What a disgrace, the constitution says so...

Have to amend it, better sooner than later, these protesters nowadays are terrorist sympathisers, no doubt. The founding fathers had no idea they'd open the door to this scum!

Have to muffle these moonbats, so we can hail and follow our leader!

If that's the "Last Word" then this is the wrong topic.

Bottom line is that she fought for what she believed in. You believe differently. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Nice try, though.

Try looking up the definition of 'sedition' there, K. Tippaporn.

Making propaganda speeches from North Vietnam certainly falls into that catagory...

Boonie, here's the crux of this debate that escapes you. Everybody believes differently and therefore everyone ends up with a different sense of what's right and wrong. I hope that doesn't come as a shock to you.

Everyone has access to different 'facts.' Everybody takes the 'facts' of this world that are available to them and puts them together differently. The 'facts' are put together logically. They make sense to the individual who has put them together. They may not make sense to another individual who has put his/her set of 'facts' together in a different logical progression.

Why do I place quote marks around 'facts?' Because facts are not always facts but only become facts once we grant that they are. People take the 'facts' of this world, draw their own conclusions about them, become convinced that their conclusions are true and, viola, out comes 'fact.' Once convinced that certain 'facts' are 'truth' there will be nothing that can disuade one from believing otherwise. Because not only have you now concluded something as 'truth' but you will end up living the 'truth' to which who subscribe to with heart, body, mind and soul, which will then continually reinforce your conviction that it's 'true.'

Makes sense so far?

As long as we each are convinced of our 'truths' and refuse to no longer listen to any other voices, entertain any other perspectives, we become blind to anything other than our 'truths.' Hence the term 'horseblinders.'

Put two people together who believe differently, are unwilling to bend their minds even slightly, and they'll go around and around and around until death do them part.

My advice: never disallow yourself from examing the contents of your mind to see if there's any rubbish laying around which would be better off being disposed of.

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin

All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones.

Benjamin Franklin

Edit: I know, I know, a little too lengthy and a little too deep in thought. So, to give the simple response: It's not as black and white as you think it is, Boonie.

This [cough] has been pointed [cough] out to him many, [cough] many times, [cough] as well as the availability of skilled [cough] therapists to help him [cough] with his trauma.

This [cough] has been pointed [cough] out to him many, [cough] many times, [cough] as well as the availability of skilled [cough] therapists to help him [cough] with his trauma.

So, Boon Mee is the sole possessor of the truth? As long as he's getting crucified he may as well change his name to Jesus Christ, Jr.

Come on guys, let's be nice with Boon, he is our resident clown, you don't want him to stop amusing the peanut gallery by having "deep" reasoning or sincere regrets about what he says, don't we ? what would we do ? let's play nice with the less fortunate !!! This is not fair.

Ah, well, Butterfly. You're probably right. Time to pull in the reins. We wouldn't want our amusement to go away permanently.

Don't get me wrong about my chiding, though, Boonie. All joking and sarcasm aside, TV is better for having you here. You're a tremendous asset and a worthy opponent. You make a lot of people smile with your wit, including myself. Hope to meet you sometime over some beers.

Is Communism a major movement today or has it been almost completely discredited?

Communism is an unworkable social structure, doomed to fail even if left alone.

Well we know that NOW don't we?

You didn't know it BEFORE?

No, and neither did you.

Real wise looking at things in in retrospect though.

Still waiting to hear a logical explanation of what the 50,000+ lives did for the U.S., or anyone else for that matter.

Helped bring about the fall of Communism.

Excuse me??

Is Communism a major movement today or has it been almost completely discredited?

Give someone enough rope and they'll eventually hang themselves. Communism is an unworkable social structure, doomed to fail even if left alone.

But to suggest that Nam was the cause of it's collapse in other parts of the world is, well, delusional.

Communism was defeated by outspending the enemy and The Soviet Union squandered quite a few financial resources on Vietnam and Afghanistan and propping up Communist countries with no economy like Cuba and Laos.

Communism fell within 15 years of the end of the Vietnam War. Anyone who doesn't think that the Vietnam War contributed to this is living in La-La Land.

Is Communism a major movement today or has it been almost completely discredited?

