Great Memorial Day Cartoon – Opus Today

 The Opus cartoon in today’s Sunday paper is one of the finest Memorial Day tributes I have seen anywhere.  (the cartoon itself is a FEW INCHES BELOW HERE – because of how the @#[email protected]#$# blog software works.).

Opus and his dandelions –  what a perfect illustration for this day.  (The full size drawing in the newspaper is better than the online version – esp. on Opus’s face.). 

Cartoonist Berkeley Breathed ruled the 1980s with Bloom County, and today’s cartoon is one of his best since then.

Thanks to Don Bangert for sending me the link to this cartoon!

(Don mentioned that the blog did not seem to be accepting comments earlier. If anyone has a similar problem, shoot me an email at [email protected] and I’ll have the excellent blogmeister fix the problem).

Share

196 Responses to Great Memorial Day Cartoon – Opus Today

  1. frank May 28, 2007 at 12:00 am #

    Unless the majority of us Americans realize there was NO correct choice with the Iraq situation, and we stop our dillusional thoughts of isolationism, (pulling out of iraq) the future of the country is heading in a bad, bad direction. We need to realize that in order to win this war on terror its going to take 10 times more resources than we are using now, War with Iran is inevitable, if you dont think so you havent done any reading. The only thing that is stopping iran from invading iraq today is that Democrats are just going to evacuate all of our troops anyways. When Iran and Iraq become one country, Isreal will be attacked also.

    I wish that our country would grow some balls, and realize that sacrifise is what earns freedom, things never come free.

  2. frank May 28, 2007 at 12:02 am #

    Dont dismiss my comment as something crazy and far-right, im simply stating how it is, and was, and will be if we continue down the path we are going/

    Frank

  3. Ross May 28, 2007 at 2:22 am #

    Maybe because it’s late and the old brain won’t shift out of second, but I don’t see the point of the cartoon. Dandelions instead of poppies? Evanescent flowers soon to vanish in the first wind? Planting weeds as a symbol of the Iraq war’s waste and uselessness? I await further enlightenment.

  4. Jim May 28, 2007 at 8:37 am #

    Opus was always famous for blowing away dandelions.

    The dandelions lined up as if they were tombstones….

  5. Butler Shaffer May 28, 2007 at 10:31 am #

    This cartoon reminds me of the very poignant ending to one of my favorite anti-war films, “Oh! What a Lovely War.”

  6. Mike May 28, 2007 at 12:15 pm #

    Does this mean French Fries are still called “Freedom Fries”?

  7. Mace Price May 28, 2007 at 5:50 pm #

    …Frank, no offense, but you got your got up your ass. Where it will most likely stay.

  8. frank May 28, 2007 at 7:03 pm #

    I dont give a fuck mace price i dont care what happens to this culture of Narcissism that we live in. Its no wonder the whole world hates america, Its not whether you’re democrat or republican, each side is full of narcissists anyway and we seem to think we are better than everyone and we can step on everone else.

  9. Tim May 28, 2007 at 7:50 pm #

    “..the answer my friends, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind..

    The life of a soldier in combat is as fragile as a dandelion in the wind…and the heartbreak at their dying spreads as far as its seeds…and like any seed, takes root and grows..only this flower is more heartache.

    Nam side..’67-’68… Tet’68 3 weeks surrounded, 3 friends dead, 5 wounded..6 months in a military hospital…40 years later the seeds are still growing.

    My daughter leaves for Iraq in 3 months, her husband for Afghanistan in 4…what a lovely war..one the whole family gets to play in….

  10. Sean O'Neil May 28, 2007 at 8:18 pm #

    Don’t worry, Frank. I haven’t dismissed your comment as “crazy, far-right.”

    Rather, I’ve dismissed it as IGNORANT and UNINFORMED and RULED BY FEAR.

    Terrorism from within, from the current Administration at 1600 Penna Ave, is far more dangerous to our nation than any imagined terror from without.

    But if you believe otherwise, I suggest you stay home instead of voting, participating, or otherwise functioning as a human being with a capacity for reasoning. Because honestly, your post above shows a lack of intelligence and an absence of reasoning.

  11. Tom Blanton May 28, 2007 at 8:24 pm #

    Like Memorial Day itself, the cartoon inspires a certain sadness. I believe Memorial Day was once called Decoration Day – I propose renaming it again to Tombstone Day.

