BTDTGTTS. Fifth post down by our resident grammar Naz^H^H^HCza^H^H^HGuru.

Why cant it be like in German - du and Sie ...

I think you mean du and ihr. Unless you're not being totally informal, in which case it would be Sie and Sie. Not to mention the confusion between ihr the second person plural pronoun and ihr the third person singular female possessive pronoun and Ihr the second person formal singular possessive pronoun and Ihr the second person formal plural posessive pronoun.

Yeah, other languages are easier.

Thank you, I missed that thread but very interesting. The history behind the grammar is interesting. It just goes to show that there is so much to learn just from this BBS! My German and French grammar is rusty too, they didn't teach these to me in elementary school here (I wish they did).

I voluntarily took a few semesters of German in college just because I was interested in learning something about another language.

I'll freely admit that I am probably overreacting. It is absurd to think that someone overseas singally and wholly blame me for my nation's mistakes simply because I live in it. I think it can be generally be agreed that a lot of people are not comfortable with what is going on right now, myself included. I'm not particularly fond of the idea of going into Iraq, and at the same time I'm scared to think what Saddam can do, and hope that he doesn't do it.

I think you mean du and ihr

Correct. I read and bookmarked the other thread that was referenced. See, I wasn't kidding when I said my German is rusty. I remember stumbling over all those pronouns when I wrote papers and essays in German.

Yeah, I was being deliberately inflammatory. And yes, I did mean you plural.

I guess all that I'm saying is that you live in a democracy. You have freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, etc.. If you truly don't like something that your government is doing, then do something about it. Let your elected representatives know how you feel.

Otherwise you might as well have voted for the incumbent.

"a desperate choice for desperate times"

Vote in 2004!

classic.

at the same time I'm scared to think what Saddam can do

Let me tell you a story:

I was on vacation in Spain on 9/11. The first I knew about the WTC attacks was when I was sitting outside a bar, enjoying some tapas. I overheard some nearby English tourists saying something to the effect of "Holy f***ing s**t, I just saw the WTC collapse".

So, I wandered down the street to a bar with a TV, and tried to figure out what the Spanish news was saying.

A confession: My first thought was "Oh sh*t, GWB is President of the US, now what kind of stupid thing is he going to go and do?"

My second thought was about the loss of life. In those early stages, it still seemed totally unreal -- I couldn't get my head around it.

My third thought was to phone a friend of mine to see if he'd heard from a mutual friend of ours who works near the WTC, and often goes there to visit clients. Thankfully, he and his wife were fine.

What I did find encouraging was the way that the British, American, Australian and Canadian tourists (other than the Japanese, are there any others?) kinda bonded in those few days. The expat pubs were heaving with people trying to catch the (English-language) news, and to try to get a handle on what was going on.

I was encouraged when Bush went into Afghanistan because it seemed like a measured (for him) response to the issue. Turns out I was wrong.

I think that the correct response to Saddam is simply to ignore him. He'll die of natural causes eventually.

I think that the correct response to Saddam is simply to ignore him. He'll die of natural causes eventually.

Yup, keep telling yourself Saddam is just one isolated totalitarian leader with nobody who would succeed him with the same convictions and ideals...

Thinking that the problems in Iraq will be solved once Saddam is gone is akin to a cancer patient who goes into remission thinking that they're guaranteed a long, healthy life.

Having said this, I am totally against any kind of military invasion into Iraq at this point. I am very much in favor of a covert operation to kill him and overthrow his regime, though, but I would want this to be done BY the Iraqi people, with as much help from us as they need. At the very least, Iraq needs to truly open up to UN inspections of all areas (the oft-quoted "unfettered access.")

I gave up voting many, many years ago. I keep telling myself that if there is every anyone worth electing to office I'll register again. But when you only have a choice of electing either dick A or dick B, what is the use. I have written different officials about different issues but unless you have some power behind you it doesn't seem to do any good.

I don't like what our government is doing over in the Middle East, they meddle too much in other countries and don't take care of the issues that need to be addressed in our own country. Easier to go muck up some place else than to solve the real problems at home, get the old American spirit up and get the economy moving again. They need to let the UN handle more than they do and quit being the bullies of the world as you put it.

We are just not used to being attacked on our own soil like other countries have had to put up with, how dare someone come over here and attack 'us'. This country has always seemed blood thirsty to me, but it is my country.

Yup, keep telling yourself Saddam is just one isolated totalitarian leader with nobody who would succeed him with the same convictions and ideals...

So? Ignore them too. I think that you should let the people of a country decide upon their own destiny. Deposing one head of state and replacing him with an American puppet is not the right way to resolve the issue, even if it does bring favourable oil price agreements.

Particularly when you then leave that guy high and dry when his policies suddenly don't agree with yours. If you do that, there are (at least) two possible results:

1. He doesn't get deposed: He gets annoyed with you for dropping him.
2. He does get deposed: His replacement gets annoyed with you for propping him up for so long.

So? Ignore them too.

Yeah, that approach looks really wise until the first ( chemical | biological | nuclear ) warhead lands in your backyard.

No fair, editing your original one-line post to contain logical arguments.

