America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Damn. Even the Pope is against the war in Iraq.

John

With all due respect to the Pope, he is very old and and not the man he used to be. From what I've heard he sleeps much of the time now. He couldnt possibly know all the details of every problem in the world in his current condition.

Nice try

Mag

He's Catholic. They say a lot of stuff that doesn't matter.

John

Since you know so much about the Pope, why dont you tell me if he has endorsed a war. I dont know if he ever has. If you know he has, then what you say may have impact to some.

But if he never has, then your statement means much less. At least in my opinion.

Mag

Hey, he knows more about God than he'll ever know about economics!

of course the pope is against a war in Iraq ... where's the surprise in that????

it has nothing to to with THIS particular pope or THIS particular war .. all popes are against all wars ... they'd rather we just all got along ... which would be nice ... unhappily, there are those with whom reasonable people are not able to "make nice" ... some people are brutish louts that will take as much advantage of the "make nice" crowd as they possibly can to further their own selfish interest ... some of those brutish louts can be seen on the streets of almost any city in every country ... some of them are gang leaders who incite their gangs to take advantage of weaker or more docile neighbors ... some of them manage to take control of entire countries and would willingly prey on weaker or more docile countries ... Hitler was an example of a brutish lout who preyed on the weak and docile in his own country and then in neighboring countries ... had we not finally stood up to him in WWII, he'd have taken control of all Europe and would've looked to expand from there ...

Saddam is not the only brutish lout in the world today to have control of a country ... he's one who's developed a degree of means to strengthen himself and impose his will on the weaker and more docile countries around him ... we stood up to him when he over-ran Kuwait a few years ago and we chased him back to his own little neighborhood ... but no one, including the US paid much attention to him during the 90's and no one did anything to enforce the limitations that the UN placed on him insofar as disarming himself and ridding his "gang" of what has come to be known as weapons of mass destruction ... everyone, including us, looked the other way while he re-armed himself and sought to gain even more strength than he'd had at the outset of his incursion into Kuwait ... no one, including us, did anything as he befriended enemies of the US such as Bin Laden ... the list of those who he would willingly help does not begin and end with Bin Laden's name, either ... it includes any terrorist group with enough moxie and enough brute loutishness to take action, whether on a grand scale such as the attack on the Trade Center, the Pentagon and on whatever other target the 9/11 hijackers were thwarted by true American heros from striking ...

Frankly, while I understand the pope, I have no understanding of why anyone else, would have a problem with us acting in concert with other countries or acting on our own, going to Iraq and exterminating the brutish, loutish rat that is Saddam ... most importantly, I have no understanding of American citizens who oppose such action ... I cannot understand those who don't see the problem he poses ...and while I understand those among us who are weak and docile being afraid, I don't understand why they aren't grateful that there are those among us who are strong enough and brave enough to step forward and take care of business on behalf of all of us ...

INMSHO, the pope needs to go to whatever part of the Vatican he goes to when he says his prayers and have a word with whatever divine being he has the ear of and ask that this brutish lout and those who are in his gang of thugs can be rooted out and removed from a position of being a threat to all the innocent citizens of this country, their own countries and all the neighboring countries around them ...

Beyond that ... the prominent among us who speak out against the United States should be held accountable ... Jane Fonda should be in prison for treason and those who emulate her actions in this time should be her cellmates ...

As for "God" ... he's no more than a remote observer of the antics of the ants in his antfarm ... don't expect him to take sides, it ain't gonna happen.

You obviously are too young to remember what Jane Fonda did during the Vietnam war ... no, that's not emotional ****, .... yes, she should be in prison

I did mis-speak myself insofar as saying "speaking out" ... I intended to say that those celebrities who go to these other countries and give them comfort in their opposition to the US should be held accountable ... and that, sir, is a fact

Good article, Hog ...

jdrabinski , let me recommend this as background info for you before you go popping off at me again for "serious bull****" ... those who give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States are by definition, guilty of treason and should be held accountable and brought up on charges ... that's why little Johnny Taliban is in prison today and Jane Fonda SHOULD have been ...

Rick,

May have been bad form, but I was clearly being sarcastic to make a point. I was hoping that made it not so bad form. But you might be right. If it was bad form, I am sorry 'bout that, SteveS.

I guess a movie star making a series of statements seems pretty lame grounds for a charge like treason. Treason should be reserved for serious stuff; posing with tanks and making idiotic statements is hardly the stuff of national betrayal. I like the idea that free speech can be pushed to the limit. I think Jane Fonda did that. Perhaps she was guilty of slander or libel, but treason is a little heavy handed.

