OT: Something Stupid Happened In Your Country Today

Whistle
21

Zubivka,

It is not a signature of a reasonable person, It’s a quote from a cartoon character (my Avatar) grounds keeper Willie and I think it’s funny.

You have every right to be personally offended, and you should be. The way you feel after seeing my post and signature is the way I and a great many Americans feel when we hear about “Growing anti American Sentiment” being fostered all over Europe.

If the Eiffel Tower (sorry if I misspelled) and the Louvre (sp?) were bombed with 3000 people in them. You’d be squeeling too.

I think it is just as fair for me to say those things as for people in france to call America a war monger and Emperialistic (which, historicly they should know when they see it) And, I am just as offended personally, even though the sentiment can not be directed at me personally. France rejected a six step compromize offere by the Brittish before even Iraq could comment. They have said that under no circumstances will they authorize force (even though they already have in resolution 1442 ) France’s position is political and economical yet they hide behind a banner of peace. They did not ask approval when they went in to the Ivory Coast did they?

As for the debate. There would be no debate if our president was not a Republican. Bill Clinton used more troops in more conflicts to greater harm than any president back to Viet Nam (Which we can thank the French for handing us.) There were no peace protests from the left when HE needed to use force. There are Audio quotes of Clinton and Secretary of State Madelein Albright say to the affect Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, he can hand those off to any terrorist that comes through bagdad, that makes us vulnerable and if the international community looses resolve we must act with force if neccessary to remove that threat. No one said squat and the Repiblicans supported them.

Now they are traveling the world saying Bush is wrong for continuing their policy.


\

  1. It takes courage to attack any force that can cover your troops in clouds of VX and Anthrax and the Plague. We still have thousands of un explained mystery illnesses from the first Iraq war.

  2. That is a personall attack on my courage. While there is nothing I can say to vouch for it, I can tell you that if America were invaded, Myself and all of my Neandertal compatriots would die before we rolled over and took occupation. My sister is in the Army in Kuwait and my Nephew is in the Marines in Kuwait eating sand. I feel I have a right to brag on the US Military if I want to.

  3. I “grunted” because I was frustrated and angry and I didn’t feel like writing an essay to expound on my thoughts and feelings. I am NOT un-informed and I do have two thoughts to rub together thank you very much. France is opposing us because:

A. They have huge muslim populations in the cities and they vote.
B. Lucritive oil contracts with Saddam that will not be honored by the new regime in Iraq.
C. JEALOUSY OF AMERICA’S STANDING IN THE WORLD.
D. The 6 Billion Saddam owes them, which they will never see.
E. Lucritive defense and other dealings French companies have with Saddam’s Iraq. (Many of which violate UN sanctions)
F. France’s desire to be the dominant force in a strengthened E.U.
G. Up to a third of the French population are COMMUNISTS who hate america for existing, no matter what we do.

No nation on earth has helped defeated foes, forgone annexing conquered territory and tried to give peace and democracy to people living in oppressive regimes and restrained the use of HUGE economic and military advantage like America. We SHOULD be proud.


Debate That.

Having said that, I will remove the signature as this is a whistle site and not a bash the french/Zubivka site. :wink:

22

No it isn’t reasonable
–and in a world that is increasingly
unreasonable, please let’s make this part of it
more so. If we’re not reasonably
cordial here, we won’t be able
to have these conversations.

My sorrow is that what I took
to be the last chance of both peace
and disarmament under
the circumstances–a united UN
giving Iraq a deadline to disarm–
has been squandered. France, Germany,
and Russia voted for the first Security
Council resolution giving Iraq
a last chance to disarm or face
serious consequences. ‘Serious
consequences’ doesn’t mean
inspections till doomsday. In insisting
that their first priority is to avoid war,
no matter how long it takes, and in
deciding in advance to veto any resolution
containing an ulitimatum, France is
inconsistent with what its earlier vote
declared.

In fact, France just announced that
it would veto the British compromise proposal
before waiting to see if Iraq would accept it!