    If we are going to celebrate and glorify war, at least we should be honest about it.

    Thanks to Mr. Shaffer for suggesting a number of good films in recent articles. I wonder why we don’t see these films on TV anymore. Actually, I don’t wonder why.

    Frank says, “War with Iran is inevitable, if you dont think so you havent done any reading.”

    Well, Frank, I read quite a bit and I have come to the conclusion that people like you should go to Israel and protect it since you feel so strongly about that. I prefer to stay here in case the Martians invade.

  12. Jim May 28, 2007 at 9:43 pm #

    Tom – that’s an excellent renaming idea.

    Maybe that would dint the strutting of politicians on this day.

    It is exasperating to see politicians draping themselves in the glory of people who died because of their government’s lies.

  13. Jim May 28, 2007 at 9:49 pm #

    Butler Shaffer – thanks for the comment – I hope folks track down that movie. Film can convey the horror of war even better than the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

    Butler Shaffer has been fighting the good fight and educating law students for at least 30 years. I first came across an essay of his in a Liberty Fund 1977 collection. I highly recommend his most recent book, Calculated Chaos, available here – http://www.amazon.com/Calculated-Chaos-Butler-D-Shaffer/dp/1595263497

  14. Jim May 28, 2007 at 9:52 pm #

    Tim – thanks for the comment. It is good to hear from someone who knows the horror first-hand.

    I hope things go safely for both your daughter and son-in-law.

  15. frank May 28, 2007 at 10:57 pm #

    I really is near to impossible to change the mind of a narcissist, our media has fueled this type of mentality from the get-go. I dont expect 90% of people reading this to even think about it, They will only push their side of the story, this is because of their innability to admit, or realize the root problem which is american culture.

    Narcissists see situations in black and white, its very very hard to bring in a third oppinion once they have chosen “sides”. The media has done a very good job at painting both a white and black side of the story, and as a consequence our minds are shut into this type of thinking.

  16. frank May 28, 2007 at 11:02 pm #

    Its the strangest thing though when you leave America, how different things are in cultures that dont think so highly of themselves. Its hard to find one truly humble person in our country.

  17. frank May 28, 2007 at 11:10 pm #

    anyways well, i dont hate my own country, its particularly the past 10 years or so things have changed direction.

  18. Mace Price May 29, 2007 at 12:08 am #

    …The truth’s always a real bitch to deal with Frank. In the end, it’s one of those things you do or don’t. But it’s there on a consistent basis.

  19. DrFix May 29, 2007 at 1:42 am #

    Frank, I’m confused. You claim that there is no correct choice with regards to Iraq when clearly there was all along… Not to go there. And now that we are there is another correct choice…to get the hell out! Clearly neither had or has yet been done and our liar-in-chief itches to put another evil and idiotic notch on his gun belt. If there is true narcissim then I suggest we take a look at the top because it, like the brown stuff, seems to flow freely.

  20. DrFix May 29, 2007 at 1:51 am #

    I believe I have all of the Bloom County anthologies… they’re some of my favorites.

    The picture speaks for itself, if you look closely, the dandelions may total up to an unsurprisingly bitter number. And notice how Opus has set his trowel down, for the moment because the row is uneven, to view the sunrise/sunset. The simple, tiny, dandelion seeds, caught up in the winds of lies and warfare, spread far and wide.

  21. Jim May 29, 2007 at 8:16 am #

    Thanks for explaining the cartoon. I knew I liked it, but….

    Same reason I could never find work as an art critic. The magazines were not satisfied when I submitted an article consisting of a single line – “Looks good to me.”

  22. frank May 29, 2007 at 8:46 am #

    Well dr. fix, we didnt go to iraq for our own benefit, we wnet there to protect isreal.

  23. scott May 29, 2007 at 9:08 am #

    Excellent comic of Opus…. It illustrates the sadness of war without being in your face…
    One question for frank…. Do you believe we should defend Israel and their interests over our own?

  24. Mace Price May 29, 2007 at 9:29 am #

    …I don’t know about Frank, but I sure’s hell don’t.

  25. Lawhobbit May 29, 2007 at 9:43 am #

    Whoo-hoo! I’m sharing comments in a blog with Jim Bovard, Brian Wilson AND Butler Shaffer? When did life get so good?

    And then there’s Frank. Who has to be a full-on troll, since nobody who reads Jim’s blogs could possibly be such a … “that way” … on his ownsome.