Yeah, there's a clear precedent for America dropping puppets in, and that's exactly what I'm NOT in favor of. A majority of the people in Iraq don't want Saddam in power, they just don't have the means to uproot him. The idea is to give them the means, but to let them decide who else gets into power (provided they're not building and hiding weapons.)

Re: oil, Iraq is just one member country of OPEC. Installing a leader sympathetic to the U.S. would have little or no tangible benefit to us, if anything, it would unite other OPEC members against the U.S.

I think that the correct response to Saddam is simply to ignore him. He'll die of natural causes eventually.

Read the October 21, 2002 issue of Newsweek on Saddam's sons. Be careful what you wish for.

provided they're not building and hiding weapons

Why not? We (US/UK) build and hide weapons. Why shouldn't other countries?

If I was some tinpot dictator, hearing the rhetoric coming out the White House these days, I'd want nukes, just to discourage Bush invading me on a whim. c.f. the North Koreans' admission that they're working on nukes.

Note: Devil's Advocate hat is firmly on.

Read the October 21, 2002 issue of Newsweek

Got a URL?

Pay site. Sorry. But virtually any search on Qusay Hussein or Uday Hussein will yield the same picture.

Let your elected representatives know how you feel.

If you don't know how despotic this country has gotten in the last couple of years, here's an interesting quote from Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):

I have come to the floor to state that, after much deliberation, I have decided to vote for the Resolution introduced by Senators Lieberman, Warner, Bayh and McCain. ... I serve as the Senior Senator from California, representing 35 million people. That is a formidable task. People have weighed in by the tens of thousands. If I were just to cast a representative vote based on those who have voiced their opinions with my office - and with no other factors - I would have to vote against this resolution.

Actually, we don't hide our chemical weapons... And we're supposed to get rid of them by 2004. And according to this we've already gotten rid of all of our stockpiles of biological weapons not related to bio defense research. Yeah, I see the grey area in there too. Are there classified sites that are housing one or the other of these menaces? Hell if I know... But why would there be when we have such a large supply of nukes?

And hey, I'm no huge fan of ANY weapons, especially nukes, but unless every country on the globe follows the mantra of War Games ("the only winning move is not to play") then everyone needs to kinda hold on to what they have to protect their own interests. I don't like the concept, but completely disarming every nuke in the world and preventing anyone from building another one seems pretty unreasonable.

I don't like the concept, but completely disarming every nuke in the world and preventing anyone from building another one seems pretty unreasonable.

Yet it's okay for us to have them, but not okay for other countries? Or am I missing your point?

Got a URL?

Here's the story

I have come to the floor to state that, after much deliberation, I have decided to vote for the Resolution introduced by Senators Lieberman, Warner, Bayh and McCain. ..... If I were just to cast a representative vote based on those who have voiced their opinions with my office - and with no other factors - I would have to vote against this resolution.

Yes, astounding. Depressing. But the Democrats want me to vote for *them* because they are so different.

Perhaps she voted for the Silent Majority.

How did you get that link?

I didn't directly address who's allowed to have what. Ideally we want zero nuclear weapons on the planet, but we all know nobody's going to yield theirs while others posess them. I think it's NOT okay for *anyone* to *use* them at all. Who *has* them is a more complex issue, now that the cat's out of the bag, but I think the general concept is that we all want to reduce them, and keep new countries from getting them.

Really. 21st century democrats are just 20th century republicans and 21st century republicans are 20th century fascists.

Next time, I'm voting communist. They probably have Lyndon-Johnson-like politics these days.

I think the general concept is that we all want to reduce them, and keep new countries from getting them.

So that we can keep them under our thumb(s)? I'm not saying that that's really the case, but I believe that that's exactly some of the reason that many 2nd and 3rd world nations are pissed at us -- because we have to be the top dog, and we'll keep every one else down to do it.

How did you get that link?

I searched for "Newsweek October 21, 2002 issue" and it most hits were for msnbc.com where I searched for "Saddam sons" and got the article... talk about mis-guided youth... sheesh they're bad news.

Perhaps she voted for the Silent Majority

Maybe she just felt like it was the right thing to do. Further quotes from her press release:

But as a member of the Intelligence Committee, as someone who has read and discussed and studied the history of Iraq, the record of obfuscation and the terror Saddam Hussein has sown, one comes to the conclusion that he remains a consequential threat.

In fact, she's the chair of the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee. But the chair of the Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham (D-FL), said ``I would also like to reinforce my conviction that this resolution forces the President to focus our military and intelligence on the wrong target''. What could she know that he wouldn't? (Unfortunately, if you read that paper, he's still a big war mongerer.)

Regardless, it is her duty to represent her consituents. And that was my point.

Edit: Oops. URL added.

Of course, the weird thing about all of this is that one of the UN weapons inspectors apparently went overnight from saying ``we have to get back into Iraq'' to ``they didn't have anything when we left''. (I don't have a source on this, and it might be totally wrong.) That feels very odd to me.

"When will you guys just get it? The Islamic fundamentalists just don't like secular westerners."

Believe me, I get it. That doesn't, however, make it ok for them target civilians like Osama did in the WTC. It also doesn't make it ok for them to protect those that do.