OT: How to deal with a bully?

This is the story of a bully. The question is how to deal with him... A man lives next-door to you.
He is a very cruel man who rules his family with an iron fist, beating into submission any who do
not follow his every wish, and rewarding those who are as ruthless to their siblings as he
is.One day the man is caught brutally beating the children of one of your neighbors. No reason is
found for his attack, other than his cruel hatred for them. He makes up some story about their
having misbehaved, but they are too traumatized to speak out against him. He gets off the hook.
The man also spends time building a machine that appears to have no real purpose other than to be
used to destroy the homes of his neighbors and possibly to kill them. Rumors fly that he intends
to attack his neighbors and rape their wives and daughters and torture them to death. It is
rumored that he did this once long ago, but the memories of the authorities seem to be short. The
authorities are told about the death machine he is building but they are unconvinced he would
ever really use it. He just has a perverted interest in such things, they reason. They even go
and speak to him and ask to see the machine that he has now slyly hidden away in his home in a
secret room. The authorities don't press too hard to search his home, since, after all, he knows
they are watching him and he wouldn't dare do anything now. You live near this "bully," and you
know that because of your own strength and power, you could easily fend off any direct and
frontal attack by this man. Yet you also know that he is himself a true coward. He will pretend
not to have the machinery of destruction he possesses. He will never engage you in a straight
ahead confrontation, for he knows he would get his butt kicked. He will wait until you are gone
or otherwise indisposed, and then he will attack your helpless wife and children and mercilessly
kill them. Then he will quietly return to his home and deny everything when the authorities come
to question him. You know that he will one day do this evil deed and you try to get your
neighbors to join you in destroying his death machine. Only a handful of your friends agree that
something must be done to stop this now. You know that if you forcefully attack him and disarm
him of his machinery, your wives and children will live in a greater measure of peace. You know
too that even if you stop this wicked man, there will be others like him who will look for
opportunities to attack your family later on. You realize that some of your other neighbors will
brand you as the instigator and even call YOU the "bully." You have a choice. Option A: You can
act forcefully now before he strengthens his machinery enough to bring inevitable and terrible
harm upon your loved ones. If you do, you'll be branded the bad guy by those who had their heads
stuck in the sand so far they could not see that he was going to attack them also. Option B: You
can do nothing, sticking your own head down into the sand as well, despising the sorry view it
affords, but at least not having to see him next door plotting your demise. At least then you
will go quickly and suddenly when it happens.

Some choice........
--
Off to ride the mountains, Dale Heath To reply, poke out my eye.

 

D Heath wrote:
> This is the story of a bully. The question is how to deal with him... A man lives next-door to
> you. He is a very cruel man who rules his family with an iron fist,

This is a parable about the US, right?

 

bomba wrote:
> D Heath wrote:
>
>> This is the story of a bully. The question is how to deal with him... A man lives next-door
>> to you. He is a very cruel man who rules his family with an iron fist,
>
>
> This is a parable about the US, right?
>
>
it is obviously a parable about the US. but i can't figure out why they failed mention that this
bully actualy stole his way into this home. that his family never selceted him and in fact wanted
his cousin to lead them, but this persons brother fixed thing so the cousin was put out by the
grandfathers cronies. then when all the familes in the commuity said 'you can't beat the neigbor's
kids" he said 'i'm the biggest badest person in this town and i'll do what i want'.

 

bomba wrote:
> D Heath wrote:
>
>> This is the story of a bully. The question is how to deal with him... A man lives next-door
>> to you. He is a very cruel man who rules his family with an iron fist,
>
>
> This is a parable about the US, right?
>

Clearly not because we don't have any cruel men living next to us.

Greg

--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons

 

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:53:56 +0100, bomba wrote:
> D Heath wrote:
>> This is the story of a bully. The question is how to deal with him... A man lives next-door
>> to you. He is a very cruel man who rules his family with an iron fist,
>
> This is a parable about the US, right?

Does the US have neighbors like that? No.

