world to the U.S. comes from the fact that the Jewish state of Israel only exists because the Americans support it. People like Bin Laden are basically motivated by this and other American policy in the region. The truth is that both sides are incredibly single-minded and the only certainty is that lots of innocent people from both sides always die.

Hopefully I've offended everybody in equal measure.

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by hy23glic:
<strong>thus to tank abbot and his overkill in killing them because they struck and killed us first...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">[history lesson snipped]

You had me at "hello," but lost me with the all-lower-case and "whore dog Israel." Whore dog is, like much of your post, snide opinion rather than fact. If you'd said "apartheid regime" instead that would have been more factually correct. But the entire country is no more a "whore dog" than Britain is (although one could presumably make a case for the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2077598.stm" target="_blank">leaders of those countries being whore-dog-ish</a>). And there are certainly <a href="http://www.ariga.com/humanrights/index.shtml" target="_blank">enough peace groups</a> operating in Israel to merit the citizens not being tarred with the same brush used against <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=374142" target="_blank">the leaders</a>.

- Elayne

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Zonker:
<strong>Maybe one of the things the Clinton Administration could have done with a bit more diligence was going after bin Laden with the full power of the US Armed Forces prior to 9/11.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Former President Clinton seems to agree with you 100% on this, going by his recent interviews. But I still think Interpol and spy networks would have been more successful than the comparatively heavy-handed army. Alas, hindsight is 20/20.

- Elayne

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by MattBrady:
<strong>...the majority of the strange bedfellows are from politically and culturally differnt viewpoints, not based on their interpretations of religion - fundamentalists vs. secular schhols of thought. Historically, those are even far stranger bedfellows, especially when one has a history of persecuting the other.
Not saying it's absolutely not possible, but a whole lotta improbable, especially given the holes the non-American media and other intelligence services are poking in the "connection" between Hussein and Al-Qaeda.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, what has now happened in that particular instance, as many people are actually acknowledging, is that US actions vis a vis that region have helped forge just such an alliance of convenience that heretofore didn't exist. If this were a drinking game (and it surely is enough to drive one to drink sometimes), I'd recommend taking a swig every time someone repeats the adage "the enemy of my enemy" - should get you nicely blitzed in short order.

- Elayne

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Conor Kilpatrick:
<strong>Originally posted by MattBrady:
We'll have our own special section in the camps!
Well, if they serve us three -- no, at this point even two would do -- square meals a day, that might not be so bad.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And circuses! Bread and circuses, please!

- Elayne

[Julio Diaz]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>
I simply maintain that comics newsarama is not such a forum. In particular it's not such a forum because there's no equally-treated other side. Is there going to be a Republican-biased editiorial tomorrow? No.

When there's debate over comics-related issues, newsarama does a great job IMHO of being unbiased. It let both Peter David and Bill Jemas debate the merits of a Captain Marvel price hike. It let everyone else affected, associated, or just interested professionally give their thoughts. That's fair, unbiased discourse about comics and I think it belongs here.

In this case, a left-winger got to take some shots. There's not going to be a right-winger taking shots in response on equal time. This forum isn't set up for that. Hence, I don't feel personally that it's an appropriate political debate arena.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, I would imagine that should some comics professional write an intelligent, well-reasoned rebuttal, that Newsarama would run it, if for no other reason than that the "controversy" would surely engender traffic (see also the six pages of debate this column has spawned -- far more chatter than Stuart's columns usually get in a 24-hour period, I imagine).

The question is whether an intelligent, well-reasoned rebuttal or argument in favor of the current administration's policies can be written. Considering that the folks that do this for a living -- the speechwriters, political commentators, and government officials -- haven't been able to do so convincingly in the eyes of millions of people, I find little hope that even our most talented comics scribes could succeed.

Nobody has sufficiently explained why Iraq is a more pressing target than North Korea or Al-Qaida (to say nothing of why the current administration so recklessly dropped the ball in re: North Korea when the previous administration had that situation well in hand). Nobody has convinced me that anything about the current situation in Iraq is worth the loss of life -- on both sides -- that war would entail. Nobody has convinced me that Iraq is currently a threat to American life or limb. Nobody has convinced me of anything except the following:

1) Bush, Cheney, and their cronies stand to make a lot of money personally should Iraq be "liberated," thus allowing American companies unfettered access to Iraqi oil.

2) The Bush Administration knows that the average citizen is distracted by all of this and will forget all about the fact that we haven't got bin Laden yet and the fact that the economy is in the toilet; and that Bush could likely coast to re-election on "the war" (didn't work for his daddy because his daddy got out of Iraq too far before the election).

3) (And I'm not even 100% sure I buy this one) Bush wants revenge because "they tried to kill my daddy." Understandable, perhaps, but that doesn't mean you get to sacrifice thousands of lives. Heck, if I went out and "forced regime change" on someone that killed MY father, I'd be going to jail -- at least (I live in Florida, so the lethal injection chamber courtesy of Dubya's brother, Jeb!, would be more likely).

I would love to be able to feel good about going into Iraq, given that it seems a foregone conclusion we're doing it no matter what. But nobody's convinced me yet, and nobody's been able to soothe the sickness I feel in my heart and stomach over the way this is all playing out.

But if some comics scribe thinks they're up to the challenge, I'd certainly encourage Newsarama to run their argument on "equal footing" to Stuart's piece.

[pickard]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Julio Diaz:
<strong>Actually, I would imagine that should some comics professional write an intelligent, well-reasoned rebuttal, that Newsarama would run it, if for no other reason than that the "controversy" would surely engender traffic (see also the six pages of debate this column has spawned -- far more chatter than Stuart's columns usually get in a 24-hour period, I imagine).

The question is whether an intelligent, well-reasoned rebuttal or argument in favor of the current administration's policies can be written. Considering that the folks that do this for a living -- the speechwriters, political commentators, and government officials -- haven't been able to do so convincingly in the eyes of millions of people, I find little hope that even our most talented comics scribes could succeed.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you look at msot polls, just as many millions of Americans haven't been convinced by the anti-war arguments.

[Rich Johnston]

Is it worth pointing out that Clinton did bomb Osama?

He missed, though.

[Simon DelMonte]

Gotta say that Stuart speaks for a lot of nervous, frustrated New Yorkers who lived through a lot, who fear a lot, and who really don't understand where the money is. I don't agree with everything he says, but he says some important things about what it's like living here nowadays, and why perhaps we don't view the war on terror, or the impending war with Iraq, or the Bush Administration the way that others in this nation do.

And I must add that as this state has a Republican governor and this city has a Republican mayor, it's that much odder that the promised money still seems to be in limbo. A small point, but one that only adds to a sense of anxiety.

[hy23glic]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Elayne Riggs:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by hy23glic:
<strong>thus to tank abbot and his overkill in killing them because they struck and killed us first...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">[history lesson snipped]

You had me at "hello," but lost me with the all-lower-case and "whore dog Israel." Whore dog is, like much of your post, snide opinion rather than fact. If you'd said "apartheid regime" instead that would have been more factually correct. But the entire country is no more a "whore dog" than Britain is (although one could presumably make a case for the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2077598.stm" target="_blank">leaders of those countries being whore-dog-ish</a>). And there are certainly <a href="http://www.ariga.com/humanrights/index.shtml" target="_blank">enough peace groups</a> operating in Israel to merit the citizens not being tarred with the same brush used against <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=374142" target="_blank">the leaders</a>.

- Elayne</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">....while i am always amazed as to how such steadfast
devotion for 'facts' and for 'history' seems to excuse
individuals of sitting down for themselves and determining
a course of observation based upon simple suppositions:

while it should be apparent that my 'whore dog' analogy
was obviously directed at ariel sharon and the general
policy of israel against palestinians (..slaughter..): you seemed to have missed this in bringing up the peace movements in israel -- which the last time i knew does
not have a say in the overall policies of ariel sharon and
his cabinet members....

peace movements such as the civil rights movements of
the sixties were organised not around 'facts' and numbers
and historical theories but around the simple understanding
that blacks were tired of being held as hostages by u.s.
policies that supported jim crow laws: that the protest
against vietnam were held around the general consensus
that vietnam was wrong -- that to enter such a nation state
on the basis of a s0-called 'police action' and to slaughter
whole villages of men women and children was a basic
violation of life and rights for soliders ordered to kill and
for the peoples who had nothing to do with the policies
of the vietnam government......

'facts' and 'historical intepertation' goes so far before the
pieces need to be reassessed and re-configure: the events
of world war 2 do not match the current situations and
even the 'facts' are argued about what world war 2 did
stand for (..such as the 'fact' that hitler was backed by
nations such as the united states and great britian and
france prior to his program of genocide against jews and
all other dissidents against his nazi regime...): dates and
places and numbers and names are fine and are useful
but become blinding when one can not apply the overall
lessons of history as a parable of human nature left to
devices of greed and misguided agendas which do not
support basic human rights and the abilities of a nation
to evolve.....