It’s long been obvious that the USA and probably
Britain wouldl finally give Iraq an ultimatum of
their own, for Iraq hasn’t disarmed and
this is a logical extention of the first resolution.
As it’s also obvious that Saddam is far
less likely to comply–given his huge
success at dividing the UN–Chirac’s
behaviour means war.

Honestly I don’t
understand what’s motivating France–
it isn’t cowardice, of course. There is a
certain political realism that ought to be operating
here which seems to be absent–it’s hard
not to see this as a sort of international
posturing that, very sadly, under the
circumstances vastly decreases the
prospect of a peaceful resolution.

Perhaps Chirac
is afraid of the political consequences,
just as Bush is badly positioned politically
to step away from his militatnt stance,
even if he wanted to. It’s interesting
that Bush is now pressing forward on
a timetable for a Palestinian state,
and Powell is saying that our failure
to do so before has made us less
credible on Iraq. Best to all

23

Hmmmm, what has been written in here has been very interesting. I would just like to say a few words about my point of view on american vs Irak.

Well, when I wake up in the morning, I am not afraid that Sadam will destroy the planet, or launch a chemical attack against my country. I am not afraid of some muslim country taking over my life, or destroying it. I am honnestly afraid that the US will destroy the planet, slowly. I am afraid that the biggest polluting country in the world, even per a per-ratio basis, will pollute our country. I am afraid that USA will soon run out of lakes and will strike commecial deals with our country to steal our water, like they tried to do recently. Let’s have a look at Kyoto. Who didnt sign it? Why? Money. I think money drives the spirit of many americans, and for me this is more scary than some “evil country” of 20 millions inhabitants. Who is going to destroy wildlife in Alaska for petrol? Certainly not Irak. The real danger for the planet’s future, for me, is America.

So, you can say whatever you want. I don’t think French are better than any other country (okay, I respect Europe a little more). It’s true, they’re driven by political and financial ambitions, as much as America is. But there’s what, 300 millions americans, and this is what’s scary.

Right now, I think the planet should unite economically, and try to become less dependant on the americans. Europe is a very good start, but there’s lot more to do. I don’t think there’s much hope for Canada, as we’re isolated and will forever depend on the states. We will need a strong leader to say “no” to the americans when they try to buy their way through, threatening us with financial “sanctions” or measures, like they did many times in the past.

Well, this is just someone else’s point of view about anti-american sentiments, I hope it will make some americans understand why they are being seen that way by some.

24

For my part, I had let this original thread turkey sink and was content to do so. Emotions are still running high though there is getting to be this sense of quagmire. Sorry to have seen it rise but I started it, so hey…

I still hope that Saddam is “deposed” before we fire another shot.

One point made on the radio is that for some, peace means “absence of all conflict.” For the more pragmatic, peace is attained at times through violence. Just the way of the world.

Our “peace” protestors have ratcheted up their activities. They must just “know” that they are the ones keeping our mad dog dictator from wrecking the whole world. So they stopped traffic yesterday and are throwing another big street party today.

I wish I could respect them. I don’t. Especially the Hollywood types. I only respect their right to protest. I don’t think they have a clue with all their “Bush is Hitler” signs. The whole debate has been shifted from the weasel in the desert to the man in the White House. I suppose that is somehow Bush’s PR fault.

But I still respect his ability to bluff and feint, I just wish others would support the bluff rather than read his cards from behind his back and transmit the message to the opponent. He might have folded by choice though it seems unlikely, I admit.