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:53:56 +0100, bomba wrote:
> > D Heath wrote:
> >> This is the story of a bully. The question is how to deal with
him...
> >> A man lives next-door to you. He is a very cruel man who rules his family with an iron
> >> fist,
> >
> > This is a parable about the US, right?
>
> Does the US have neighbors like that? No.
>

I dunno...I've been keeping my eye on Canada for some time now. You know 'They' say it's always the
quiet ones...

Mike

 

Michael Dart wrote:
> "BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:53:56 +0100, bomba wrote:
>>> D Heath wrote:
>>>> This is the story of a bully. The question is how to deal with him... A man lives next-door
>>>> to you. He is a very cruel man who rules his family with an iron fist,
>>>
>>> This is a parable about the US, right?
>>
>> Does the US have neighbors like that? No.
>>
>
> I dunno...I've been keeping my eye on Canada for some time now. You know 'They' say it's always
> the quiet ones...
>
> Mike
and they talk funny too.

ps

 

"Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Michael Dart wrote:
> > "BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:53:56 +0100, bomba wrote:
> >>> D Heath wrote:
> >>>> This is the story of a bully. The question is how to deal with him... A man lives
> >>>> next-door to you. He is a very cruel man who rules his family with an iron fist,
> >>>
> >>> This is a parable about the US, right?
> >>
> >> Does the US have neighbors like that? No.
> >>
> >
> > I dunno...I've been keeping my eye on Canada for some time now. You know 'They' say it's always
> > the quiet ones...
> >
> > Mike
> and they talk funny too.
>
> ps
>
>

...and there beer sucks. ;^)

Mike - (one too many John Candy movies)

 

"D Heath" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This is the story of a bully. The question is how to deal with
him...

Well, since the bully has now stopped beating up on your OTHER neighbour that you hate, which you
supported while it lasted, but now it sounds he really isn't of much use to you anymore, so the best
solution is to get a really big gun, shoot the @#*$ out of the guy's house, don't worry if the
innocent wife and kids are caught it the crossfire, and move in and sell off anything of worth to
pay you for your trouble.

- Chris Snell

 

"Chris Snell" <[email protected]ca.deletethis> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "D Heath" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > This is the story of a bully. The question is how to deal with
> him...
>
> Well, since the bully has now stopped beating up on your OTHER neighbour that you hate, which you
> supported while it lasted, but now it sounds he really isn't of much use to you anymore, so the
> best solution is to get a really big gun, shoot the @#*$ out of the guy's house, don't worry if
> the innocent wife and kids are caught it the crossfire, and move in and sell off anything of worth
> to pay you for your trouble.
>
> - Chris Snell

Tell me, Chris, do you think there is ANY other country in the world than the USA that would
take as many pains to AVOID harming the "innocent wife and kids" in the crossfire? Not a chance.
If it came to war, these would not be concerns if they got in the way of the main objective. The
USA could certainly save money AND have more to "sell off" as you put it, if they disregarded
all human lives and just made a fast, dirty sweep of the whole thing with widespread firepower.
This is not what is being done and you know it. The citizens of the USA will be paying for this
extra cost and slower road to victory with a lot of dollars in the next many years; some
estimate it will be 200 billion dollars; some say more. I doubt there is any real financial gain
in this endeavor for the USA, regardless of what the jaded accusers say. The real gain is
greater stability in the long run for all nations who will not have the madman of Baghdad around
to use weapons of mass destruction indiscriminately or otherwise. I am completely amazed at the
number of people who are willing to defend, however remotely or indirectly, a man as wicked and
dangerous (proven so by MULTIPLE actions over a long time) as Saddam Hussein. No leader or
nation (much less Bush or the USA) is beyond the reach of doubtful accusations or questionable
intentions, and no one knows all of what is in these men's hearts, but the plain and unvarnished
truth is that the time is running out to put a stop to Saddam before it costs FAR more lives in
the future. These are the lives that folks should be concerned about and demonstrating about.
But no, it is much more fashionable to slam Bush and the USA because we are not willing to put
up with the nonsense of the likes of France's Chirac, who exposes himself as a total non-leader
by saying NOTHING would bring about a vote to use force against Iraq. How could any leader in
his right mind say such nonsense? Where would all the demonstrators be if it were Saddam using
WMD on the Kurds again next week? Or on the Iranians? Or on Kuwait? I'll tell you where they
would be: They'd be home on the couch watching sitcoms and thinking sappy thoughts. "No worries
here, eh? At least he's not bothering us now. Gee it's a shame he is slaughtering all those
folks in the mountains. Somebody really ought to do something about that. Maybe the UN should go
in and have a talk with him?" There never was or will be a political or diplomatic solution to
the likes of Saddam. It's time the world faced up to that because there are others who may be
like him, watching for their opportunity. For your sake and mine, I thank God for President
Bush's and PM Tony Blair's strength of will to choose the unpopular but right action to take.
These men are true leaders. If only our children saw that they are worthy of respect rather than
hear them slandered and slammed sarcastically. I have to wonder with the way some talk whether
they would rather their children modeled after Saddam instead. How blind.
--
Off to ride the mountains, Dale Heath To reply, poke out my eye.