...with the 21st century here: with the old power structures
dying out and a new structure of reason and understanding
emerging across the terrains of politics: economics: the
arts: medicine and science: what seems to be required
would be new vision in how to perceive and how to truly
understand the options given to all of us to choose a path
towards creating not a utopia but a culture that does
honour the rights of all.....

overall i find men such as bush 2: ariel sharon: tony blair:
to lack vision and to lack the overall balls to buck the old
boy's network of money greed and power. these are men
who shall always represents the era of fear and lies and
propaganda as history reveals in the cold war of the 1950's
and in such laws as jim crow laws which held blacks back,
and even what i construe still as violations against women
when one looks at the overall power dynamics of this
culture (....the old boys' network remains deeply intact
within this culture as seen by bush's 2 belief that this
nation does not need to participate in the kyoto accord...):

...raising one's voice against the hypocrisy of deception
perpetuated by bush 2 and any politician whom clearly
does not have the best intent for this nation (...why has
there been deep cuts into the education budget of this
nation: why are we bankrolling education against the
increase of military spending which will create further
useless conflict: and why does this great nation still lack
overall health care for every citizen of the united states..)
remains the most basic aspect for this and every culture:

..if anything there exists a general concern that the efforts
placed forth in the destruction of lives and properties,
as well as using hidden agendas such as the selling of arms
to individuals as was the case with iran and the contras of
el salvador by the reagan/bush 1 admininstration does
not make a nation secured and does not make a nation truly
great....

one can recite 'facts' and 'history' til the stars fall from the
skies: but to do such results in a form of rhetoric and stalls
the momentum greatly in terms of becoming deeply aware
of what conditions must be required to foster and to indeed
encourage diversity and vision.

[QH23]

A little food for thought:

We once had a country called the United States of America where all parties could speak their opinions and concerns without being persecuted. A country which fought to bring about freedom for its people and played a major role in creating a coalition of other countries to aid and protect other countries which were unable to protect themselves.

Today we have legislature which has been pushed through the red-tape of our government in the name of protecting its citizens from terrorism and more legislature secretly in the works (at least until recently) to take even more of our rights away as citizens of this country where secret arrests can be performed, where citizens can loose their citizenship and be deported, where citizens of other countries can be held indefinitely without anyone’s knowledge, where our homes can be searched without a search warrant, where people can disappear for weeks while in the U.S. federal authority hands (read OSHO’s autobiography for one example) without their people including lawyers knowing where they are. I could go on and on with what has occurred in this country as our rights as citizens and those rights of other countries citizens who are legally within our country have been slowly taken away. There is also legislature which protects the government and the pharmaceutical companies from law suits if someone should suffer harm from the vaccines the government wants to mandate to be taken, all in the name of protecting its people from bio-terrorism.

What seems to be forgotten is the basic definition of terrorism. Let me paraphrase from the New World Dictionary of the American Language; terrorism: the act of filling with intense fear; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, especially such use as a political weapon or policy. Let me go further and define terrorize: to fill with intense fear; to frighten greatly, to coerce, make submit, by filling with intense fear, as by the use or threat of violence.

Whenever the subject comes up of invading another country because they are suspected of having weapons of mass destruction I ask myself what right do, we as a country, have to tell another country what they can and cannot have when we, the United States of American have our own weapons of mass destruction. Then I also ask myself what right do, we as a country have to enforce and threaten another country to live by our policies and to do this by utilizing the threat of war.

By the definitions of terrorism and terrorize alone our country is performing its own terrorism NOT ONLY ON THE CITIZENS OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN BUT ON THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I say this boldly and without doubt as I have witnessed at least in my lifetime since the cold war we as citizens have been systematically targeted by our own government which has utilized the media to spread fear throughout the populace of this country and done in such a way as to make its citizens live in fear. Once the country is gripped in fear the government knows it can and will be able to undermine any of its citizen’s rights in the name of protection. What better way to do this than to create an enemy or enemies which want for nothing but to take off the heads of the men, women and children of the citizens of this country…

It matters less who is responsible for the World Trade Center disaster or whether our military or government agencies could have stopped it. What matters more is what is happening in this country, the United States of America, since the disaster. Our rights, our freedom as United States citizens is being systematically taken away from us. Our right to freedom of speech is being taken away from us. The citizens of this country are being bombarded with systematic terrorism from our own government in order to keep its citizens submerged in fear. Our own country is falling apart internally and all anyone can focus on is what is occurring in the Middle East.

If we don’t have the freedom to discuss whatever we want in any forum we want whether it be a comic book website, or a forum on the CNN website or in my own living room, or around the corner at the local supermarket without fear of being persecuted or secretly put in jail because my views did or do not agree with the current administration in this country then what has this country become and what are we becoming?

The fears which have been instilled within the peoples of this country has been the true act of terrorism and this started long before 9/11. The next time you listen to the news, the next time you listen to a president’s speech, pay attention to the contents, the inflections and the body language and facial expressions and then ask yourself: what is the true message…

The delay to invade Iraq is not to get further approval from the United Nations. It is not about attempting to get Iraq to capitulate into agreeing they have weapons of mass destruction but about delaying to utilize the events to instill even more fear into the populace of the United States.

As I said at the beginning, just food for thought, and remember at this point and time we are still able to discuss whatever we wish in whatever forum we wish and only incur a rebuff from another member as to their desire to not have such discussions in this forum but if the government has its way all past and future discussions shall be subject to review and possibly end in secret arrests and interrogations by our own government. What does this sound like to you?

I challenge everyone to utilize their minds, go beyond the ‘facts’ reported in newspapers and television, perform your own research and to remember: diversity in thought and culture remains the strength of all and the ability to discuss openly our diverse thoughts and ideas fertilizes our grounds for an open culture which respects individuals.

[Julio Diaz]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by pickard:
<strong>If you look at msot polls, just as many millions of Americans haven't been convinced by the anti-war arguments.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course. There's also a certain percentage of people that will blindly believe anything the government tells them -- those folks that are crying "love it or leave it," for example. The question is, how many millions of Americans fall into that category, and how many of them are pro-war?

The other question is, how many of the pro-war folks stand to benefit personally from an invasion of Iraq?

And then, how many people do you have left?

There's no way for us to gauge this, of course. The bottom line is, yes, there are millions that support war and millions that don't. But I think you're going to find that, as time goes by, the first group will shrink and the latter will grow.

Vietnam ended not because we acheievd our objectives, but because there was no longer support for the war at home. I think we're looking at a similar situation, here.

[pickard]

Originally posted by Julio Diaz:
<strong>Of course. There's also a certain percentage of people that will blindly believe anything the government tells them -- those folks that are crying "love it or leave it," for example. The question is, how many millions of Americans fall into that category, and how many of them are pro-war?

The other question is, how many of the pro-war folks stand to benefit personally from an invasion of Iraq?

And then, how many people do you have left?
</strong>

How many of the anti-war folks stand to benefit from inaction? Won't France and Russia be well-served by Saddam remaining in place?

Just as many pro-war (as loaded a term as pro-life) folks would support whatever the president wanted to do, many anti-war activists hated Bush and the Republicans for years and will fight whatever he proposes.

They won't even accept anything good he proposes (AIDS funding) because it's just a cynically manipulative action designed to hide his true, eee-vil intent.

No side is pure on this issue. Bush might be misguided or reckless, but he is not evil. But you wouldn't know that from what you read here. The anti-war side is just as tainted with hidden motivations and self-serving irrationality.

<strong>
There's no way for us to gauge this, of course. The bottom line is, yes, there are millions that support war and millions that don't. But I think you're going to find that, as time goes by, the first group will shrink and the latter will grow.
</strong>
You're right. Support for wars always declines. Once the body bags start coming home, attitudes change.
By the end of WWII, what most here would now categorize as a just war, support in the states was very low. The draft was very nearly abolished towards the end.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have gone. It just means that many people didn't have the stomach for the sacrifices that were necessary. (Not that I'm in any position to judge them, thankfully.)

[Cisco Bunny]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Rich Johnston:
<strong>Is it worth pointing out that Clinton did bomb Osama?

He missed, though.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bush Jr. bombed Osama, and missed too. We have to face facts that when Bush promised "Osama, dead or alive," he flat out lied to us. In fact, the only time he has mentioned Osama's name in public in the last year was when he made a comment to the effect of, "Osama is irrelevant... I don't care if we ever catch him."

[pickard]

Bush hasn't gotten Osama yet.

There's a reason Bin Laden has kept such a low profile for the past year. He knows that Bush wasn't lying.