  26. straight May 29, 2007 at 9:54 am #

    The cartoon is simpler than that.
    Opus has planted a flower for each dead soldier. He looks across the beautiful open field with sadness in his eyes, wondering how many more he will have to plant. I pray that he will not have to plant any more.

  27. Scott May 29, 2007 at 10:49 am #

    frank,

    I do have one more question for you (if you are still viewing this blog thread).
    Even if the US were to commit far more troops, material, etc. … Do you actually believe we can win? For the insurgency, it is not a matter of a decisive battle but a patient war of attrition…. We have already loss this war literally and figuratively…. I am curious of anyone else’s opinion.

  28. Saturdaynightspecial May 29, 2007 at 12:31 pm #

    It was a loser before the invasion. You can’t win an urban guerilla war against patriots who will never stop fighting for their freedom (most patriots are that way.) They would rather be dead than surrender to an occupation force.

  29. Saturdaynightspecial May 29, 2007 at 12:33 pm #

    Or, you could do like the Russians always did – just kill everyone – that’s what this surge was all about. An attempt to saturate Iraq (Bahgdad) with a military force; Arab patriots fought back harder.

  30. Jim May 29, 2007 at 1:26 pm #

    I don’t think Bush’s surge is about killing everyone, though it is bad for many other reasons.

    I think the main “freedom” that the guerillas are fighting for, at least initially, is freedom from foreign occupation.

  31. frank May 29, 2007 at 3:06 pm #

    You all are convinced that the word win means Iraq living on its own free and happy, that will never happen with Iran next door aquiring nukes, and wanting to destroy countries. There is no way we could just sit here waiting for iraq to hand terrorists WMDS, and they did have them, they used them on iran in the past. (Media has forgotten that FACT) You stupid democrats really think that saddam destroyed all of his WMDS? You trusted him that much before the war, yet you still voted for it.

    Do i need to say more? The last 2 sentences above proves you wrong, you can deny it and lie all you want, but you did vote for it, and now criticize the president you voted with for doing the same as you? Hypocritical is a fair word to call the democratic party. Because the facts prove this, How can you argue any further when plain simple facts are right there in front of you?

    What i was saying about what victory in Iraq means, not only are we seperating Iran and Isreal, Iraq has become a terrorist magnet and we are killing terrorists by the thousands. Should we really pull our troops out of a place that is now packed with muslim extremists? Tell me exactly how that would help the war on terror.

    And Then theres Lawhobbit, whos mind cannot fathum the fact that i have to argue my case much harder than anyone else since it differs from the “one side or hte other” childlike thinking that has been crammed down out throats by the media. This makes me a troll? I am a troll for arguing my case, thats interesting.

  32. frank May 29, 2007 at 3:14 pm #

    Scott, you aked me the question “Do you believe we should defend Israel and their interests over our own?” I will provide you an answer that is not half bullshit because i care about living a true life.
    I do believe that we should defend Isreal, The only other option is abandoning our ally and watching the bloodbath ensue.

  33. Jim May 29, 2007 at 3:15 pm #

    I’m surprised NRO has not already made this guy a columnist.

  34. Sean O'Neil May 29, 2007 at 3:27 pm #

    Poor Frank.

    “You stupid democrats….”

    Frank, your crystal ball is cracked and cloudy. I’m no democrat. I seriously doubt that anyone else in this thread is a Democrat.

    And yet YOU choose to bitch and whine about a manichean perspective from arrogant Americans, when YOU use B&W simplicity in guessing WRONGLY that we are “Democrats” and YOU are arrogant in saying we need to “kick some terrorist ass.”

    Frank, let me school you a bit on Iraq.

    Saddam Hussein was empowered by the CIA. That’s a branch of the US Government, in case you didn’t know.

    Once in power, Saddam Hussein received money, armament, training and WMDs from the US Government.

    From the US Government, Frank.

    So there was NO WAY we could not tell whether he had WMDs. NO WAY AT ALL. Saddam Hussein was in our back pocket at all times.

    Your ignorance is stunning, Frank.

    Absolutely, positively, unequivocally STUNNING IGNORANCE.

  35. Lawhobbit May 29, 2007 at 3:32 pm #

    It’s *good* to have my committment to the right of free speech stress-tested now and then. Keeps it healthy, ya know.