 

> Well, since the bully has now stopped beating up on your OTHER neighbour that you hate, which you
> supported while it lasted, but now it sounds he really isn't of much use to you anymore, so the
> best solution is to get a really big gun, shoot the @#*$ out of the guy's house, don't worry if
> the innocent wife and kids are caught it the crossfire, and move in and sell off anything of worth
> to pay you for your trouble.
>
> - Chris Snell
>

And all the while you and your buddy Tony are sitting on the worlds largest pile of nasty death
machines and the whole thing is starting to sound like a 'death machines are our sandbox and you
can't play' playground spat. Plus you are the only house in the neighbourhood that has dropped some
of these death machines on other people you didn't like... sorry your morality doesn't wash.

J2

PS I think Sadddam should be removed, but this is not the way.

 

France seems to have had taken great pains to avoid harming "the innocent wife and kids" by NOT
going to war. And I believe their stance was that "NOTHING would bring about a vote to use force
against Iraq "(your emphasis) WHILE THERE WAS ANOTHER OPTION (my emphasis). Until the inspectors
said they had failed.

And the real schism in opinion that this seems to come down to is this: was an invasion necessary?
Because the advantage of no war, is there is no crossfire to get caught in.

So, was war unavoidable? Did anyone offer Saddam 10 billion dollars and complete immunity to just
leave the country? Maybe he'd have jumped at that. How serious could the offer have been if it did
not include immunity? No way Saddam is leaving without immunity. (Before you get on your high horse,
which is worse, compromising on principles, or killing innocents?)

Would inspections have worked? The inspectors didn't seem to think it was hopeless.

I think it is great that Bush got the inspectors back in, but why then, why did he pull the plug on
them? If inspections were his objective, why not let them work? If the inspections weren't working,
wouldn't THE INSPECTORS HAVE SAID SO? YES! All the inspectors asked for was more time. Bush wouldn't
budge. Why not give the inspectors the time they wanted? Before you say inspections weren't working,
I'll point to 70 Al-samoud missiles destroyed.

>Where would all the demonstrators be if it were Saddam using WMD on
the Kurds again next week?

This seems pointless, I can come up with all kinds of "what if's" for next week. (What if Saddam had
become a born-again Christian next week?) But it is interesting that US policy is now based on
pre-emptive attacks to counter exactly this kind of "what if" scenario.

> There never was or will be a political or diplomatic solution to the
likes of Saddam. Democracy was restored to East Germany without an invasion.

As far as who our children should be modelled after, I leave that to their parents. But, if they
were not to choose George as a role model, maybe Saddam wouldn't be their only other choice. Perhaps
Gandhi, or Mandela, or maybe even Chirac, might also be candidates.

One thing that does seem hopeless is changing the minds of people on either side of this argument.
For instance, I don't believe you and I will ever achieve agreement on even this simple matter:
whether criticism of Bush's policies is the same as supporting Saddam's.