25

You did not answer my question, especially the sore one: how do you personnally prove your bragging for courage? French soldiers had names for those bellicists who quietly stay in their homes, but I already commented on TV-diner “sportsmen,” and Rambo fans…

Anyway, you just demonstrate in full scale (however minor) you ARE misiformed, or worse–disinformed. I watch American media every day, and I have a base of comparison. You’re being totally intoxicated* by medias from which you dig out your cheap jokes and poor information without much discernment…

  • Here, just a comment about the alleged “rising anti-Americanism” of Frenchmen. To this day, I haven’t heard a single anti-American joke. I haven’t heard anyone calling for boycott of American goods. Just compare, if you are able to a bit of objectivity…

Your minor scale sing-along goes from A, where you confuse the natures of a totally non-clerical state since 1790 and one “leading a Crusade” and invoking–calling it in vain more than oft–the name of God.
To G, which is the best piece I ever read since the Liberty Fries bit… :stuck_out_tongue: If you ever read the serious American papers beside the Sunday comics, you’d know for certain The French Communists can’t even gather 4% of French votes in national polls/elections! This is bulletins–hard evidence–check 'em before you believe whatever cheap columnist makes you believe.

I still don’t get why you chose an avatar representing the only person in the Simpsons–the school janitor–with an IQ a full 10 points under Bart’s…

Thanks for using a new signature anyway…

26

H. Up to 2/3 of the American population are CRYSTAL PEOPLE who hate this planet for existing, no matter what we do.

27

To the others:

France’s standpoint may be–rather is–misunderstood.

We want Saddam Hussein off. A vast majority Frenchmen regret Prez Bush Senior stopped short of Bagdad when time was ripe in the Kuwait war, and let Bagdad massacre the Shiites’ uprise. The why is still unclear… French generals as well as plain troops were shocked–scandalized–by this sudden hit of the brakes.

France doesn’t see a single hint of an evidence of connection between Sept. 11th and Iraq. Not a single proof to it was ever disclosed by the how-so-various American intelligence agencies. so the question is: what’s the sudden urge?

US can have its war–France can’t stop it. It just doesn’t want to partake it, and to help finance it in the current frame. US can have its war, it just can not take France as partner in the enterprise. I’l stress the B2’s and other US planes were, and still are, granted the privilege of flying over France for this war.

France believes the pressure of 17th of March is dictated, not by political or intelligence reasons, rather by the HQ which is afraid it won’t be able to lead a war when the summer heat hits the region. The no to the ultimatum just reflects our diplomacy refuses to abide by a calendar led by the technical reasons of the militaries.

France, since creation of the UN used its veto right less than any other of the 5 permanent members. The figure is under 20, if my memory is correct. One of it was Suez 1958, when UK, France wanted to react to the nationalization of Suez canal by Gamal Abdel Nasser (both UK, France, sharing a secret agreement with Israel)… US backed a resolution against them, because CIA was so uninformed it overestimated 2 to 3-fold the military weight of Russia. BTW, who had cold feet?

US has vetoed one full hundred more motions, i.e. a bit under 120; true, half of these vetoes were systematically against resolutions condemning Israel’s policy. Even discounting these, who abuses the veto right? Of course, Russia beats this record with a few scores more vetoes…
To my opinion, no-one: the veto right is what makes UN Security Council worthwile, by allowing only reasonable consensus.

It never stoped the biger bullies (US, Russia) from doing what they wanted? Fine. At least it never blessed them for doing so.

Nilly-willy, the great ball will open Monday night. We just won’t dance, thanks.

28

Now, I have kept out of the political debate. At times biting my tongue, at times just wanting to go away not wishing to be in the same place as some you. This is and will be my only contribution to this.

I grew up in a city which was levelled by an invading [Germany] in order to shorten their Blitzkrieg and save lives that may have been lost if a strategy of not bombing a civilian population into the ground would have been adapted.
I grew up being told this was a barbaric act. And of course it was. Then the liberators moved in, the British and US airforces, bombing the port of that same city to hamper the German war effort. Of course some of the carpet bombing went astray, collateral damage, not avoidable and all for the greater good. The stories my parents told me about this all made me very much aware that on the ground, among the civilian population there was little difference if the bombs were dispensed by the barbaric invader or the heroic liberator. They shatter your home and shred people you know to bits, regardless of who dropped them.
My father was taken away to a German labourcamp near the town of Ulm when he was 17 years old. The people of the town treated him well although life was hard in the camp. Although there was not much in the way of strategic targets or heavy industry, the allies bombed the place. Again, growing up I heard the stories of how the bombs appear from the clouds, how the firestorm started. My father never really gave away much of what he saw when the internees were forced help with the clean up after the firestorm. But we knew we didn’t really want to know the details, nothing heroic was done there.
I grew up so in an atmosphere where the main thought was ‘this must never happen again, this must be avoided at all cost’.