Snopes.com is a fun site, but not exactly an authoritative reference page. The issue here is a little bit more complex, to say the least, than the story gives credit...in my opinion.

John

Jane F did in fact pose with the enemy and they had pics of her at a rocket launcher (SAM)! John, that is surface to air missile in case you don't know!

She should have been tried for treason! Thoe of us who were in that little conflict did not really enjoy the "Peace demonstrators and the Jane Fondas" pulling against the USA!

Charlie

I'm not discrediting all of your sources, just pointing out that some are just as worthless as some of Rick's. What Janey did was wrong and bad form, should she have been tried with treason, I don't think so...

I like that snopes site, good collection of topics. FYI, that's where my inspiration for the pledge thread came from...

In this instance, the site that Hog posted is not some "ultra-right" stuff, but a site that de-bunks or confirms various urban tales ... it confirms the story of Jane Fonda (who did not just push free speech to the limit, but was clearly was guilty of treason when she went to North Vietnam at the height of the war, posed with the enemy (see picture of same in the site Hog posted) and made publinc statements in Hanoi that the US military were war criminals ... whatever your political persuasion, she was guilty of treason as defined and should have been put in prison ... the site Hog posted explains clearly why that didn't happen (the Nixon admininstration's pre-occupation with defending his defensless actions following the Watergate break-in) ... Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin and others are pushing free speech to the limit ... if they or others in the public eye who plainly go beyond free speech and offer aid and comfort to the enemy should be charged, convicted and imprisoned ... period.

What I meant to be the main point of my initial post in this thread has been lost in this fuss about treason, however. And that point is, I don't understand those citizens of this country who are apparently so politically against the current administration, that they are willing to overlook clear facts regarding the nature of our proclaimed enemyies ... I don't understand the reluctance to take action when action is so clearly warranted, simply because our leaders are of a political party they won't vote for ... I didn't vote for Bill Clinton in either '92 or '96, but was entirely supportive of his taking action against Bin Laden at the time he did (even though that action was pathetically weak, inept and ineffective).

I was not alive during the 30's when Hitler rose to power, but am able to read about and understand that there were citizens of this country who falsely believed that "Fortress America" was not being threatened by his violating international treaties against buildup of the German war capabilities. I know that France was then, as now, against taking action even though it was their next door neighbor who posed the threat and I know we bailed their ass out after Hitlers armies overran them and made Paris a temporarily German city. I know that England's Neville Chamberlain led a pacifistic movement that postponed war with Germany by caving into territorial demands Hitler made ... and I know that Hitler, like Saddam, was entirely willing to slaughter great numbers of his own country's citizens for personal reasons ... hindsight regarding Hitler is now 20-20 and everyone speaks of him as an insane megalomaniac ... for some reason, vast numbers have yet to develop that 20-20 vision about Saddam and somehow believe he can be appeased and co-existed with ... as has so often quoted, those who cannot learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

I know too that their current posture has more to do with what they perceive to be their economic good (they're owed huge sums by Saddam in foreign trade right now which they're afraid they won't collect on if he's deposed) and by thier self-view that they are going to evolve into the European super power and rival the US in world clout (but see that evolution as being muted or even diminished by a successful US effort in the middle east).

Saddam is counting on France successfully dividing NATO ... he is counting on the liberals in this country successfully undermining our national will to act against him ... what I don't understand is the number of citizens in this country, who are so willing to play into his hands ... of course war is ugly and no right minded person actually seeks it ... no one wants to see any member of our military die to defeat this madman ... it WOULD be nice if he were willing to play nice and peacefully co-exist, but that view is not reality any more than it was 60-70 years ago when it was Hitler we were hoping would play nice and peacefully co-exist.

And speaking for myself, I'm damn glad there's guys who can and will take action ... it IS about defending our freedom and our country and those who cannot see that are simply short-sighted.

cwilhelmi

that is part of the fun. i don't much care for sitting around singing kumbaya.

Ah! the mentor and his protege! Hehe!

I do not agree that those such as Fonda should only be tried for libel or slander. They lend moral support to the enemy. Support is support, whether it is money, weapons, or any other type of support. She aided a country that took the lives of over 58,000 American Heroes. Slander and Libel is extremely lenient, considering what the soldiers and their families paid.