[gttom]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by chipmunk:
<strong>3. My biggest complaint is this: this is a comic book site. It's about entertainment. It's connected to something we all do for fun and relaxation. Can comic books express serious issues, absolutely. However, the majority of comics (and I'm going to guess that this is because it's what the the majority of comic book readers want comics to be) are escapist fantasy. It seems to me that a column about entertaining escapist fantasy is no place for a huge one-sided political diatribe. If I wanted to read about someone's political views, I'd visit CNN or the New York Times. I wouldn't come to a comic book website.

I can understand that everyone has opinions and given the chance to express them, everyone will be tempted to do so. I'm doing it right now. However, I find using an entertainment site to preach ones political views to be very distasteful, and I have lost some measure of respect for Mr. Moore as a result.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sing it, chipmunk! This an odd forum for grinding political axes ("of evil" or not!) and seems to have been chosen simply because Mr. Moore didn't have another location to vent. Everybody who cares at all has already made up their mind on this topic. Either a) Iraq is a sovereign nation entitled to develop weapons as it sees fit without outside interference, b) it is a rogue nation that must be cautiously monitored and held in check by the world community and the UN, or c) it is a rogue nation that has defied the terms of the 1991 ceasefire and subsequent UN resolutions for 12 years and its regime must be changed. We all already know which of these categories describe our beliefs and further argument (especially on what is an ostensibly comic book related forum) is basically pointless.

If this must continue here, at least keep the discussion to issues and not attack the alleged "real motivations" of the various parties (posters or political figures). It is possible for reasonable people to disagree on this issue without having a financial stake in it or having been brainwashed by government propanganda or the ravings of their sophomore year poli-sci professor. Granted that's hard to do with the tone set by the original piece ("our cynical, manipulative President," etc.), but still. After all, no one is accusing Stuart Moore and Matt Brady of printing a political rant on a comics site just to increase hits to the website and line their own pockets. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[Bill Lange]

Hi,

I think we should just take over the entire Middle East. Kick out all the towel heads and show the rest of the world how America deals with it's problems.

Bill Lange

[the_conqueror]

Stuart, have you ever been in a fight? If so, would you just let the guy beat the crap out of you for fear that if you retaliated he would beat you again? For you and anyone else that thinks you can passively deal with these animals (or wants to put the blame elsewhere, for that matter), you're either completely ignorant or, in the case I just stated relating to further attacks on our country, total cowards.

[Bill Lange]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by the_conqueror:
<strong>Stuart, have you ever been in a fight? If so, would you just let the guy beat the crap out of you for fear that if you retaliated he would beat you again? For you and anyone else that thinks you can passively deal with these animals (or wants to put the blame elsewhere, for that matter), you're either completely ignorant or, in the case I just stated relating to further attacks on our country, total cowards.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hi,

Word, G, Word.

Bill Lange

[Cisco Bunny]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by the_conqueror:
<strong>For you and anyone else that thinks you can passively deal with these animals (or wants to put the blame elsewhere, for that matter), you're either completely ignorant or, in the case I just stated relating to further attacks on our country, total cowards.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When someone characterizes a race and religion of people as "animals," it frightens me. I truly believe that is how you view them, and I believe you would probably have no problem genociding them. Just keep in mind there are 1 billion of them, so we should watch how many fights we engage in. I mean, if we can't beat 30 million Vietnamese fighting in their pajamas, odds are we might have a problem defeating that many Moslems.

I should also point out that Iraq HAS NEVER ATTACKED US, so to claim they have is to use a Lyndon Johnson Gulf of Tonkin logic. Sure, the 9/11 hijakers were islamic arabs... so by racial association you could say Iraq was involved. But that's pretty specious logic. By that thinking, Ashcroft should be in prison for the Oklahoma City bombing, since he and McVeigh are both white Christian supremacists.

George W. Bush is a coward and a madman... a rich draft-dodging drunkard who truly believes he has been chosen by God to fight this fight. I won't follow anyone with delusions of divinity, no matter how much he marbles out garbage about "the evil ones" and "the unholy devils," and all that other crypto-Armagedon garbage I heard from the Assemblies of God kids while growing up in the mid-west.

In closing, the_conqueror, I believe you should enlist if you want this fight so bad. If you do not, then YOU are the coward. I don't know where you live, but Stuart (and myself) live in NYC. I live in the quaruntine zone, most of my friends were refugees for several weeks. I doubt you know what that goddamn mess smelled like, but I do. So in short, don't tell us how we should feel about this. We have had a more direct involvement with it. We are veterans of this war, and do not appreciate it when armchair dilletantes like yourself tell us what war is like.

[Stuart Moore]

"Conqueror":

Have you ever been the biggest, strongest guy in the schoolyard? And have you used that strength to beat up little guys because you're afraid they might come after you someday? If so, the little guys will probably eventually all gang up on you and drag your sorry ass down. And you know what? They'll be right to do it.

I didn't object to our government's invasion of Afghanistan (even though it dovetailed awfully neatly with a big-oil-big-money-Republican plan that had been floating for years), because it was a retaliation for an attack. This is not.

For the rest, I defer to Cisco's reply -- I agree with all of it.

Best,
Stuart

[some_bloke]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by GrayHaven:
<strong>The fact of the matter is that there are a hell of a lot of dangerous people out there developing or possessing the means to inflict a lot of damage on innocent people just for the sake of doing it. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yep.
And their names are Bush and Blair.

[Julio Diaz]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by pickard:
<strong>Originally posted by Julio Diaz:
How many of the anti-war folks stand to benefit from inaction?</strong>

Well, there's all the people that wouldn't be killed in the war, for starters... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

<strong>Won't France and Russia be well-served by Saddam remaining in place?</strong>

Absolutely. We'd be foolish to think otherwise. Almost everyone has SOME self-interest in all of this.

<strong>Just as many pro-war (as loaded a term as pro-life) folks would support whatever the president wanted to do, many anti-war activists hated Bush and the Republicans for years and will fight whatever he proposes.</strong>

You would prefer, perhaps, "pro-regime change"? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> I prefer to tell it like it is, but I do concede that "pro-war" is too broad a term -- surely, not everyone that supports THIS was would support any possible war, and though I'm generally dove-ish, I would have supported World War II (for example). Shall we say, "pro-Gulf War II: This Time, It's Personal"? :)

I kid, but I don't mean to make light of your point.

<strong>They won't even accept anything good he proposes (AIDS funding) because it's just a cynically manipulative action designed to hide his true, eee-vil intent.</strong>

While I do think that some of his good proposals ARE cynically motivated (case in point: hydrogen-fuelled cars that he knows damn good and well won't be viable for at least a decade -- and likely closer to two), I still applaud any positive action. While it's often not as much action as I'd like it to be, anything that moves in a positive direction is welcome.

<strong>No side is pure on this issue. Bush might be misguided or reckless, but he is not evil. But you wouldn't know that from what you read here. The anti-war side is just as tainted with hidden motivations and self-serving irrationality.</strong>

Agreed on that no side is pure. And also agreed that many anti-war folks just want anything that will make Bush look bad. I withhold judgement on the issue of "evil," though -- I don't know the man personally. But I know that I don't trust him, and I suspect that calling him "misguided" is generous.

<strong>
You're right. Support for wars always declines. Once the body bags start coming home, attitudes change.
By the end of WWII, what most here would now categorize as a just war, support in the states was very low. The draft was very nearly abolished towards the end.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have gone. It just means that many people didn't have the stomach for the sacrifices that were necessary. (Not that I'm in any position to judge them, thankfully.)</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree in principle. But we go back to whether the sacrifices ARE neccessary in this case, and again, I'm still not convinced they are. Do I like Saddam, do I think he's a swell guy? No. But I fail to see why he's more of a priority than bin Laden, and I fail to see that we have justified the course of action that we seem to be set on. Were this an identical situation with bin Laden in Hussein's place, I might support it -- given 9/11, that would be as justified -- if not moreso -- as Pearl Harbor sparking our entrance into WWII. I didn't like us going into Afghanistan, but I understood why it was neccessary and I accepted it despite my general distaste for war. I don't understand why we're going into Iraq and I don't think it's justified.

I must say, pickard, that the debate you and I are having is about the most civil on this topic on this board, and I am enjoying the conversation, even though I wish we didn't have the topic to discuss.

[some_bloke]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DasKlein83:
<strong>We have the moral authroity because we say we do. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You don't have the moral authority because the rest of the world says you don't.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<strong>Go to Palestine, Lybia, Iran and Iraq and you will see firsthand how primitive and violent the average joe is.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bullshit!
Unmitigated crap.
The "average joe" in Iraq is open-hearted, polite, articulate and cultured. They recognise the difference between citizens of the western world and the actions of western governments. They're intelligent enough not to be fooled by american propaganda, and fully realise this is a war for control of oil and water. It's a story as old as the fertile crescent. People are people, the world over.