    Frank, without wanting to slip into a Monty Python sketch, nevertheless I will point out that “argument” is a series of connected statements (with or without phyisical evidence) intended to establish a proposition. You are not arguing, you are parroting thoughtless comments you’ve heard from someone else. Out of respect to Mr. Bovard’s keen sensitivities in the matter I am refraining from using actual harsh language on you…but I cannot imagine a higher-class blog to be banned from for Flaming Without A License.

    Or I may just apply for a license. Hmmm…

  36. frank May 29, 2007 at 3:43 pm #

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm Please go down to the special weapons section of this here, you will see that chemical weapons were created by iraq, not handed to them. “During the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq developed the ability to produce, store, and use chemical weapons” They created them, they werent delivered. Reality is that each of us is ignorant, We are civilians and the decisions higher-ranking officials make is based on information we dont know. How can we (the people) vote to end a war when we dotn have all of the information. We the people are ignorant, and that is bad in a country where the people have power.

    Frank.

  37. Scott May 29, 2007 at 3:45 pm #

    frank,

    Thank you for answering back on my question…. So you fear a nuclear Iran… I believe this nation went through a period in history called the Cold War in which we contained a nation hellbent on acquiring nukes and had them in abundance… That nation, the Soviet Union, no longer exists… And yet this nation is fretting over Iran MAYBE acquiring nukes years from now… go to antiwar.com for more info… Infact, Jim Bovard gets interviewed by them from time to time…. He also writes some pieces for them… Oh, by the way, I am a libertarian… look it up

  38. Diane Warth May 29, 2007 at 3:56 pm #

    I was taught blow on dandelions and make wishes so when I saw the cartoon I wondered if the cartoonist was asking, ‘if you could wish your loved one back would you’?

    The ‘volunteer’ is withering under the weight of helmet and flag?

  39. Scott May 29, 2007 at 3:56 pm #

    frank,

    I forgot to ask if you have contemplated my other question about the increase of the US effort in Iraq… Do you believe we can beat the insurgency? And if so, is that the correct course of action? In reference to thse surge, have you noticed that this month will be one of the worse for American deaths? I am not even mentioning the hardships that the local Iraqi populace suffers….

  40. Lawhobbit May 29, 2007 at 4:06 pm #

    Scott,

    To broaden your question just a bit, I would say that, “Yes, the insurgency could be beaten” and add that the whole concept of building pyramids of skulls has a certain historical … historicness about it. But to answer the narrower version of the question, “Could Americans win the insurgency,” given that “winning” an insurgency requires an awareness of language, culture, mores, and a committment to giving them less reason to fight you than not – then “no, there is no way that Americans will “win” that insurgency.

    Leaving the word “win” vaguely undefined, since I’m pretty sure that every Iraqi group has its own definition thereof.

  41. Frank May 29, 2007 at 4:07 pm #

    We can beat the insurgency, the number of dead terrorists per day is less than the number comming in. The benefits of staying are that we are killing terorists, and seperating Iran from Iraq, maybe that explains the location of the war.

  42. Frank May 29, 2007 at 4:07 pm #

    Cant* beat the insurgency* what a typo.

  43. Jim May 29, 2007 at 4:09 pm #

    Diane – very interesting perspective.

    I have not heard about the dandelion wishing. Is that a widely known thing?

    I think the cartoonist has used dandelions heavily over the years. He is very anti-war but, gracefully, he did not bang any drums in this Memorial Day tribute.

  44. Lawhobbit May 29, 2007 at 4:11 pm #

    First ad hominem attack.

    I win. Debate over. 🙂

  45. Jim May 29, 2007 at 4:12 pm #

    Frank – your analysis hinges on a finite supply of terrorists.

    In reality the supply of terrorists is elastic and varies according to the number of innocent people killed, tortured, or detained by American forces or by their Iraqi allies.

  46. Lawhobbit May 29, 2007 at 4:16 pm #

    Think he knows what the Greek “hydra” was?

  47. Scott May 29, 2007 at 4:25 pm #

    Frank,

    Interesting… so we can win…. and everyone fighting us is a terrorist… and you believe we kill more than come into the theater… By the way, the majority of those fighting our forces are from the local population… Most are Sunnis and they are currently fighting the foreign al Qaeda cells in Iraq…
    But I wish to also know what your opinion of the domestic reaction to 9/11… Do you agree with the Bush administration’s policies? All of what we are discussing on this blog is connected so please answer….