- Chris

"D Heath" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
> "Chris Snell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "D Heath" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > This is the story of a bully. The question is how to deal
with
> > him...
> >
> > Well, since the bully has now stopped beating up on your OTHER neighbour that you hate, which
> > you supported while it lasted, but
now
> > it sounds he really isn't of much use to you anymore, so the best solution is to get a really
> > big gun, shoot the @#*$ out of the
guy's
> > house, don't worry if the innocent wife and kids are caught it the crossfire, and move in and
> > sell off anything of worth to pay you
for
> > your trouble.
> >
> > - Chris Snell
>
> Tell me, Chris, do you think there is ANY other country in the
world
> than the USA that would take as many pains to AVOID harming the
"innocent
> wife and kids" in the crossfire? Not a chance. If it came to war,
these
> would not be concerns if they got in the way of the main objective.
The USA
> could certainly save money AND have more to "sell off" as you put
it, if
> they disregarded all human lives and just made a fast, dirty sweep
of the
> whole thing with widespread firepower. This is not what is being
done and
> you know it. The citizens of the USA will be paying for this extra
cost and
> slower road to victory with a lot of dollars in the next many years;
some
> estimate it will be 200 billion dollars; some say more. I doubt
there is any
> real financial gain in this endeavor for the USA, regardless of what
the
> jaded accusers say. The real gain is greater stability in the long
run for
> all nations who will not have the madman of Baghdad around to use
weapons of
> mass destruction indiscriminately or otherwise. I am completely amazed at the number of people who
> are willing
to
> defend, however remotely or indirectly, a man as wicked and
dangerous
> (proven so by MULTIPLE actions over a long time) as Saddam Hussein.
> No leader or nation (much less Bush or the USA) is beyond the
reach of
> doubtful accusations or questionable intentions, and no one knows
all of
> what is in these men's hearts, but the plain and unvarnished truth
is that
> the time is running out to put a stop to Saddam before it costs FAR
more
> lives in the future. These are the lives that folks should be
concerned
> about and demonstrating about. But no, it is much more fashionable to slam Bush and the USA
because we
> are not willing to put up with the nonsense of the likes of France's
Chirac,
> who exposes himself as a total non-leader by saying NOTHING would
bring
> about a vote to use force against Iraq. How could any leader in his
right
> mind say such nonsense? Where would all the demonstrators be if it were Saddam using WMD
on the
> Kurds again next week? Or on the Iranians? Or on Kuwait? I'll tell
you where
> they would be: They'd be home on the couch watching sitcoms and
thinking
> sappy thoughts. "No worries here, eh? At least he's not bothering us
now.
> Gee it's a shame he is slaughtering all those folks in the
mountains.
> Somebody really ought to do something about that. Maybe the UN
should go in
> and have a talk with him?" There never was or will be a political or diplomatic solution to
the
> likes of Saddam. It's time the world faced up to that because there
are
> others who may be like him, watching for their opportunity. For your
sake
> and mine, I thank God for President Bush's and PM Tony Blair's
strength of
> will to choose the unpopular but right action to take. These men are
true
> leaders. If only our children saw that they are worthy of respect
rather
> than hear them slandered and slammed sarcastically. I have to wonder
with
> the way some talk whether they would rather their children modeled
after
> Saddam instead. How blind.
> --
> Off to ride the mountains, Dale Heath To reply, poke out my eye.
>

 

My mistake. I didn't know you were talking about the US of A, I thought you were just talking about
your bully neighbour!

- Chris.