[gttom]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
<strong>
I didn't object to our government's invasion of Afghanistan (even though it dovetailed awfully neatly with a big-oil-big-money-Republican plan that had been floating for years), because it was a retaliation for an attack. This is not.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's right...this is all leading up to George W. Bush having all of the oil in the Middle East pumped into a big tank in the backyard of the White House so he can swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck. And the Cigarette Smoking Man will be appointed the new Emperor of Iraq. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>
For the rest, I defer to Cisco's reply -- I agree with all of it.

Best,
Stuart</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So you agree that George W. Bush is a "coward and a madman, a rich draft-dodging drunkard"? Again, why is it that a professional writer such as yourself is incapable of making your case without resorting to ad hominem attacks on the President? If a Gore/Lieberman administration were following the same course of action (quite possible given Lieberman's recent statements and the fact that both of them supported the first Gulf War and President Clinton's 1998 military strikes on Iraq and policy of regime change), would you still hold the same position?

[Rich Johnston]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by the_conqueror:
<strong>Stuart, have you ever been in a fight? If so, would you just let the guy beat the crap out of you for fear that if you retaliated he would beat you again? For you and anyone else that thinks you can passively deal with these animals (or wants to put the blame elsewhere, for that matter), you're either completely ignorant or, in the case I just stated relating to further attacks on our country, total cowards.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Iraq hasn't attacked the USA. This is akin to beating someone up because you thought he looked at you funny.

[Stuart Moore]

"That's right...this is all leading up to George W. Bush having all of the oil in the Middle East pumped into a big tank in the backyard of the White House so he can swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck. "

Funny funny funny, but closer to the truth than the administration would like us to think. It's not a fringe theory if the guys with big oil interests (and possible criminal charges for how they run their businesses) are all in the cabinet.

But that wasn't really my point, anyway -- I was pointing out, as others have here, that Iraq has not attacked us. And that the Islamic world is a big one that, as we're seeing, will rally together when threatened.

"So you agree that George W. Bush is a "coward and a madman, a rich draft-dodging drunkard"? "

I was actually thinking about what Cisco said about Iraq and New York. I don't know any more about Bush's personal situation than anyone else. But maybe we'll get a few more details next time he passes out from "eating pretzels" while "watching TV alone."

Best,
Stuart

[pickard]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Julio Diaz:
<strong>I must say, pickard, that the debate you and I are having is about the most civil on this topic on this board, and I am enjoying the conversation, even though I wish we didn't have the topic to discuss.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have enjoyed it as well. Thanks.

Though I'd rather be arguing about why Jemas is the devil.

[Julio Diaz]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by pickard:
<strong>I have enjoyed it as well. Thanks.

Though I'd rather be arguing about why Jemas is the devil.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, but see, that's a topic we can ALL agree on, so where's the fun in debating it? :D

[gttom]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
<strong>But that wasn't really my point, anyway -- I was pointing out, as others have here, that Iraq has not attacked us. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And when exactly was the United States attacked by Germany and Italy in World War II? Or Somalia in 1992? Or Serbia in 1999? Were you opposed to all of these military actions?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>
"So you agree that George W. Bush is a "coward and a madman, a rich draft-dodging drunkard"? "

I was actually thinking about what Cisco said about Iraq and New York. I don't know any more about Bush's personal situation than anyone else. But maybe we'll get a few more details next time he passes out from "eating pretzels" while "watching TV alone."

Best,
Stuart</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And again, you prove incapable of discussing the policy apart from the person proposing it. What EXACTLY is your policy prescription? As near as can be deciphered from your original piece, it is an indefinite continuation of the status quo. You seem to suggest that invading Iraq would be okay if the UN Security Council approved, as if somehow concensus equals morality. If invading Iraq is wrong and immoral and dangerous, it will still be wrong and immoral and dangerous no matter how many diplomats agree with it.

The pro forma denunciations of Saddam Hussein are a great rhetorical flourish, but unless you have a concrete suggestion for getting rid of him, they are nothing more than a nice bit of self-congratulation.

[Stuart Moore]

Fair question, though I think I'm doing less evasion of the point than you are. How about this: Hussein is not a young man. He's not a well man -- he's had cancer, and may still have it. We've managed to contain him with diplomatic pressure and sporadic inspections for years. We've now got the rest of the world pressuring him harder than ever, and even if he's lying about the extent of his weapons program (which he probably is), the inspections slow that program down and make it much harder for him to act. Why not wait him out, continue the pressure, and make our move for "regime change," whatever it is, when he dies?

That's not a very immediate-gratification or macho plan, and it gives Saddam leeway to pull all kinds of little crap. But to me, it beats inciting a very bloody Iraqi civil war and turning the entire, enormous Islamic world against us for our unprovoked aggression.

But hey, if people want a war, they want a war. They'll find reasons.

Best,
Stuart

[pickard]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
<strong>But hey, if people want a war, they want a war. They'll find reasons.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Has you ever even entertained the possibility that some people truly believe this war is a necessity. Or does the fact that you haven't been swayed by any argument for intervention mean that no rational person could be?

Everyone who supports the president on this is either stupid, a warmonger or a shareholder in an oil company, right.

Though I don't agree with them, I respect the viewpoints of people who are committed to fighting this war, but I rarely get the impression that they respect mine in believing that the war is the right thing for us to do.

[gttom]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
<strong>Fair question, though I think I'm doing less evasion of the point than you are. How about this: Hussein is not a young man. He's not a well man -- he's had cancer, and may still have it. We've managed to contain him with diplomatic pressure and sporadic inspections for years. We've now got the rest of the world pressuring him harder than ever, and even if he's lying about the extent of his weapons program (which he probably is), the inspections slow that program down and make it much harder for him to act. Why not wait him out, continue the pressure, and make our move for "regime change," whatever it is, when he dies?

</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A fair and thorough response and I thank you for it. Needless to say I disagree. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

I would say the inspection/containment policy has been a manifest failure in that a) we are still discovering weapons and weapons programs 12 years after the agreement to disarm and b) the containment has only been accomplished by means of a sanctions program that has killed far more Iraqi civilians than the Gulf War did.

With regards to waiting him out:

"If the circumstances are such as to warrant it, force may be used. And if this be so, it should be used under the conditions which are most favourable. There is no merit in putting off a war for a year if, when it comes, it is a far worse war or one much harder to win."
- Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

In any case, I've engaged in the very politicing on a comics board that I decried in my first post. I'll move along now. :)

[Buzzowl]

Mr. Moore,

I don't think of the Newsarama.com site as a great place to debate anything at all and certainly not a topic as complex and emotional as this.

But I wanted to voice my support for your article. You have cojones as big as day. The people who want war the most are also the people who get the most defensive and the most aggressive when they hear dissent. It's truly frightening and standing up to it is truly a task. I applaud you.

Not only was the article courageous, it was well-written and thoughtful.

The most incendiary remark was also the one that is the most difficult to prove: namely, that Mr. Bush and company deserve some blame for 9/11. Here's what we do know regarding that subject:

1) A high-ranking FBI agent predicted the very scenario that occurred months before it happened in a memo that we know circulated throughout the White House and DID land on Bush's desk. This was reported by the mainstream press. Forewarned is forearmed, right?

2) In the days after the attack, Condoleeza Rice and others claimed that "No one could conceive of such an attack" in order to explain why there was no defense against it. This was a blatant lie, given the existence of the memo.

3) It is a fact that, in the months prior to the attacks, the administration was in negotiations with the Taliban to open up a pipeline through Afghanistan. During this time, they knew that the Taliban was harboring Al-Qaeda operatives.

The Administration was in no hurry to round up Al-Qaeda. The outgoing administration had made it clear in memo after memo that Al-Qaeda was a growing threat and even had a military or quasi-military scenario prepared for the Bush Administration to consider.

Is that fault? No. But it is lack of concern, lack of movement, and creation of priorities based primarily on maintaining and increasing the availability of oil.

To me, the easiest thing for you to prove is the cynicism of the pro-war rhetoric Bush and Powell are spouting.

<a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2078437/" target="_blank">http://slate.msn.com/id/2078437/</a>

This link shows Powell's dramatic and opportunistic flip-flop on the subject of a possible link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

This, combined with Powell's laughable assertion that the latest Bin Laden tape shows a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda when it in fact features a condemnation of Saddam's regime by Osama. The administration's eagerness to do or say anything that will provoke war is enough to make a watchful citizen question their motives.

I ask myself: What would Osama prefer we do? Go to war with Iraq or work toward a peaceful solution?

Thanks again for the article.