Give someone enough rope and they'll eventually hang themselves. Communism is an unworkable social structure, doomed to fail even if left alone.

But to suggest that Nam was the cause of it's collapse in other parts of the world is, well, delusional.

Well we know that NOW don't we?

You didn't know it BEFORE?

No, and neither did you.

Real wise looking at things in in retrospect though.

Good morning, Ulysses.

Hope you've had you're coffee and a decent breakfast.

I pasted my entire quote which you had snipped because I think your comment (in red) was in reference to the portion of my quote which you had snipped. I originally took it as commenting on the first portion of my post (also in red). Which then invalidates the argument from that point forward on my end since the premise has changed.

Is Communism a major movement today or has it been almost completely discredited?

Give someone enough rope and they'll eventually hang themselves. Communism is an unworkable social structure, doomed to fail even if left alone.

But to suggest that Nam was the cause of it's collapse in other parts of the world is, well, delusional.

Well we know that NOW don't we?

You didn't know it BEFORE?

No, and neither did you.

Real wise looking at things in in retrospect though.

Good morning, Ulysses.

Hope you've had you're coffee and a decent breakfast.

I pasted my entire quote which you had snipped because I think your comment (in red) was in reference to the portion of my quote which you had snipped. I originally took it as commenting on the first portion of my post (also in red). Which then invalidates the argument from that point forward on my end since the premise has changed.

I didn't reply to your entire post because it was time to close up and for my staff to go home, but what I said then still fits as does what I've said since.

Is Communism a major movement today or has it been almost completely discredited?

Give someone enough rope and they'll eventually hang themselves. Communism is an unworkable social structure, doomed to fail even if left alone.

But to suggest that Nam was the cause of it's collapse in other parts of the world is, well, delusional.

Well we know that NOW don't we?

You didn't know it BEFORE?

No, and neither did you.

Real wise looking at things in in retrospect though.

Good morning, Ulysses.

Hope you've had you're coffee and a decent breakfast.

I pasted my entire quote which you had snipped because I think your comment (in red) was in reference to the portion of my quote which you had snipped. I originally took it as commenting on the first portion of my post (also in red). Which then invalidates the argument from that point forward on my end since the premise has changed.

I didn't reply to your entire post because it was time to close up and for my staff to go home, but what I said then still fits as does what I've said since.

I absolutely agree with you, Ulysses. What you said does fit. It fits your perspective. But that's about all it fits.

Both you and Boonie just don't seem to grasp that there are other perspectives. Oh, you do recognize that. Otherwise everyone would be in complete agreement with you, and it's quite evident to you that that is not the case. What you fail to grasp, then, is that there are other perspectives which have validity, and perhaps moreso than yours.

However, you are not free enough to grant another perspective validity. For you to be able to do that you would have to allow yourself the luxury of exploring ideas which would run contrary to your currently held beliefs. All for the purpose of comparing other ideas to your own to see which ones have the greater validity. You might then find that you hold ideas which only make sense in light of certain knowns, or assumptions, or given certain facts. The introduction of other knowns and other facts would force a necessary adjustment of your beliefs.

This is what's called mental flexibility. The ability, which hinges on a willingness, to change one's thinking, one's beliefs, as one grows in knowledge, in order to better ones self. Lots of people lose their mental flexibilty for a variety of reasons. Whatever the reasons may be the inevitable result is stagnation.

In any case, unless people are willing to allow themselves the luxury of more than a single perspective discussions become impossible. And in the case of politics this luxury is seldom afforded ones self. There is no willingness to grow or to learn, only the impetus to defend current positions. There can be little more than mudslinging, derision, charater assasinations, and all of the other <deleted> that's so putridly common in any political arena. Fun in a way, but it gets old very quickly for me. Once you understand how it works you move past it.

Well, all you critics of the war in Iraq lack perspective. Plain & simple. The fact is, the number of soldiers killed in Iraq throughout the entire length of the war is about the same as the worst month in Vietnam (Through March 20, 2006 in Iraq, there were 2,317 soldiers killed. In May of 1968 in Vietnam, there were 2,316 soldiers killed).