So here I listen to some of you saying ‘we don’t understand these European cowards, what do they know’. ‘What if they bombed your Eifeltower with thousands of people in it’ and I think well, millions of people died here, during the lifespan of the generation before mine, do you guys realise that at all. We have seen the scars inflicted on our parents, grandparents, neighbours, on the places where we grew up. Then ofcourse you will say more would have died if we hadn’t come and safe you losers. Well, maybe and I think I should point out I also grew up in an atmosphere of deep appreciation for those who came to help [although it were the Canadians who gave the final push liberating my people].
Out of all this came an attitude that made us, me, feel war is not OK until all roads of peaceful solution are exhausted, and we, I , feel we should speak out when we feel not all of these roads have been explored sufficiently.
And we use that little human trait, humour, to make fun of the liberty fries and small town narrowmindedness like that. Fairly innocent I would think. And then here we go, you are fed up being told this and made fun of that. Well guys, your country is about to start something that will kill people and estimates range from tens of thousands to over a hundred thousand people dead. I choose not to think of that lightly. And you are fed up having jokes made at the government about to start this. Well guys, bad luck, start posting a thread asking for the chords of Randy Newman’s ‘Political Science’ I think you’ll enjoy that one. Allthough we once understood it he was actually joking.

29

Johnathan Alter wrote a good piece on Iraq. The solution, he says if for Kofi Annan to take charge and lead the security Council to a third solution which will go a long way to improving the situation. He says we should:

" Create a U.N. trusteeship in Iraq, not after the war, but before it. That’s right—take the U.N. plan for administering a postwar Iraqi government that was unveiled last week and implement it right now, with Saddam still alive. Instead of tripling the number of inspectors, as the French proposed, increase the number of U.N. officials on the ground in Iraq by twenty-fold. Fly two dozen planeloads of U.N. employees—experts in civil administration—into Baghdad. Fan them out across the city into every ministry and military installation —that should block a U.S. attack. Meanwhile, leave Saddam alone—wherever he is—and start running his government. Marginalize him.

and I add slowly increase the number of UN personel daily and tag the US forces with a UN patch and send them in slowly until the country is under complete UN control. Clever people should be able to find a good solution.

There has to be a better way than the way we are about to do this. After all, we want to help build a world, and a world organization, that we will want to live with in the future.

Peter Laban, “Old Europe”, can be a WISE old Europe too. We say we hold war to be a last resort, but the world can plainly see that it is a big fat lie. But if you lie big enough, you can sure fool millions of people.

30

Re Peter’s post"
Peter, I saw your response, and heartfelt it seemed. Death from the air is horrific and I see nothing but gravity in the infliction of same. I still hope Saddam folds before another bomb is dropped. We in the US have much less, though memorable, experience with it. Bill Clinton sent 450 Cruise missiles there in 98 but did not risk the politically-dangerous infliction of ground troops there. So airborne war is not a Bush original, its been going on for quite some time. Now Bush is prepared to shed our US blood to acheive the same thing Clinton wanted but take the casualties on all sides.

But Saddam has issued death from the air as well. With poison gas on that Kurdish village, then the political act of sending SCUDS across several countries to Israel, hoping to incite Muslim support. When I ponder those acts, and his setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil fields, i ask myself: how soon can this guy be eliminated? He tried to start WW3, and poison the earth in various ways (what we are accused of by Az) fer chrissakes. You could see the smoke from space.

