I AM - more than willing to 'change' my point of view - and therein lies......

[Uber Sparky]

the difficulty I have.

Nobody in their right minds wants war. Nobody. I, would of course do and believe nearly anything 'concrete' - that would sway me from my current belief that, so far, from what I've seen and heard and read - that it is 'what is best for the future of the globe' in forcefully removing Sadam Hussein from power.

And as mentioned therein lies my problem... your problem... our problem....

I am willing to change. I am willing to listen. I am actively searching for - any - firm evidence - that might sway my support for what can only be - something horrid for many, many people.

It seems to me that anti war propoents are exactly opposite of me - they are not willing to listen, to read, to do anything - that may change their minds.

They certainly don't listen to or believe their own President or his officials.

I mean - what would it take? Anything? Anything at all?

I think not.

I think most anti-war proponents - simply don't (and correctly, in and ideal way) find the use of force acceptable. That's fine - but it's quite closed minded and like I said 'ideal.'

But - so far - we do not live in an ideal world. And unfortunately I don't belive (hey - change my way of thinking - I'm open) that this fact is going to change simply because idealists 'believe' - we as a global people just ain't there yet.

So....

Show me, specific, concrete evidence -

That GWB and his cohorts are lieing.

That Saddam is not a blatant, horrid 'criminal against mankind.'

Show me even that Saddam 'is sane.'

Show me 'that he doesn't have any, any weapons' that he should not have.

Show me that he 'has not' been dragging his feet for 12 long years.

Show me that he 'has not' tortured his own people.

Show me that he is 'some sort of misunderstood humanitarian' and does all sorts of good for his people.

Show me, show me, show me....

But show me something of common knowledge - show me something that is so obvious that, everybody knows it - show me evidence contrary to what I have seen that I am totally wrong - but show me from a credible source.

I mean - when it comes to some 'out there' website - or - my President - and guy kinda like me - a guy who I would tend to trust over a bunch of - who knows who they are - people on some ever so popular website....

I'd tend to believe that my President, with all the info services at his beckoned call, has a much better handle on what is true or not.

I don't get why anyone would not - unless they were totally blinded - by delief -to not do so.

So, show me - I am overly willing to 'not want war' - can you say the same in the oppiste direction.

 

[BlueDaisy]

Very well put.

 

[Uber Sparky]

Sorry about the spelling mistakes - those who know me...

know I don't give two craps....

Breaks the flow ya know.

 

[Uber Sparky]

So the two questions would be....

Why is it that is seems - anti-war types - won't even consider 'the other side?' Opposed to pro-war types who will.

Interesting - pro-war types having a more open mind than anti-war types.

And - show me? Something real? Something specific - check the list above.

 

[peachykeen]

Re: So the two questions would be....

Why is it that is seems - anti-war types - won't even consider 'the other side?' Opposed to pro-war types who will.

Interesting - pro-war types having a more open mind than anti-war types.

who the fuck are you talking about? Oh yes, this board is just seeeeeething with "open-minded pro-war" people.

 

[bad kitty]

They will just come back and try to turn it around for you to give proof blah blah blah. Like I said, it is like beating your head into a brick wall. The wall doesn't listen either.

 

[Linedrive]

I think Sparkey has a valid point when he refers to the issues of 'idealists'. There are many people here and in every institute of society that could be considered 'idealists.' Society needs these people to make progress, they play an important role without question.

There are also pragmatic people in every facet of society, and they are equally important to the existance of a society. Without pragmatic people, your society faces destruction.

Mankind is littered with "peaceful" socities that are no longer with us. BOTH idealist and pragmatic people are required to be succesful as a society, I completely recognize this fact.

The problem is, very few idealist would be willing to agree with this. We demand world peace and no wars, yet we cannot even have peace in our own relationships or communities.

 

[Uber Sparky]

I speak of me - 'I' am willing to change...

I mean why not? Peace over War? Why not?

Are you willing to change? To listen?