[gttom]

Sorry...couldn't resist one more post to bring this thing full circle. President Bush's nominee to be the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security:

Clark Kent Ervin

<a href="http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=11&content=17" target="_blank">http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=11&content=17</a>

[Kevin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by the_conqueror:
<strong>Stuart, have you ever been in a fight? If so, would you just let the guy beat the crap out of you for fear that if you retaliated he would beat you again? For you and anyone else that thinks you can passively deal with these animals (or wants to put the blame elsewhere, for that matter), you're either completely ignorant or, in the case I just stated relating to further attacks on our country, total cowards.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thank you, God. It's good to see another red-blooded American that cares about his country on these boards.

-Kevin

[Julio Diaz]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by the_conqueror:
<strong>For you and anyone else that thinks you can passively deal with these animals (or wants to put the blame elsewhere, for that matter), you're either completely ignorant or, in the case I just stated relating to further attacks on our country, total cowards.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thank you, God. It's good to see another red-blooded American that cares about his country on these boards.

-Kevin</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, Kevin, because dehumanizing human beings by calling them "animals" has always been the "red-blooded American" way, right?

In case you can't tell because you're so embroiled in your "love it or leave it" mentality, that was sarcasm.

If that ever DOES become the American way, sign me up to become a Canadian citizen.

Whatever policy you agree with, we're still talking about the loss of thousands of human lives. Not animals, humans.

[Julio Diaz]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by pickard:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
<strong>But hey, if people want a war, they want a war. They'll find reasons.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Has you ever even entertained the possibility that some people truly believe this war is a necessity. Or does the fact that you haven't been swayed by any argument for intervention mean that no rational person could be?

Everyone who supports the president on this is either stupid, a warmonger or a shareholder in an oil company, right.

Though I don't agree with them, I respect the viewpoints of people who are committed to fighting this war, but I rarely get the impression that they respect mine in believing that the war is the right thing for us to do.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's easy to personalize the issue, especially since those of us that oppose war have a face to put on what we're opposing, that being the President's. Since many of us that oppose war may think that the President is "either stupid, a warmonger or a shareholder in an oil company" (or some combination of all three), it is all too easy for us to transfer that feeling on to whoever agrees with him.

I've endeavoured not to do that, personally. But I understand why it happens. I'm not trying to excuse that, just to explain it.

For the record, I respect your opinion even though I don't agree with it. And I think your posts have shown that you're neither "stupid" nor a "warmonger." Having not seen your stock portfolio, I can't comment on that last. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[Kevin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Cisco Bunny:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by the_conqueror:
<strong>For you and anyone else that thinks you can passively deal with these animals (or wants to put the blame elsewhere, for that matter), you're either completely ignorant or, in the case I just stated relating to further attacks on our country, total cowards.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When someone characterizes a race and religion of people as "animals," it frightens me. I truly believe that is how you view them, and I believe you would probably have no problem genociding them. Just keep in mind there are 1 billion of them, so we should watch how many fights we engage in. I mean, if we can't beat 30 million Vietnamese fighting in their pajamas, odds are we might have a problem defeating that many Moslems.

I should also point out that Iraq HAS NEVER ATTACKED US, so to claim they have is to use a Lyndon Johnson Gulf of Tonkin logic. Sure, the 9/11 hijakers were islamic arabs... so by racial association you could say Iraq was involved. But that's pretty specious logic. By that thinking, Ashcroft should be in prison for the Oklahoma City bombing, since he and McVeigh are both white Christian supremacists.

George W. Bush is a coward and a madman... a rich draft-dodging drunkard who truly believes he has been chosen by God to fight this fight. I won't follow anyone with delusions of divinity, no matter how much he marbles out garbage about "the evil ones" and "the unholy devils," and all that other crypto-Armagedon garbage I heard from the Assemblies of God kids while growing up in the mid-west.

In closing, the_conqueror, I believe you should enlist if you want this fight so bad. If you do not, then YOU are the coward. I don't know where you live, but Stuart (and myself) live in NYC. I live in the quaruntine zone, most of my friends were refugees for several weeks. I doubt you know what that goddamn mess smelled like, but I do. So in short, don't tell us how we should feel about this. We have had a more direct involvement with it. We are veterans of this war, and do not appreciate it when armchair dilletantes like yourself tell us what war is like.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">According to those thinking like yourself, I guess we should just allow madmen like Saddam to continue to threaten us and attack our allies, while he continues to build weapons and continues to run a government built on terror - - even towards his own people. Yeah, I guess we should just leave them be and after our friends and family are killed by those following orders by Saddam or other associated US enemies, we should just lay down and surrender to these animals.

Yes, I too, used the word "animal" to describe our enemies. No piece of filth, like those willing to hijack a passenger aircraft full of innocent Americans and aim it towards buildings that are also filled with other innocents, deserves to called a human being.

Oh, and just because you live in NYC, doesn't make you an authority on how to feel about the attacks on the WTC buildings.

I honor my country and will give my last breath to protect our freedoms and the citizens from our enemies. Enemies like Hussein, Bin Laden or any other creep that threatens or harms my fellow Americans. I will stand and fight, not run and hide behind a peace symbol.

-Kevin

[Kevin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Julio Diaz:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by the_conqueror:
<strong>For you and anyone else that thinks you can passively deal with these animals (or wants to put the blame elsewhere, for that matter), you're either completely ignorant or, in the case I just stated relating to further attacks on our country, total cowards.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thank you, God. It's good to see another red-blooded American that cares about his country on these boards.

-Kevin</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, Kevin, because dehumanizing human beings by calling them "animals" has always been the "red-blooded American" way, right?

In case you can't tell because you're so embroiled in your "love it or leave it" mentality, that was sarcasm.

If that ever DOES become the American way, sign me up to become a Canadian citizen.

Whatever policy you agree with, we're still talking about the loss of thousands of human lives. Not animals, humans.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would have no problem calling our enemies human, if they acted that way. If they wanted a fight, a true war of men, bring it to our government and our soldiers. Act more like men instead of rats in the shadows. These monsters have never acted with honor. They hijack planes and turn them into missiles, strap bombs to their own bodies and walk into crowds of innocents and other cowardly acts. These are not acts of men, these are acts of animals.

-Kevin

[Julio Diaz]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong>I would have no problem calling our enemies human, if they acted that way. If they wanted a fight, a true war of men, bring it to our government and our soldiers. Act more like men instead of rats in the shadows. These monsters have never acted with honor. They hijack planes and turn them into missiles, strap bombs to their own bodies and walk into crowds of innocents and other cowardly acts. These are not acts of men, these are acts of animals.

-Kevin</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's funny. I don't recall the terrorists on the planes involved in 9/11 being Iraqi soldiers, much less Sadaam Hussein being among them or even being a mastermind. That was al Qaida and Osama bin Laden. Who -- despite what is being said these last few days -- aren't exactly chummy: Hussein's is a secular (albeit VERY corrupt) government; bin Laden prefers theocracy. Bin Laden would take down Hussein in a minute if he didn't consider the US the bigger threat to his despicable plans.

I wouldn't have a problem with going after bin Laden. I have a problem with going into Iraq unprovoked and killing thousands of innocent human civilians. But since you seem to have bought the "love it or leave it," dehumanizing propaganda, there's really no sense in arguing with you.

The Iraqi people -- indeed, the people of all the Middle East and of all religions -- are NOT our enemies. Al-Qaida is. North Korea's current regime is more of a threat to us that Iraq's current regime. So why Iraq?

[pickard]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Julio Diaz:
<strong>It's easy to personalize the issue, especially since those of us that oppose war have a face to put on what we're opposing, that being the President's. Since many of us that oppose war may think that the President is "either stupid, a warmonger or a shareholder in an oil company" (or some combination of all three), it is all too easy for us to transfer that feeling on to whoever agrees with him.

I've endeavoured not to do that, personally. But I understand why it happens. I'm not trying to excuse that, just to explain it.

For the record, I respect your opinion even though I don't agree with it. And I think your posts have shown that you're neither "stupid" nor a "warmonger." Having not seen your stock portfolio, I can't comment on that last. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Good point, Julio.

BTW, you were the reason I used the word "rarely" when I said that "I rarely get the impression " that my viewpoint is respected.

And, the first word of my post should have been "have", not "has". Damn cut-and-paste errors.

No oil stocks in my portfolio. That means no French oil company stocks or American ones. Either could sway someone on this issue but to different stances. As I'm sure is the case in much of this debate.

[Kevin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Julio Diaz:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong>I would have no problem calling our enemies human, if they acted that way. If they wanted a fight, a true war of men, bring it to our government and our soldiers. Act more like men instead of rats in the shadows. These monsters have never acted with honor. They hijack planes and turn them into missiles, strap bombs to their own bodies and walk into crowds of innocents and other cowardly acts. These are not acts of men, these are acts of animals.