As for humor, it IS better when we all laugh together. But this was the second coming of a previous thread and to me, it was ridicule. That’s what initiated this thread. i find it disingenuous to assign it as just a little bit of humor, given the fever of protests and political events in Europe and here.

Fact is, Claudine brought this (Freedom Fries) up the night before on Chat because she read about it in Der Spiegel. I responded at the time that it was a silly thing, but not widespread (because we are a BIG country). But come next morning was her thread. It was very intentional. We have exchanged cordial notes about it, and like I said, I was content to make my statement and let it sink, along with the Freedom Fries thread. After I received her PM tho, a series of European posts kept it alive. And this thread expanded as well.

I have neither invoked cowardice (in fact, I condemned that on another thread) nor called names, made light of military actions etc etc.

And once again, I see Bush Sr. being blamed for not getting Saddam. The coalitions purpose was not to depose Saddam but to liberate Kuwait. Was he supposed to second-guess that purpose and defy the world at the time?

Condemn him for sticking to the agreement made by many other countries of the world and the region? Then ten years later, condemn his son for the reverse? The US can neither win nor even be acceptable under these terms. This is the kind of frustration that we feel regarding world “opinion.”

Guess we are all just frustrated. And some of us (including me) are touchy about it. As you say, bad luck.

31

Seconding Weedenders, Bush, Sr. didn’t invade Iraq
for four reasons. First, he would have violated the
UN mandate. Second, we were fighting side by side
with Arab nations who would have (justly) felt
betrayed. Third, Bush hoped to use this new close
relation with Arab countries to help cobble together after
the war a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem
(The Oslo Accords). Four, he believed in a world
where sovereignity would be respected and he
was somewhat bound by the ‘just war’ theory
that war must be waged to right a specific wrong–
when the wrong is decisively righted, you stop
fighting. The wrong was the invasion of Kuwait;
when Kuwait was decisevely liberated and safe,
he stopped fighting. (But we did enter Iraq in
hot pursuit of the Republican Guard, neutralized
it, then withdrew.)

The sort of pacifism that is being
expressed throughout the world today was principally responsible
for the greatest carnage in human history,
some of which Peter has related in his moving
message. None of it needed to happen.
Murderous dictators like Hitler and Saddam
are common. What was uncommon was the conviction
that we needed to give peace a chance. After all,
it was widely said,
German re-armament in violation of treaty
isn’t yet an imminent threat. Let’s give
it more time. Aren’t we (England,
France, the USA) the real culprits, with more
weapons, aren’t we more of a menace to the
world? What about the negro problem,
what about imperialism? What about getting
rid of our own weapons? Aren’t
we going to kill innocent people if we give
Hitler an ultimatum–disarm or face the
consequences. Shouldn’t we
exhaust every possible avenue for peace–
because war is a terrible thing and shouldn’t
be taken lightly? Think of the horrors of war!

Perhaps these old bad argument are good ones
in the context of this particular situation–but there seems
to be no sign that anybody giving them is aware
that not long ago they led to the unnecessary
deaths of scores of millions of people.

I think one of the chief lessons of the last
century is that one must confront the Saddam’s and
the Hitlers, and it’s best to do it while they’re still small…
There is no peace treaty ending the first Gulf
War, only a cease fire which remains in effect
on condition that Iraq destroys its WMD. It’s been
12 years, four UN resolutions, and Iraq still
hasn’t disarmed. Saddam is playing cat and
mouse and trying to divide the world community
so as to keep what he’s got and have the
opportunity to go nuclear.

Twelve years of a cease fire violation
concerning WMD. I believe it was
6 months ago that the UN gave Iraq a last chance
to disarm or face serious consequences. To
give him a clear ultimatum now isn’t waging war,
it isn’t a preventive strike, it isn’ t forgetting
that war is an awful thing… Honestly it
strikes me as responsible. To suggest that we haven’t
given peace a chance is to ignore the fact
that we have. Also I think
it ignores the catastrophes of the last century.