 

[WynEternal]

The problem is, very few idealist would be willing to agree with this. We demand world peace and no wars, yet we cannot even have peace in our own relationships or communities.

Very good point, Gunner.

 

[T.J. Jackson]

This is basically what I was asking except it is much better put. I am willing to change my mind, but I need to know why I should.

 

[8ball]

Excellent post, Sparky.

 

[peachykeen]

This is basically what I was asking except it is much better put. I am willing to change my mind, but I need to know why I should.

As am I. (Despite the fact that Sparky seems to regard this capability as being unique to himself.) But TJ your premise was indeed faulty, as you started from a position of asking people to prove a negative (you asked 'prove why we shouldn't' as opposed to 'prove why we should').

 

[Uber Sparky]

Right on Gunner!

The self-perceived perfection of the blind.

It's hard to fault - yet the faults are there.

The zealot is always correct – to that fault.

To the fault of their own demise.

And those are 'Sparky Thoughts.'

 

[RobDownSouth]

So....

Show me, specific, concrete evidence -

That GWB and his cohorts are lieing.

...

All right, how is this for starters?

In November of 2002, President Bush asked for a U.N. resolution calling for weapons inspections in Iraq instead of pursuing an immediate war. But Richard Perle (chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board) told members of the British Parliment shortly afterward that this strategy was nothing more than misdirection, that the United States would attack Iraq no matter what the outcome of the inspections.

To the Bush administration, these weapons inspections are nothing more than a charade.

Bush aide: Inspections or not, we'll attack Iraq

 

[Uber Sparky]

I might add....

their own...

'self-amazed demise,'

I'm certain that all of them - their eyes are wide open with incredulous amazment...

as the bullet rips through their self-righteous temple.

 

[T.J. Jackson]

As am I. (Despite the fact that Sparky seems to regard this capability as being unique to himself.) But TJ your premise was indeed faulty, as you started from a position of asking people to prove a negative (you asked 'prove why we shouldn't' as opposed to 'prove why we should').

too late to edit my thread and make everyone look foolish? Damn. (See I told you this was a better thought out thread)

 

[Uber Sparky]

"To the Bush administration, these weapons inspections are nothing more than a charad

As apprantley - they actually are....

So what - politics always slow progress.

Of course a leader must be careful - creep forward - test waters etc..

You have shown me the tinyest of evidence. It's very meger.

Show me something the Washington Post (normally very anti-Bush) would sink it's teeth into.

 

[BlueDaisy]

Re: Re: I AM - more than willing to 'change' my point of view - and therein lies......

All right, how is this for starters?

In November of 2002, President Bush asked for a U.N. resolution calling for weapons inspections in Iraq instead of pursuing an immediate war. But Richard Perle (chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board) told members of the British Parliment shortly afterward that this strategy was nothing more than misdirection, that the United States would attack Iraq no matter what the outcome of the inspections.

To the Bush administration, these weapons inspections are nothing more than a charade.

Bush aide: Inspections or not, we'll attack Iraq

Because the inspections ARE a charade. I don't know why we are even going through the motions with them. It is so absolutely ridiculous for anyone to think that we are going to find anything. We have had 12 years for Saddam to hide them. For God's sake, he is supposedly hiding them in residences of private citizens!

And we have to let him know in advance when we will fly the U-2 over Iraq? Get real!

I am not pro-war. I am not anti-war. I am pro-humanity, pro-America. I support getting this idiot (Saddam) out of power before he causes more damage. I know that getting him out of the way will not solve all the problems, but it will help.

It would be ideal if we American's didn't play the worlds' police force. I wish that each country would just play nicely with all the other countries. But that is childish thinking. We will never have peace in this lifetime.

I'm not a very well educated person; barely managed to graduate high school. I am not very well versed in history (I need to change that). All I can do is offer my opinion as I see it.

 

[8ball]

The fact remains that the "burden of proof" has always been Saddam's. This is what has been mandated by the UN, 17 different times. His failure to supply proof, is the reason why we are where we are at today.