Here's another detail that y’all are overlooking: we're losing less people in Iraq than we lost in peace time during the eighties.

For example, in 2004 there were 1,887 US active duty military deaths. Keep in mind, that's the total in Iraq, Afghanistan, at home, abroad -- everything. Guess how many there were in 1981, a year where we didn't lose a single soldier to "hostile action?" There were 2,380 deaths that year. How about 1983, the year we liberated Grenada? There were 2,486 soldiers killed.

The point is that even during peace time, being in the military is a tough, dangerous, and difficult job that requires folks in the military to risk their lives. It's not easy work and it's even harder during wartime.

The Hanoi Jane’s and the Julies & Ethel Rosenberg’s of this world don’t make it any easier…

I believe some critics are concerned not only about the precious US soldiers who get wounded or killed, but also the great number of others who are victims of war, including the havoc war reeks on countless lives without them showing up in any statistics you could use to pad yourselves on the back.

I believe some critics are concerned not only about the precious US soldiers who get wounded or killed, but also the great number of others who are victims of war, including the havoc war reeks on countless lives without them showing up in any statistics you could use to pad yourselves on the back.

Jeeeeezzzuuuss H, Keerist!

Talk about 'them that are the most blind are the one who will not see' or what?

Remember Saddam?

How about Pol Pot?

or...let's try the Butcher of the Balkans who just snuffed it the other day?

Well, all you critics of the war in Iraq lack perspective. Plain & simple. The fact is, the number of soldiers killed in Iraq throughout the entire length of the war is about the same as the worst month in Vietnam (Through March 20, 2006 in Iraq, there were 2,317 soldiers killed. In May of 1968 in Vietnam, there were 2,316 soldiers killed).

So what.Vietnam was how many years ago? I thought we had learnt a bit since then.

Well, all you critics of the war in Iraq lack perspective. Plain & simple. The fact is, the number of soldiers killed in Iraq throughout the entire length of the war is about the same as the worst month in Vietnam (Through March 20, 2006 in Iraq, there were 2,317 soldiers killed. In May of 1968 in Vietnam, there were 2,316 soldiers killed).

So what.Vietnam was how many years ago? I thought we had learnt a bit since then.

Well, in all the debate about the Iraq war, we have yet to hear a viable alternative.

Well, all you critics of the war in Iraq lack perspective. Plain & simple. The fact is, the number of soldiers killed in Iraq throughout the entire length of the war is about the same as the worst month in Vietnam (Through March 20, 2006 in Iraq, there were 2,317 soldiers killed. In May of 1968 in Vietnam, there were 2,316 soldiers killed).

So what.Vietnam was how many years ago? I thought we had learnt a bit since then.

Well, in all the debate about the Iraq war, we have yet to hear a viable alternative.

Could this be because you ignore all arguements contrary to your opinion. Of course I don't expect you to answer this.

Well, all you critics of the war in Iraq lack perspective. Plain & simple. The fact is, the number of soldiers killed in Iraq throughout the entire length of the war is about the same as the worst month in Vietnam (Through March 20, 2006 in Iraq, there were 2,317 soldiers killed. In May of 1968 in Vietnam, there were 2,316 soldiers killed).

So what.Vietnam was how many years ago? I thought we had learnt a bit since then.

Well, in all the debate about the Iraq war, we have yet to hear a viable alternative.

Could this be because you ignore all arguements contrary to your opinion. Of course I don't expect you to answer this.

Lay it on me brother.

What would you do?

I wouldn't have invaded in the first place, but as the chimop decided to bring American democracy t the middle east, what's left is called damage control. Split the country in three and leave.

The Sunnis hate you

The Shiites hate you

The Kurds are your only friends. Give them enough mney and munitions to defend themselves and ease on out.

I wouldn't have invaded in the first place, but as the chimop decided to bring American democracy t the middle east, what's left is called damage control. Split the country in three and leave.

The Sunnis hate you

The Shiites hate you

The Kurds are your only friends. Give them enough mney and munitions to defend themselves and ease on out.

Sounds good to me.

Yugoslavia, India & Pakistan etc. had to be broken up and doing the same with Iraq is not that much different.