-Kevin</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's funny. I don't recall the terrorists on the planes involved in 9/11 being Iraqi soldiers, much less Sadaam Hussein being among them or even being a mastermind. That was al Qaida and Osama bin Laden. Who -- despite what is being said these last few days -- aren't exactly chummy: Hussein's is a secular (albeit VERY corrupt) government; bin Laden prefers theocracy. Bin Laden would take down Hussein in a minute if he didn't consider the US the bigger threat to his despicable plans.

I wouldn't have a problem with going after bin Laden. I have a problem with going into Iraq unprovoked and killing thousands of innocent human civilians. But since you seem to have bought the "love it or leave it," dehumanizing propaganda, there's really no sense in arguing with you.

The Iraqi people -- indeed, the people of all the Middle East and of all religions -- are NOT our enemies. Al-Qaida is. North Korea's current regime is more of a threat to us that Iraq's current regime. So why Iraq?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I've never said, "America: Love It Or Leave It", yet you assume that I feel that way. I indeed do love America - - my country, my home - - I support my leaders in their fight against evil and you should, too. Do you honestly feel that we should sit on our hands and allow regimes like those in power in Iraq to continue to make threats against us in the US while they build weapons and plan to attack us? You need to understand that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein is in fact one of our most outspoken enemies along with Mr. Bin Laden and North Korea's Mr. Jong, as they have and continue to attack our allies and applaud others who strike against US targets. These men, their threats and their actions should not be taken so lightly, friend. In Mr. Jong's case, he in currently in violation of UN nuclear treaties in his continued development of weapons. But, I guess that's okay by you, because he really hasn't done anything to attack US citizens... Yet. If these men aren't our enemies, I ask you, who is?

The real propaganda expressed here is how you somehow want me to believe that, at the end of the day, good men like George W. Bush are the "real enemy" and that I shouldn't be worried about the threat expressed by Mr. Hussein, Mr. Bin Laden, Mr. Jong and their followers against America and our friends worldwide.

-Kevin

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by hy23glic:
<strong>while it should be apparent that my 'whore dog' analogy was obviously directed at ariel sharon and the general policy of israel against palestinians...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm afraid this wasn't as obvious as you seem to think. I actually thought it was a comment on the Israeli government's tendency to "lapdog-ism," which is understandable considering the amount of financial aid the US and AIPAC send them.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>'facts' and 'historical intepertation' goes so far before the pieces need to be reassessed and re-configure...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sure, but highly-charged emotional rhetoric tends to appeal only to the writer and those who already agree with that writer. I agree with your conclusions, but feel some of the ways you choose to express yourself (including the venom and your decision to post fairly sloppily in all-lower-case letters) lend your post more of an air of "wacky rant" than "well-thought-out historical overview."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>what seems to be required would be new vision in how to perceive and how to truly understand the options given to all of us to choose a path towards creating not a utopia but a culture that does honour the rights of all...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Absolutely; unfortunately, it seems like, when it comes to conflicts, humanity is always "fighting the last war." Maybe it's a familiarity thing, "better the devil you know" and all. We're pretty secure in our ability to bomb countries back to the stone age, not as secure in our ability to reason with "our bastards" once we've decided to demonize them after they're of no more use to us. New thinking would require examining ideas such as "don't lie down with dogs in the first place if you don't want fleas," and I know this country isn't ready for that concept yet, as evidenced by officials saying things like "American spy agencies should be allowed to combat terrorism with more aggressive tactics, including the hiring of unsavory foreign agents."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>overall i find men such as bush 2: ariel sharon: tony blair: to lack vision and to lack the overall balls to buck the old boy's network of money greed and power.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What reason do they have to buck this network, hy23glic? They're part of it! It serves them very well indeed. They have no incentive at all to burn down their own houses.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>one can recite 'facts' and 'history' til the stars fall from the skies: but to do such results in a form of rhetoric...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As opposed to the form of rhetoric you use?

- Elayne

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by the_conqueror:
<strong>For you and anyone else that thinks you can passively deal with these animals...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Donald Rumsfeld had no problem dealing with them, less than 10 years ago.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/jeannedorleans/rummyandpal.jpg" alt=" - " />

- Elayne

[Kevin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Elayne Riggs:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by the_conqueror:
<strong>For you and anyone else that thinks you can passively deal with these animals...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Donald Rumsfeld had no problem dealing with them, less than 10 years ago.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/jeannedorleans/rummyandpal.jpg" alt=" - " />

- Elayne</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, that handshake solved everything. :rolleyes:

-Kevin

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong>These monsters have never acted with honor. They hijack planes and turn them into missiles, strap bombs to their own bodies and walk into crowds of innocents and other cowardly acts. These are not acts of men, these are acts of animals.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Absolutely. By the way, I'm sure you'll recall that 15 of those 19 "animals" were Saudi Arabian, and bin Laden is a Saudi prince. I look forward to hearing our plan for dealing with the Saudi "animals."

- Elayne

[Kevin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Elayne Riggs:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong>These monsters have never acted with honor. They hijack planes and turn them into missiles, strap bombs to their own bodies and walk into crowds of innocents and other cowardly acts. These are not acts of men, these are acts of animals.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Absolutely. By the way, I'm sure you'll recall that 15 of those 19 "animals" were Saudi Arabian, and bin Laden is a Saudi prince. I look forward to hearing our plan for dealing with the Saudi "animals."

- Elayne</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have I ever said that we only have Iraqi enemies? No, I haven't. Be they Saudi, North Korean, Iraqi or others - - they must be dealt with force if they continue to break international laws, treaties and threaten or attack US targets. We've negotiated with these bastards long enough. They have yet to abide by any UN terms and continue to oppose us at every step. To leave them be would be our greatest risk.

-Kevin

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Elayne Riggs:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by the_conqueror:
<strong>For you and anyone else that thinks you can passively deal with these animals...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Donald Rumsfeld had no problem dealing with them, less than 10 years ago.</strong>
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, that handshake solved everything.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That was kind of my point to the_conquerer, thanks. It never helps when we prop up maniacs like bin Laden and Hussein and then suddenly act surprised when they attack us (like bin Laden) or do something we don't like (like Hussein). To then go back and make nice - and that picture was from 1993, after Bush Pere's war - and then seek again to demonize your former buddy-turned-enemy-turned-buddy is like borderline schizophrenic.

- Elayne

[pickard]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Julio Diaz:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevin:
I would have no problem calling our enemies human, if they acted that way. If they wanted a fight, a true war of men, bring it to our government and our soldiers. Act more like men instead of rats in the shadows. These monsters have never acted with honor. They hijack planes and turn them into missiles, strap bombs to their own bodies and walk into crowds of innocents and other cowardly acts. These are not acts of men, these are acts of animals.

-Kevin</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm sure the British redcoats referred to the American forces as "rats in the shadows" too.

It's easy for us to say they should wage a conventional war. We're the greatest force in the world at conventional war. Of course we want them to fight us in the way we train for.

I'm not defending their choice of targets or completely endorsing their methods.
However, if one of them had driven a carbomb into the Pentagon, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad. It's a military target and they wouldn't have taken any civilians with them on the ride.

It is as close as it's ever going to get to being a declared war for them, so you can't really call it a sneak attack either.

Contrary to what the anti-war people believe, we've been at war with these people for a very long time, at least as far back as the early 80s.

Check out Robert Baer's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/140004684X/qid=1045240330/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-3402685-8425424?v=glance&s=books" target="_blank">See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism</a> if you want to read more about that.

[Kevin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Elayne Riggs:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Elayne Riggs:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by the_conqueror:
<strong>For you and anyone else that thinks you can passively deal with these animals...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Donald Rumsfeld had no problem dealing with them, less than 10 years ago.</strong>
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, that handshake solved everything.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That was kind of my point to the_conquerer, thanks. It never helps when we prop up maniacs like bin Laden and Hussein and then suddenly act surprised when they attack us (like bin Laden) or do something we don't like (like Hussein). To then go back and make nice - and that picture was from 1993, after Bush Pere's war - and then seek again to demonize your former buddy-turned-enemy-turned-buddy is like borderline schizophrenic.

- Elayne</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">America has an extensive history of helping those in need, a noble cause that has served millions of people in many nations around the world. As I'm sure you know, in the 1980's, we supplied the Afghani people with weapons to defend themselves from invading Russian forces. So, what did America get in return for our help? Hatred from those we've worked so hard to assist and those same weapons aimed towards us. Nice.

-Kevin

[Kevin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by pickard:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Julio Diaz:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevin:
I would have no problem calling our enemies human, if they acted that way. If they wanted a fight, a true war of men, bring it to our government and our soldiers. Act more like men instead of rats in the shadows. These monsters have never acted with honor. They hijack planes and turn them into missiles, strap bombs to their own bodies and walk into crowds of innocents and other cowardly acts. These are not acts of men, these are acts of animals.

-Kevin</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm sure the British redcoats referred to the American forces as "rats in the shadows" too.