"D Heath" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
> "Chris Snell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "D Heath" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > This is the story of a bully. The question is how to deal
with
> > him...
> >
> > Well, since the bully has now stopped beating up on your OTHER neighbour that you hate, which
> > you supported while it lasted, but
now
> > it sounds he really isn't of much use to you anymore, so the best solution is to get a really
> > big gun, shoot the @#*$ out of the
guy's
> > house, don't worry if the innocent wife and kids are caught it the crossfire, and move in and
> > sell off anything of worth to pay you
for
> > your trouble.
> >
> > - Chris Snell
>
> Tell me, Chris, do you think there is ANY other country in the
world
> than the USA that would take as many pains to AVOID harming the
"innocent
> wife and kids" in the crossfire? Not a chance. If it came to war,
these
> would not be concerns if they got in the way of the main objective.
The USA
> could certainly save money AND have more to "sell off" as you put
it, if
> they disregarded all human lives and just made a fast, dirty sweep
of the
> whole thing with widespread firepower. This is not what is being
done and
> you know it. The citizens of the USA will be paying for this extra
cost and
> slower road to victory with a lot of dollars in the next many years;
some
> estimate it will be 200 billion dollars; some say more. I doubt
there is any
> real financial gain in this endeavor for the USA, regardless of what
the
> jaded accusers say. The real gain is greater stability in the long
run for
> all nations who will not have the madman of Baghdad around to use we
apons of
> mass destruction indiscriminately or otherwise. I am completely amazed at the number of people who
> are willing
to
> defend, however remotely or indirectly, a man as wicked and
dangerous
> (proven so by MULTIPLE actions over a long time) as Saddam Hussein.
> No leader or nation (much less Bush or the USA) is beyond the
reach of
> doubtful accusations or questionable intentions, and no one knows
all of
> what is in these men's hearts, but the plain and unvarnished truth
is that
> the time is running out to put a stop to Saddam before it costs FAR
more
> lives in the future. These are the lives that folks should be
concerned
> about and demonstrating about. But no, it is much more fashionable to slam Bush and the USA
because we
> are not willing to put up with the nonsense of the likes of France's
Chirac,
> who exposes himself as a total non-leader by saying NOTHING would
bring
> about a vote to use force against Iraq. How could any leader in his
right
> mind say such nonsense? Where would all the demonstrators be if it were Saddam using WMD
on the
> Kurds again next week? Or on the Iranians? Or on Kuwait? I'll tell
you where
> they would be: They'd be home on the couch watching sitcoms and
thinking
> sappy thoughts. "No worries here, eh? At least he's not bothering us
now.
> Gee it's a shame he is slaughtering all those folks in the
mountains.
> Somebody really ought to do something about that. Maybe the UN
should go in
> and have a talk with him?" There never was or will be a political or diplomatic solution to
the
> likes of Saddam. It's time the world faced up to that because there
are
> others who may be like him, watching for their opportunity. For your
sake
> and mine, I thank God for President Bush's and PM Tony Blair's
strength of
> will to choose the unpopular but right action to take. These men are
true
> leaders. If only our children saw that they are worthy of respect
rather
> than hear them slandered and slammed sarcastically. I have to wonder
with
> the way some talk whether they would rather their children modeled
after
> Saddam instead. How blind.
> --
> Off to ride the mountains, Dale Heath To reply, poke out my eye.
>

 

D Heath wrote:

> The citizens of the USA will be paying for this extra cost and slower road to victory with a lot
> of dollars in the next many years; some estimate it will be 200 billion dollars; some say more. I
> doubt there is any real financial gain in this endeavor for the USA, regardless of what the jaded
> accusers say.

Perhaps it is not the entire USA that will benefit...

> I am completely amazed at the number of people who are willing to defend, however remotely or
> indirectly, a man as wicked and dangerous (proven so by MULTIPLE actions over a long time) as
> Saddam Hussein.

<Bangs head on desk> Just because we oppose war does not mean we support Saddam Hussein!

> But no, it is much more fashionable to slam Bush and the USA because we are not willing to put
> up with the nonsense of the likes of France's Chirac, who exposes himself as a total
> non-leader by saying NOTHING would bring about a vote to use force against Iraq.

You need to check your facts. It was Germany who said they would not support any action. France just
wanted to give the inspectors more time before backing a second resolution authorising force.

 

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:53:56 +0100, bomba <[email protected]> blathered:

>> This is the story of a bully. The question is how to deal with him... A man lives next-door
>> to you. He is a very cruel man who rules his family with an iron fist,
>
>This is a parable about the US, right?

I thought it was somebody else bitching about JD.

----
http://www.btinternet.com/~peteajones/

 

> Tell me, Chris, do you think there is ANY other country in the world than the USA that would
> take as many pains to AVOID harming the "innocent wife and kids" in the crossfire?