At the moment your well on the way to creating an oil rich western hating Theocracy. Sound familiar.

At the moment your well on the way to creating an oil rich western hating Theocracy. Sound familiar.

Not worried.

We'll just install someone like Chalabi who's 'friendly' to the west.

At the moment your well on the way to creating an oil rich western hating Theocracy. Sound familiar.

Not worried.

We'll just install someone like Chalabi who's 'friendly' to the west.

This is a joke surely. You're not in a position to install anyone.

I believe some critics are concerned not only about the precious US soldiers who get wounded or killed, but also the great number of others who are victims of war, including the havoc war reeks on countless lives without them showing up in any statistics you could use to pad yourselves on the back.

Jeeeeezzzuuuss H, Keerist!

Talk about 'them that are the most blind are the one who will not see' or what?

Remember Saddam?

How about Pol Pot?or...let's try the Butcher of the Balkans who just snuffed it the other day?

Now there is a place that you should have invaded. Didn't the commies finally rescue the cambodians?

At the moment your well on the way to creating an oil rich western hating Theocracy. Sound familiar.

Not worried.

We'll just install someone like Chalabi who's 'friendly' to the west.

Hahaha !!! and what happened to spreading democracy to Iraq ?

I can't wait for Saddam to be back in power and prove you wrong !!!

Not worried.

We'll just install someone like Chalabi who's 'friendly' to the west.

Good choice, but let him first finish the rest of his jail-sentence so he can start clean.

Sounds good to me.

Yugoslavia, India & Pakistan etc. had to be broken up and doing the same with Iraq is not that much different.

Well, that's not quite true now is it ?

Yugoslavia was held together by the iron grip of Tito. After he died, some of the "republics" (Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-whatever) decided to go for independance. Serbia tried to force them to remain subservient vassals.

The country wasn't "broken up" in order to solve a problem.

After the Brits left India, the Muslims decided to split off from India, creating East and West Pakistan and a whole new set of problems for the world. Eventually, East Pakistan became Bangladesh and West Pakistan became simply Pakistan.

Again, they weren't "broken up" by somebody else.

Actually, as I think about this, the only really good example of a country being "broken up" is Israel (their territory was "broken off" of the greater Palestinian Mandate that the British controlled.)

In any event, splitting up Iraq into smaller countries might gain some short-term relief, but in the long run it wouldn't help.

The Kurds wouldn't be happy, as too many of them live in Turkey and Iran. They would eventually want to encompass those areas into a "Greater Kurdistan", much the way Albania was trying to do in the Balkans.

The Shia's and Sunnis would be at each others throats immediately (remember, most of Iraq's oil is in the south and they would both want to control it). There would be a lot of pressure/influence on both groups from outside their respective areas, and their neighbours would be quick to try and absorb those smaller countries into their own hegemony.

Besides, what good does it do to continuously split up countries into smaller and smaller countries (like East Timor for example), especially along ethnic/religious lines ?

You end up creating a lot more welfare states that would have to rely on international aid to avoid starving to death. Eventually, quite a few of them will turn into M.E. versions of Somalia or worse.

I believe some critics are concerned not only about the precious US soldiers who get wounded or killed, but also the great number of others who are victims of war, including the havoc war reeks on countless lives without them showing up in any statistics you could use to pad yourselves on the back.

Jeeeeezzzuuuss H, Keerist!

Talk about 'them that are the most blind are the one who will not see' or what?

Remember Saddam?

How about Pol Pot?

or...let's try the Butcher of the Balkans who just snuffed it the other day?

I think US soldiers with those 2 wars have killed more civilians than Saddam ever did under peace.

Besides, what good does it do to continuously split up countries into smaller and smaller countries (like East Timor for example), especially along ethnic/religious lines ?

You end up creating a lot more welfare states that would have to rely on international aid to avoid starving to death. Eventually, quite a few of them will turn into M.E. versions of Somalia or worse.

It worked in the example of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics didn't it?

Why not on a smaller scale?

Not worried.

We'll just install someone like Chalabi who's 'friendly' to the west.

Good choice, but let him first finish the rest of his jail-sentence so he can start clean.

Isn't he an Iranian Spy ? how is that for friendly ?