  48. Frank May 29, 2007 at 4:27 pm #

    Jim, when a terroist dies and has a family this = more terorism. How do we defeat terrorism if getting rid of it = more terrorism? the only answer to that would be a very long 100+ year war.

  49. Frank May 29, 2007 at 4:29 pm #

    Nowone will be willing to cope with that kind of situation, but i dont see any other way to permanently cleansethe middle east.

  50. Jim May 29, 2007 at 4:30 pm #

    “Cleanse” as in bomb?

  51. Scott May 29, 2007 at 4:39 pm #

    Jim,

    I believe he means NUKE… as I have heard from armchair generals here, “make it a glass factory!” That will change the world’s opinion of us… FOR THE WORSE

  52. Lawhobbit May 29, 2007 at 4:49 pm #

    Scott – can they HAVE any worse opinion than they do now?

  53. Scott May 29, 2007 at 4:55 pm #

    Lawhobbit,

    Good point! But I have faith in the Decider to find some more scorn at the bottom of that barrel…

  54. Lawhobbit May 29, 2007 at 5:01 pm #

    Mmm….yummy. Scornflakes and milk, the breakfast of champions!

  55. Scott May 29, 2007 at 5:03 pm #

    It makes a body politic feel good!!!!

  56. Diane Warth May 29, 2007 at 5:07 pm #

    Lawhobbit – It was something we looked forward to every spring. Not sure how peculiar a custom it is but the wish is made with the first dandelion one sees every season and all the whiskers must be blown off. It likely has no relation to the cartoonist’s message but it’s why I relate dandelions with wishes.

  57. Scott May 29, 2007 at 5:10 pm #

    scornflakes…. a daily dose of Bushisms and other BS fortified “ideals”

  58. Diane Warth May 29, 2007 at 5:11 pm #

    Last post meant for Jim. I forget that names come before not after the comments here. Thanks for the introduction to the artist. I will definitely check out more of his work.

  59. Lawhobbit May 29, 2007 at 6:24 pm #

    Diane – it’s a great honor to be confused with Jim! I try to wear my beard shorter so as to avoid the inevitable ocnfusion though. I’m surprised that Jim didn’t know about wishing on dandelions, though I hadn’t heard that it was the first one.

    Opus has always had a connection with dandelions in various forms – I thought that Mr. Breathed managed this particular flavor of comic strip wonderfully.

    And Scott – don’t forget to have that great big helping of DC fruits and nuts with your bowl of scornflakes!

  60. frank May 29, 2007 at 7:30 pm #

    What i meant by cleanse was removing the muslim extremists and leaving the innocent people to take over their governments.
    A nuke would create more problems than it would fix, obviously.

  61. Sean O'Neil May 29, 2007 at 7:33 pm #

    Frank spins around and around like an old 78rpm wax disc playing really really bad church hymns at pentecostal churches where they speak in tongues. The “music” from his keyboard grates on my ears, offends my intellect, and pretends to be symphonic and sweeping when it is nothing but shrill shrieking.

  62. frank May 29, 2007 at 7:35 pm #

    If you take a closer look at my comment 2 posts back, i mentioned a 100+ year war because theres no telling how long it would take to weed out an enemy that blends into the crowd so well. A nuke would not take anywhere near 100+ years, Jim, why would you jump to that??

  63. frank May 29, 2007 at 7:36 pm #

    So who here has a better idea for seperating innocent middle-easterns from muslim extremists?

  64. Lawhobbit May 29, 2007 at 9:20 pm #

    Oooh! Me! Me! Let me answer this one!

    “Go home and let them sort themselves out rather than trying to play policeman to the world.”

    Am I right? Do I get a cookie?

  65. scott May 29, 2007 at 9:27 pm #

    Lawhobbit,
    You win the prize…Though I suspect it is a boobie prize… It is called “Blame Iran!”

  66. Lawhobbit May 29, 2007 at 9:32 pm #

    How big a space do I have to clear for it on the shelf?

  67. scott May 29, 2007 at 10:16 pm #

    About the size of Dick Cheney’s ego on GWB’s intellect… Good luck on balancing that!

  68. Jim May 29, 2007 at 10:31 pm #

    Here is a correction request from Frank, regarding one of his earlier posts –

    Heres the comment I need you to fix you see the portion that says “seperating Iran from Iraq” This typo really takes away from what I was saying and I meant to say “seperating Iran from Isreal.