It's easy for us to say they should wage a conventional war. We're the greatest force in the world at conventional war. Of course we want them to fight us in the way we train for.

I'm not defending their choice of targets or completely endorsing their methods.
However, if one of them had driven a carbomb into the Pentagon, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad. It's a military target and they wouldn't have taken any civilians with them on the ride.

It is as close as it's ever going to get to being a declared war for them, so you can't really call it a sneak attack either.

Contrary to what the anti-war people believe, we've been at war with these people for a very long time, at least as far back as the early 80s.

Check out Robert Baer's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/140004684X/qid=1045240330/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-3402685-8425424?v=glance&s=books" target="_blank">See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism</a> if you want to read more about that.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You wrote, "I'm not defending their choice of targets or completely endorsing their methods." You're not completely endorsing the methods of attack by these terrorists, but in saying what you have, you appear to actually approve their horrible acts in some way. It's hard to believe that people like you have the nerve to call themselves American citizens.

-Kevin

[Stuart Moore]

"As I'm sure you know, in the 1980's, we supplied the Afghani people with weapons to defend themselves from invading Russian forces. So, what did America get in return for our help? Hatred from those we've worked so hard to assist and those same weapons aimed towards us. Nice."

I agree that there are problems with the Islamic view of the West, and that we don't do enough to counter that (propaganda radio, for instance -- we don't take nearly enough advantage of that simple tool). But what you've just presented is a VERY simplistic view of a complex situation involving our balance of power with Russia, our desire for cheap oil, dozens of Islamic sects, and varying amounts of aid at different times. It's not at all clear to those people that we're their friends, because quite often we don't act like it.

Best,
Stuart

[pickard]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong>You wrote, "I'm not defending their choice of targets or completely endorsing their methods." You're not completely endorsing the methods of attack by these terrorists, but in saying what you have, you appear to actually approve their horrible acts in some way. It's hard to believe that people like you have the nerve to call themselves American citizens.

-Kevin</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dropping bombs from airplanes isn't bad.
Dropping bombs from airplanes on hospitals is.

Do you understand the difference? Tactics and targets.

Their tactics are influenced greatly by their situation, as ours were 200+ years ago.

Bombing a MILITARY headquarters is much more of an appropriate MILITARY target than bombing an office building.

If we're at war, our military is a valid target. We are at war with these people and have been for decades. We foolishly pretended that we weren't. (And many people still do.)

I don't endorse any of their actions. They have attacked my country, and they should pay the ultimate price. That goes for all who have and do support them in their efforts.

None of this is as black-and-white as you think it is, and your thickheadedness does no service to the causes you supposedly espouse.

[Kevin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
<strong>"As I'm sure you know, in the 1980's, we supplied the Afghani people with weapons to defend themselves from invading Russian forces. So, what did America get in return for our help? Hatred from those we've worked so hard to assist and those same weapons aimed towards us. Nice."

I agree that there are problems with the Islamic view of the West, and that we don't do enough to counter that (propaganda radio, for instance -- we don't take nearly enough advantage of that simple tool). But what you've just presented is a VERY simplistic view of a complex situation involving our balance of power with Russia, our desire for cheap oil, dozens of Islamic sects, and varying amounts of aid at different times. It's not at all clear to those people that we're their friends, because quite often we don't act like it.

Best,
Stuart</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, I see. It's America's fault that the US embassy in Kenya, the USS Cole, the WTC towers, the Pentagon and elsewhere were attacked because our years of giving millions of dollars in aid to those people that eventually attacked us didn't make it clear that we were their friends. Give me a break, Stu.

-Kevin

[Stuart Moore]

That's not what I said. I respect your opinion, but when you keep simplifying complex geopolitical issues down to "we've done nothing but good and they just attack us," you don't do any good to your side of the argument.

Yes, we've given lots of aid over the years; we've also engaged in any number of dirty tricks and abandoned allies when they needed us. I'm not passing judgment against the U.S. here on balance, and please don't imply that I am. But no matter how many times you say it, people aren't animals; hatred comes from somewhere; and you don't solve every situation with force.

Best,
Stuart

[Kevin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
<strong>That's not what I said. I respect your opinion, but when you keep simplifying complex geopolitical issues down to "we've done nothing but good and they just attack us," you don't do any good to your side of the argument.

Yes, we've given lots of aid over the years; we've also engaged in any number of dirty tricks and abandoned allies when they needed us. I'm not passing judgment against the U.S. here on balance, and please don't imply that I am. But no matter how many times you say it, people aren't animals; hatred comes from somewhere; and you don't solve every situation with force.

Best,
Stuart</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree that you can't solve every situation with force, but we've exhausted every other option when it comes to Mr. Hussein. We've talked and bargained with him and those in his regime. We poured millions of dollars in aid to his people before and after The Gulf War. We've already used force and yet he continues his malevolent tactics. The time for talk is LONG over, action is now required more than ever. I'm glad that my president understands this and I hope, through his direction of our military forces, we eliminate Mr. Hussein for good.

-Kevin

[Stuart Moore]

Hey, I hope we eliminate him too. So, I bet, did at least 99.9% of the 400,000 or so people in the New York anti-war rally yesterday. But most of Europe, and an increasing number of us Americans, believe that war's not the way to do it.

I think I'll call this thread a day -- I think we've hashed it all out pretty thoroughly! Thanks all.

Best,
Stuart

[Jaffer Batica]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Tank Abbot:
<strong>Here's a wake up call Mr. Moore, they attacked us first. And these pyscho's aren't gonna stop.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Did they? Were we not instrumental in installing Israel in their midst without so much as a by your leave? Have we not always sided against them for our own interests? Even when we supported Iraq and Afghanistan, was it not more for our economic interests than out of any respect for their dignity and sovereignty? Won't they at some point stop? Osama Bin Laden is merely the extreme end of radical Islamic fundamentalism. He may not stop until the last American and Jew is dead, but what about the vast majority of Muslims who would like nothing more than to be left in peace and dignity?

<strong> This country has an obligation to seek out its enemies. Sometimes, the best defense, is a good offense.
</strong>[/QUOTE]

In football, maybe, but lives are at stake here. And I'm not just talking about priceless American lives. I'm talking about the women, children, elderly, and disabled that will be killed or disenfranchised by war, no matter what happens, no matter how jus in bello either side may be. Moreover, when you kill a man, you did _not_ kill your enemy - you multiplied them by making enemies of his sons and brothers. This message goes out to radical fanatics as well, but we aren't strengthening our case against them by prosecuting this war the way we are.

<strong> The world is a screwed up place, they hate us for what we have, our freedom, our democracy.
</strong>[/QUOTE]

They don't really hate freedom or democracy, per se. They don't want what we have. If they want to submit to rule by mullahs, why can't we let them? We aren't selling our democracy very well out of the barrels of our guns. Moreover, if they hate what we have, they hate it because its built on the suffering of the have nots. People may talk about oil princes, but the vast majority of marginalized people are poor because of oil princes, and who creates oil princes but our rapacious lust for black gold and the consumer lifestyle that requires it. They don't want English to become their language, they don't want our God (insofar as we have one), they don't want our democracy (insofar as we have one), they don't want our consumer goods. They want what anyone wants: to be left alone.

<strong> Even Ghandi said, and I'm paraphrasing, When given the choice between violence and cowardice, I would highly recommend violence.
</strong>[/QUOTE]

Perhaps the quote you are looking for is:
"Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice." However, he goes on to say, explicitly, "Non-violence is the summit of bravery." (M.K. Gandhi, All Men Are Brothers, Unesco 1958)

Perhaps a quote more to your liking would be,
"I [rather] would risk violence a thousand times than the emasculation of a whole race."
Although, who is more emasculated on a day to day basis? Not us Americans. We have our freedom, our democracy, our world's most powerful economy to assure us of our manhood. Or perhaps not, since "forgiveness is more manly than punishment."

But perhaps Gandhi speaks most succinctly as to what he would recommed we do when he says,
"Hatred can be overcome only by love. Counter hatred only increases the surface as well as the depth of hatred."

Jesus said something similar,
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Matthew 5:43-45.

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong>America has an extensive history of helping those in need, a noble cause that has served millions of people in many nations around the world.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">America has an extensive history of saying we're helping people in need, and sometimes actually accomplishing that but, more often than not, doing just the opposite. Unless by "people in need" you mean corporate CEOs and American politicians. :)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>As I'm sure you know, in the 1980's, we supplied the Afghani people with weapons to defend themselves from invading Russian forces.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, we were still trying to perpetuate the Cold War. It was more a "piss off the Russkies" thing than a "help the Afghani people" thing. Although honestly, the Russians were asinine to get themselves involved in that quagmire (and I wouldn't doubt their reasons had a lot to do with the Cold War as well).