Indeed, history seems to support the theory that it is more dangerous to be in the crossfire if you
are on the same side as the US, although I suspect that may be due more to incompetence than any
desire to limit civilian casualties (sorry, I mean collateral damage)

snipped stuff

> I am completely amazed at the number of people who are willing to defend, however remotely or
> indirectly, a man as wicked and dangerous (proven so by MULTIPLE actions over a long time) as
> Saddam Hussein.

I don't believe I have heard ANYONE defend him (apart from Iraqis who have little choice) -
ingenuous propaganda such as this is what makes me distrust the US so much - that and the fact that
they are intent on world domination.

more stuff snipped

> But no, it is much more fashionable to slam Bush and the USA because
we
> are not willing to put up with the nonsense of the likes of France's
Chirac,

How long before the US tanks roll into Paris to liberate the French people from their evil
government? This is what really terrifies me about Bush and his right-wing hawks - after Iraq it is
only a small step to Syria, Saudi, Libya, and then anyone else who hasn't supported them. If you
aren't with us, you're agin us I believe they said. Small wonder that Blair has sided with the
playground bully IMO.

more stuff snipped

 

"Chris Snell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> France seems to have had taken great pains to avoid harming "the innocent wife and kids" by NOT
> going to war. And I believe their stance was that "NOTHING would bring about a vote to use force
> against Iraq "(your emphasis) WHILE THERE WAS ANOTHER OPTION (my emphasis). Until the inspectors
> said they had failed.

It seems to me that they could not bring themselves to such a conclusion. The nature of diligent
workers is to press on, to keep on trying to catch the bad guy in a mistake, etc. That's good,
but it can be counterproductive to the other concerns that may be negatively affected by more
lost time. I think that is what moved the USA and Britain and others to move at this time.

> And the real schism in opinion that this seems to come down to is this: was an invasion necessary?
> Because the advantage of no war, is there is no crossfire to get caught in.

Admittedly and obviously true. But there IS a time for war, in spite of its sorry costs, IMO.

> So, was war unavoidable? Did anyone offer Saddam 10 billion dollars and complete immunity to just
> leave the country? Maybe he'd have jumped at that.

I don't think you really believe Saddam would even consider such an option. If you do, I don't
think you begin to grasp his motivations and aspirations. They are not merely financial.

> How serious could the offer have been if it did not include immunity? No way Saddam is leaving
> without immunity. (Before you get on your high horse, which is worse, compromising on principles,
> or killing innocents?)
>
> Would inspections have worked? The inspectors didn't seem to think it was hopeless.

The desire to achieve their goal is a natural human motivation that would make it difficult
for them to throw in the towel, even after a much longer time frame. I don't condemn them for
this; I simply recognize it as an understandable response on their part. But keep in mind that
they were just that: inspectors. They were not the ones to make the ultimate choices for all.
These choices are reserved to our leaders, some of whom determined that the time had come for
other actions.

> I think it is great that Bush got the inspectors back in, but why then, why did he pull the plug
> on them? If inspections were his objective, why not let them work? If the inspections weren't
> working, wouldn't THE INSPECTORS HAVE SAID SO? YES! All the inspectors asked for was more time.
> Bush wouldn't budge. Why not give the inspectors the time they wanted? Before you say inspections
> weren't working, I'll point to 70 Al-samoud missiles destroyed.

I don't think the issue for Bush is simply one of whether inspections made any progress in any
way. Timing of progress is just as vital as the content, and I believe Bush and others were
right in recognizing that Saddam was simply playing games as he has been before. The demand, and
a fair and do-able demand, was that Saddam come clean. Not partially; not next year;
immediately. He frustrated the inspectors any way possible; refused to allow them access to key
scientists; denied the existence of chemical weapons but could not show evidence that they had
been destroyed. These are not the actions of one who intends to disarm.

> >Where would all the demonstrators be if it were Saddam using WMD on
> the Kurds again next week?
>
> This seems pointless, I can come up with all kinds of "what if's" for next week. (What if Saddam
> had become a born-again Christian next week?) But it is interesting that US policy is now based on
> pre-emptive attacks to counter exactly this kind of "what if" scenario.