  69. Lawhobbit May 29, 2007 at 10:31 pm #

    Oh heck, now that you’re bringing the imaginary into it you’re going to tell me it’s being delivered by Sasquatch.

    Speaking of imaginary, is it my imagination or is Frank seeming to be more “talk” than “walk” in regard to Doing Good Deeds Over There? I mean, I suppose he could be posting in between patrols in Fallujah, but why do I suspect that his butt is not clad in desert camo and his hands not callused from swapping out hot magazines on an M16Awhateveritisnow.

    I mean, if he actually had the courage of his convictions….

  70. Lawhobbit May 29, 2007 at 10:42 pm #

    Regarding Frank’s “correction,” I’d just add, “how is that America’s job?” Let Israel hire guys like Frank as mercs if they need more protection than their own nuclear arsenal and Hizbullah-butt-kicked IDF can provide. 🙂

  71. Jim May 29, 2007 at 10:51 pm #

    LawHobbit – I respect you having a shorter beard but what the heck is “inevitable ocnfusion”?

    I didn’t go to law school, so… you lost me on that one.

  72. Lawhobbit May 29, 2007 at 10:56 pm #

    You were ocnfused? 🙂

    I’m left handed – sometimes when I’m typing quickly the proper hand gets ahead of itself…and I don’t always proofread as well as I should. 😉

  73. Jim May 29, 2007 at 11:00 pm #

    I figured you were trying to create an air of mystery about your comments, since the Portland Oregonian reported Sunday that this is the new fashion in the Northwest.

    Lord knows I make plenty of typos and words-left-out errors in my blog comments. But the software lets me bury the ones I recognize…

  74. Lawhobbit May 29, 2007 at 11:04 pm #

    We have air of mystery? I thought that was LA back in the 70s.

    I know we have the House of Mystery down by Gold Hill…..

  75. Jim May 29, 2007 at 11:08 pm #

    Do they still have the special rates on Tuesday nights?

  76. frank May 29, 2007 at 11:18 pm #

    Our country is going to be in for a big wake up call, i have come to the conclusion that no matter how clearly you explain something, if people are bent on giving up they just will.

  77. Tom Blanton May 30, 2007 at 12:04 am #

    Frank, I’d like to suggest two books that might serve as an antidote to the propaganda you have been internalizing. The books were written by none other than the host of this blog, Mr. Bovard. They are The Bush Betrayal and Attention Deficit Democracy. These books are extensively researched and are complete with footnotes.

  78. Saturdaynightspecial May 30, 2007 at 2:45 am #

    He doesn’t look sad. He’s waiting to plant the next one.

    The wounded return missing portions of their skulls; some are obviously missing limbs and are using high performance functional substitute limbs. One lost his ears, nose and a limb; his face is completely disfigured. Some are bedridden for life.

    The dandelion symbolizes the payoff: like working for 12 hours and receiving a worthless token.

    Teach your children to never join the mlitary because any presidency that comes along will easily sacrifice your existence for almost unknown and petty purposes. You could even be used as bait or as a guinea pig. Government is your worst enemy.

    Owning a mufflerless Harley Davidson is now symbolic proof of your patriotism (loyalty to the state.)

    The Nazi Mind-set in America (Jacob Hornberger)
    http://www.fff.org/freedom/0894a.asp

  79. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 9:49 am #

    Frank, the only wake-up call that the nation (as distinct from your misuse of “country”) is in for is the potential one when people – like yourself – realize that they’ve been supporting a fascist* regime chock full of nasty war criminals. Yes. War criminals. Because that was decided back in Nuremburg after the last bunch of fascists started aggressive wars against nations that posed no threat to them. Frank, do you know enough history to remember what happens to war criminals? AND the people that support them?

    *in the dictionary sense of the word, not as any particular perjorative.

  80. Frank May 30, 2007 at 12:59 pm #

    Lawhobbit i see where your oppinions come from, however the information we civilians have vs the information the high-ranking officials have isnt reliable enough to form accusations with. If we had the same information the president has, and we were able to make a decision based on that, im sure we would have come to the same conclusion, I highly doubt president bush took office to start a war for no reason. It appears that way to us, because we have a fraction of the information he has.