Continuing to play
footsy with Saddam is what strikes me
as irresponsible and dangerous, especially
as various rogue nations interested in
developing nukes are watching the proceedings
with interest. What will happen to the world
when they realize that ‘serious consequences’
= inspections? Nobody on the other side of
the controversy ever addresses these
questions, to my knowledge. The problem, for
them, is the USA.

As to the argument that innocent people will be
killed if we attack, and lots of em, more people
die in Iraq each year as a result of Saddam’s
monstrous police state. Salmon
Rushdie argues that we should invade Iraq
out of sheer compassion for Iraqis.

But the point wasn’t to have
a war–ours or anybody’s–but to place Saddam in
a position where he had a clear choice. That was
the best hope of peace and disarmament, I beleive,
and now I reckon it’s gone. Best to all

32

I like the Kofi Annan solution, which resembles the idea proposed by Bush Sr.'s advisor James Baker III. This proposal calls for a massive and massively armed disarmament. That’s probably the best way to avoid civilian casualties. As far as Saddam goes, this will not only marginalize him, but essentially emasculate him. I don’t pretend to know what’s in the heart and mind of the average Iraqi, but these methods will probably be more likely to make them grateful to us than massive bombing and full scale invasion.

33

We did not sign Kyoto because It meant we would face stricter polution requirements while emerging nations “like China” and others who cannot afford the expensive technology required to cut polution, would not be subjected to the same requirements. Kyoto was designed to bend America over and giv it to us in the rear. It is a socialist’s tool to even the playing field. We would have been fools to accept it and Clinton was a fool for trying.

Yes, we may polute more than any other country, but we USE more energy than any other country. I think you were trying to say that we polute more per capita than any other nation, yea, but what are your figures for the amount of polution per unit of energy consumed? I think we are cleaner there. People like you seem to like 0 sum equations, so following your logic, If the same amount of energy is going to be consumed in the world, it is better that it is done here so it will be done cleaner. :stuck_out_tongue:

With slant drilling and the technologies we have, that Anwar oil can be had with minimum effect to the environment.

P.S. with all of those things you are so scared of right here below your borders it’s a wonder you sleep at night.

Maybe you should stop listening to NPR, it’s giving you nightmares.

A godforsaken, earth destroying American

34

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

35

Peter,
I was also moved by what you said, and I am deeply sorry for the pain your family has endured. There is pain in life. I wish we could all get along. But we don’t all want to. How much, in hind sight, would Europe have given if Hitler had been opposed before he started to make his agressive moves? How much grief and loss would have been avoided?

I don’t want to be sitting there holding back the details to my grandchildren of how a dirty bomb went off in Chicago, Or worse, never see my grandchildren.


I don’t like being angry, it’s not in my nature. I feel sick. But I will love the U.S. and support this president through much worse times than these. It’s like I can call my baby ugly but if someone else does I’ll feed them their hat.

36

Zubivka,
If all you have is to insult my avatar’s intelligence and quible about how many Communist sympathizing French actually vote for a candidate who can’t win, then you’ve got me.

You seem to be really good at coming up with numbers, like how many IQ points a cartoon character has.

I picked Willie as my avatar because he’s scottish and cranky like me. As to his intelligence, I have not seen his SAT’s. By the way have you seen YOUR avatar?

Get over yourself!

I havn’t been exposed to french media thank god, and if YOU are going by Dan Rather, Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw, you don’t have an accurate idea of what is going on in America.

Bottom line is your PM has led the french on a wreckless gamble in world politics for his own glory at home. in 5 to 10 you will wish he had not been so obstinate.