Any "what if" scenario MIGHT be possible, but only those which have some reasonable support to
believe they are likely to occur should be a basis for our response, No? I wish Saddam would
indeed be born again, and it is not outside of God's ability to bring that about. A man named
Saul is proof of that. However, the task of presidents and leaders is not to operate on pipe
dreams but to move against threats to their citizens' well being, which I believe is what is
occurring now.

> > There never was or will be a political or diplomatic solution to the likes of Saddam.
> Democracy was restored to East Germany without an invasion.
>
> As far as who our children should be modelled after, I leave that to their parents. But, if they
> were not to choose George as a role model, maybe Saddam wouldn't be their only other choice.
> Perhaps Gandhi, or Mandela, or maybe even Chirac, might also be candidates.

Good point. (But I did not mean to limit the choices to only the two.)

> One thing that does seem hopeless is changing the minds of people on either side of this argument.
> For instance, I don't believe you and I will ever achieve agreement on even this simple matter:
> whether criticism of Bush's policies is the same as supporting Saddam's.

Actually, I think we already agree on that one, though I may not always show that in my attempts
to express my thoughts. I am sorry about that. And thanks for pointing out that I have not shown
that. I was probably out of line on my choice of words that suggest I think criticism of
Bush=support for Saddam. It does not. Nor do I consider Bush some kind of infallible individual,
any more than me. I'm just glad he has been put where he is to do the job he is doing. The big
picture of what is being accomplished these days encourages me, but I realize it does not appear
that way to all. Time alone will show the truth of the matter.

--
Off to ride the mountains, Dale Heath To reply, poke out my eye.

 

Perhaps there's not so mush distance between us. Saddam is an evil tyrant; I will dance at his
demise, even while weeping for the cost. And wonder: "could it have been less?". Wisdom or folly,
maybe God alone will know.

> The big picture of what is being accomplished these days encourages me, but I realize it does not
> appear that way to
all. Time
> alone will show the truth of the matter.
>
> --
> Off to ride the mountains, Dale Heath To reply, poke out my eye.

 

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> that his family never selceted him and in fact wanted his cousin to lead them, but this persons
> brother fixed thing so the cousin was put out by
>
I thought he married his cousin.

nk

 

"Chris Snell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So, was war unavoidable? Did anyone offer Saddam 10 billion dollars and complete immunity to just
> leave the country? Maybe he'd have jumped at that. How serious could the offer have been if it did
> not include immunity? No way Saddam is leaving without immunity. (Before you get on your high
> horse, which is worse, compromising on principles, or killing innocents?)

Should the civilized world get in the business of offering crazy dictators 10 billion dollars? What
if he asked for more? what's the limit?

> Would inspections have worked? The inspectors didn't seem to think it was hopeless.

Let's see, have inspectors run around the country like headless chickens and then kick them out as
they get close to something. In 1998 Kofy Anan went to Baghdad to negotiate weapons inspections
with Saddam. When Anan returned to the U.N. he reported that "Saddam was a man that he can deal
with." A few months later Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors out of the country. Kofy Anan
had no comment.

> Democracy was restored to East Germany without an invasion.

Saddam Hussein was not the dictator of East Germany. However, Hitler used to be, do you disagree on
how America removed Hitler from power? After all, wasn't it Chamberlain who met with Hitler and said
" We have peace on our time."

> As far as who our children should be modelled after, I leave that to their parents. But, if they
> were not to choose George as a role model, maybe Saddam wouldn't be their only other choice.
> Perhaps Gandhi, or Mandela, or maybe even Chirac, might also be candidates.

Of the five names you mentioned above, only George Bush is responsible for maintaining world order.
What happend to Gandhi anyway, do you know?

> One thing that does seem hopeless is changing the minds of people on either side of this argument.
> For instance, I don't believe you and I will ever achieve agreement on even this simple matter:
> whether criticism of Bush's policies is the same as supporting Saddam's.

We are the cornerstone that holds western civalization together, the Europeans hate this because it
makes them feel insignificant, and the Muslims hate it even more.