- Elayne

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong>It's America's fault that the US embassy in Kenya, the USS Cole, the WTC towers, the Pentagon and elsewhere were attacked because our years of giving millions of dollars in aid to those people that eventually attacked us didn't make it clear that we were their friends.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think the mujahedeen (which morphed into Al-Qaeda, the entity responsible for most if not all of the attacks you mention) ever considered America their "friends." I think they considered US aid a means to an end, and that end had a lot to do with their fundamentalist wacko beliefs in a Pan-Islamic society. To have Reagan refer to them as "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers" made me sick to my stomach then, and even sicker now. These fundies were always trouble from the get-go, you don't encourage and arm unsavory characters like that.

- Elayne

[Kevin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Elayne Riggs:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong>America has an extensive history of helping those in need, a noble cause that has served millions of people in many nations around the world.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">America has an extensive history of saying we're helping people in need, and sometimes actually accomplishing that but, more often than not, doing just the opposite. Unless by "people in need" you mean corporate CEOs and American politicians. :)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>As I'm sure you know, in the 1980's, we supplied the Afghani people with weapons to defend themselves from invading Russian forces.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, we were still trying to perpetuate the Cold War. It was more a "piss off the Russkies" thing than a "help the Afghani people" thing. Although honestly, the Russians were asinine to get themselves involved in that quagmire (and I wouldn't doubt their reasons had a lot to do with the Cold War as well).

- Elayne</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sure, Elayne, go ahead and twist American efforts to assist people worldwide into what you and the lefties want to believe: It's all for corporate greed and political gain. Typical liberal garbage. The fact is, America has and will continue to be the world's protector: Both financially and with military action. If it wasn't for our men and women serving in the US Armed Forces fighting the good fight throughout the 40's, as Michael Savage has said from time to time, we'd all be speaking German or be turned into lampshades by now. Instead, America had to step up and protect the world, as we've done so many times since, and save Europe from the Nazi assault that had already at the time taken over many parts of the same countries that now protest our plans to eliminate Saddam Hussein. These euro-nations, that are so quick to protest against America, are equally quick to beg for our assistance when they can't pull their own weight.

-Kevin

[Taylor Porter]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong> Instead, America had to step up and protect the world, as we've done so many times since, and save Europe from the Nazi assault.... </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You do know that the Soviets reached Berlin before the Americans, right?

[Kevin]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Taylor Porter:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong> Instead, America had to step up and protect the world, as we've done so many times since, and save Europe from the Nazi assault.... </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You do know that the Soviets reached Berlin before the Americans, right?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I ask you: So what if they arrived first? Who stuck around and made sure the job was done? American soldiers, that's who. It isn't like we didn't fight our own battles and gain many of our own countless victories during WWII. So, do not attempt to belittle any of the American accomplishments. If not for American involvement, Hitler and the Axis bastards would have overpowered the already struggling European and Soviet forces. Europe and most of the world would have been doomed to live under a Nazi/Axis regime. The world has America to thank because we didn't allow "Hitler and Friends" to continue their path towards world domination.

-Kevin

[Taylor Porter]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong> So, do not attempt to belittle any of the American accomplishments. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That was not my attempt. I just felt like you were trying to say the US won WWII single-handedly, which is not accurate.

<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
If not for American involvement, Hitler and the Axis bastards would have overpowered the already struggling European and Soviet forces. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But one could just as easily say that if not for the Soviet involvement, the Axis would have overpowered the US forces. There's no way to say who contributed more. I would say that the US and the USSR probably deserve about equal credit for the fight against the Nazis.

<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The world has America to thank because we didn't allow "Hitler and Friends" to continue their path towards world domination.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether you like it or not, the vast majority of the world does not feel like it owes America any thanks. And people like you and and Bush saying it louder and louder only makes the world resent the US more. Even if the US single-handedly saved Europe from Hitler (which it did not), it's kind of rude to keep reminding them about it fifty years later. Did the US intervene in Europe because it was the right thing to do, or so they could receive thanks?

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong>Sure, Elayne, go ahead and twist American efforts to assist people worldwide into what you and the lefties want to believe: It's all for corporate greed and political gain.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Apparently you missed the part where I said that sometimes our government does do what it says.

To believe that we always do, however, is the height of rightie naivete.

- Elayne

[Vinny Pic]

This is the opinion of one highly oppinated bitter little New Yoker. Take it for what it is. I'm a card carrying member of the GOP...I dont hide it, I embrace it. I was down by the Brooklyn Promeanade by my School when it happened. We thought it was snowing at first, little did we know it was a combination of pulverized glass metal and flesh. Mad man like The Milosevics, Hitlers, Bin Ladens, and Hussiens of the world will not stop...until they are STOPPED. Put them down hard and fast. If Al Gore wouldve took his head out of his but during Ollie North's testimony at Iran Contra....lest I digress.
Give em hell boys!
As Thor said "There is Avenging to be done."

[Stuart Moore]

I have a new theory...Bush should just shoot Saddam Hussein, personally. Details at:

<a href="http://www.joequesada.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=3e5e287b47e6ffff;act=ST; f=4;t=6039;r=1" target="_blank">http://www.joequesada.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=3e5e287b47e6ffff;act=ST; f=4;t=6039;r=1</a>

(registration required)

Best,
Stuart

[Vinny Pic]

This is my question I've asked everyone whose anti war, and the answer has sickened me. If this country was legitimately threatened, you have two choices, Fight or Flight..and while most said Fight, and I am amongst them and proudly so...those that say flight obviously fail to grasp what it means to be American.

Stuart, this war is about the greater good. We have the power to stop this fiend from slaughtering his own people. If we are allready a 'great satan' what does turning a blind eye to this attrocity make us? History isn't written by those who strove to maintain the status quo, it's written by those who strive for the betterment of society. Say whatever you want, our goal in Iraq is fundementally noble, and that cannot be refutted.

[Stuart Moore]

Vinny: I think I've covered my feelings about this pretty thoroughly, but you ask a (fairly) direct question, so...

You're really asking about two separate situations. First: If this country is directly threatened, do we Fight or Flight? The answer is, quite obviously, Fight. In fact, the answer is retaliate. You didn't see antiwar demonstrations all over the country when we invaded Afghanistan, because that was a response to an attack.

This is not. It's not. It's just not. It's part of a far-right agenda to reshape the Islamic world that they've been trying to get Presidents to agree to for more than ten years. Bush Sr. though it was far too extreme. They've finally found their man in his straight-ahead, hard-charging, not-too-bright son.

There is no real link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda -- certainly less than there is between Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, our allies. Yes, Saddam should be forced out of power. But how many more Iraqis will WE kill -- not to mention American lives lost -- by invading, than by maintaining the pressure on him?

(By the way, the Hitler analogy doesn't wash, either. Saddam is not expansionist.)

We've also sent a really dangerous message to third-world countries: If you're near getting nuclear capability, you better hurry up and GET IT. Then we'll treat you with respect and kid gloves (North Korea). Otherwise we'll invade you (Iraq). We're actively encouraging the dangerous development of nuclear capabilities in these nations.

You say our goal in Iraq is noble. If you mean deposing Saddam, I agree. If you mean taking over the country and turning it into some kind of showpiece, I disagree. But either way, it's a big jump from goals to strategy. I might live next door to a petty thief, and think that a worthy goal is to get him out of the neighborhood. Am I justified -- and is it my smartest move -- to go over to his house and shoot him dead? What does that do to my life, and what kind of message does it send to my neighbors about ME?

Best,
Stuart

[Elayne Riggs]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Vinny Pic:
<strong>If this country was legitimately threatened, you have two choices, Fight or Flight..and while most said Fight...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, you have interesting premises, which you're stating as fact but which are actually opinion. I believe, as does Stuart, that the events of 9-11-01 constituted a legitimate threat to our country (unlike anything the bastard Hussein is doing or has done, even when he was "our bastard") but I think the way we chose to fight that threat was ill-conceived; international cooperation to root out the perps and bring them to justice works much better than bombing a country even more into the Stone Age (particularly when you hypocritically leave untouched the country that spawned most of the perps and their leader because you have buddies there). Also, I'm not so sure "fight or flight" are the only two options (or at least, that "fight" in the sense of "make war upon" is one of the only options).

- Elayne

[Vinny Pic]

The Fight flight thing is a hypothetical for a reason. There arent two choices. There is one. Someone takes a shot at me..they are getting an ass kicking. That's how any good Italian-Irish Catholic school educated fela would respond.
"We'll put a boot in your ass it's the American way." Thank you Toby Keith.

Also...I think Kurt Angle could beat up the entire nation of Iraq by himself. Hell maybe the entire middle east. J/king <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[dr.no]

And so true believers, we witness the spectacular... The Americans are going to start the first of many wars to reshape this world in their image.

And who is going to stop them???

Read it all in the next issue of: Warlord Bush