37

To the Crystal People:

You’re Next, watch your shiny arses. :smiling_imp:

38

Although I have disagreed with the French position for some time, I did understand their point, even if I didn’t agree with it. This latest episode in the UN though, where it’s reported that France will veto any resolution authorizing force, is hard for me to understand. What did they expect when they signed the resolution back in November threatening “serious consequences” if Hussein did not comply? What serious consequences does France have in mind? I have to agree with others that this position serves only to strengthen Saddam Hussein and make war (with resultant casualties) more likely. I had hoped the saber-rattling would cause Hussein to back down; this will only work if there is a belief that the saber may eventually be used.

39

Hitler was an environmentalist; he was the first leader of
any industrial country to pass legislation prohibiting
industrial pollution. Nazi Germany would have signed
the Kyoto agreementt. He also said that Americans
were far too motivated by money; doubtless he
was right. And he spoke eloquently of the plight of
the American Indians and all the awful things we had done to them.
He might have added our history of slavery,
and the oppression under which millions of
Americans lived at the time due to apartheid.
The list of America’s crimes goes on and on.

Does it follow that we shouldn’t have disarmed Hitler?
Not at all. Though arguments of this sort were
plentiful at the time.

The question ‘Should Germany be allowed to rearm
in violation of the Treaty of Versaille?’ is different from
the questions ‘Do we do bad things too? Are we an even
bigger menace than Hitler?’ If the answer to the latter
questions is Yes, it hardly follows that the same answer
should be given to the first question.

Suppose country A proposes to invade country B
because B is committing genocide. A wants to stop it.
Suppose it turns out that A is also committing genocide
on an even larger scale to another bunch of
people. Does it follow that A shouldn’t
invade B to stop B’s genocide? No.

The questions ‘Should A invade B to stop B’s genocide?’
is different from ‘Is A worse than B?’ You cannot answer
the first question by answering the second.

I’m not seeing real arguments on the other side.
There is a great deal of America bashing, which
may well be deserved, but it’s logically irrelevant
to the question of whether Iraq should be dealt
with as we propose. There is no relation
between the premiss ‘The USA is worse than
Iraq’ and the conclusion ‘Iraq shouldn’t be given
an ulitmatum to come clean on WMD.’

Also I’m seeing emotional appeals to the
horrors of war.
Once again, these appeals do not support
the conclusion that Iraq shouldn’t
be given an ultimatum, any more than
they supported that conclusion about
Nazi Germany. Honestly there’s
little reason to fear that people on
all sides of the issue
don’t understand that war is an awful thing.

A joke from the cold war:

An American goes to Moscow. His Soviet
friend takes him to a subway station.
‘These trains run perfectly on time,’ he
boasts. ‘Once every 15 minutes.’

Fifteen minutes go by, but no train.
Twenty minutes go by, thirty minutes…

The American says: ‘I thought you said the trains run
every 15 minutes.’

The Soviet responds: ‘What about the negro problem?!’

40

“Have You Forgotten?”
By Darryl Worley and Wynn Varble

I hear people saying we don’t need this war.
I say there’s some things worth fighting for.
What about our freedom and this piece of ground?
We didn’t get to keep 'em by backing down.
They say we don’t realize the mess we’re getting in.
Before you start preaching let me ask you this my friend.

Chorus I
Have you forgotten how it felt that day.
To see your homeland under fire and her people blown away?
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going through a living hell.
And you say we shouldn’t worry 'bout Bin Laden.
Have you forgotten?

They took all the footage off my TV.
Said it’s too disturbing for you and me.
It’ll just breed anger that’s what the experts say.
If it was up to me I’d show it every day.
Some say this country’s just out looking for a fight.
After 9/11 man I’d have to say that’s right.

Chorus I

I’ve been there with the soldiers who’ve gone away to war.
And you can bet that they remember just what they’re fighting for.

Chorus 2
Have you forgotten all the people killed?
Some went down like heroes in that Pennsylvania field.
Have you forgotten about our Pentagon?
All the loved ones that we lost.
And those left to carry on.
Don’t you tell me not to worry about Bin Laden.

Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten?
Have you Forgotten?

You’ll be hearing alot about this song.

Go here to listen:
http://darrylworley.dreamworksnashville.com/