  81. Scott May 30, 2007 at 1:23 pm #

    frank,

    then question is, do you believe what they say or what they do? Neither what Bush says nor what he does points to an administration that understands the world outside of the Beltway. By the way, if you want to know why they invaded, then you need to understand the basic philosophic underpinnings of the neo-con beliefs. I believe you will be shocked at who the “founding father” of that movement is. And it is not Thomas Jefferson, et al.

  82. Scott May 30, 2007 at 1:24 pm #

    jim,

    Do you want to educate frank on this one? I would love to hear your opinion on the neo-con belief system.

  83. Frank May 30, 2007 at 1:53 pm #

    I dont know what neo-con is, Never heard of it.

    I know that being civilians we dont have nearly as accurate information of high-ranking folk. This is a problem because civilians have power to decide. In order to decide correctly, we need accurate information, which is impossible to obtain without the enemy hearing also.

    The best thing we the people can do in this situation is vote for the candidate with the best morals and character. So at least we know that honest decissions are being made at the highest level.

  84. Jim May 30, 2007 at 1:56 pm #

    Scott, Thursday is the one day of the week where I shirk anything that resembles a labor of Sisyphus.

    Here is a piece I did a few years ago on “The NeoCon War on Peace & Freedom.”
    http://www.antiwar.com/orig2/bovard022104.html

  85. Scott May 30, 2007 at 2:09 pm #

    Jim,
    You do not like rolling a boulder up hill everyday? lol

    Frank,
    You mean to tell me honestly you have never heard of the neo-conservatives? Go to the website antiwar.com asap!

  86. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 2:43 pm #

    Scott – are you a contributor (so to speak) over at Antiwar.com?

    Frank – an internet troll is someone who simply comes onto a site and throws out provocative statements just to be a pain in the squirrels. I’m seeing nothing from you to indicate otherwise. That said, there was plenty of information available to those false gods you’re worshipping, they just chose to ignore it – or actively cover it up.

    But this is still sort of America and even ignorant* trolls have a right to speak, regardless how how much they demonstratt that ignorance* every time they open their mouths.

    *again, these words used in the dictionary sense of the word. You’ve admitted you don’t know. That’s ignorance, making you ignorant. Take Scott’s excellent advice and get over to antiwar.com and get that ignorance lifted. Or just admit that you’re a troll with serious spelling issues. 🙂

  87. Scott May 30, 2007 at 3:06 pm #

    lawhobbit,
    Lord knows there are people out there who love to provoke others with petty arguments. I am a daily reader/visitor of antiwar.com along with various other sites (this blog for instance). Besides it keeps the old mental faculties working to debate these points. How else can one separate the fascists from the freedom lovers?

  88. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 3:35 pm #

    Barbed wire?

  89. Scott May 30, 2007 at 3:48 pm #

    Great point! LOL… One can only dream that someday Dick Cheney and his cabal will be separated from us by very big iron bars!

  90. Frank May 30, 2007 at 4:09 pm #

    Call me what ever you want, i came to be that by thinking independently, so you’re right.

  91. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 4:19 pm #

    I can’t call you what I want, Frank, because Jim told me “no profanity.” 😉

    That said, reaching absolutely La-La Land conclusions by “thinking independently” does not make them any less la-la. Wrong is wrong, regardless of how you got there.

  92. Frank May 30, 2007 at 4:29 pm #

    What exactly is wrong lawhobbit.

  93. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 5:07 pm #

    Frank, what is RIGHT? The government has taken us into an aggressive war against a nation not a threat – that’s what they hanged German war criminals for. The government has essentially torn up the Constitution and Bill of Rights and used the remnants for toilet paper. The government has earned us an unending stream of enmity from around the world. Currency is about to go into the toilet. Debt’s about to overwhelm the nation. An unending stream of lies, fabrications, stupidity, and abuse simply to line the pockets of the MICC*. Death and destruction of Americans and others.

    What in the name of all that’s holy is GOOD about that?

  94. Frank May 30, 2007 at 5:12 pm #

    I asked what was wrong with my conclusions stated above.

  95. Frank May 30, 2007 at 5:13 pm #

    I want to know, if im not thinking correctly it would bother me.

  96. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 5:23 pm #

    The previous slew of posts are covered with conclusions. If you want to give me a handful of your best choices I’ll be happy to roll the boulder for Jim today and show you where you went wrong.

  97. Frank May 30, 2007 at 5:25 pm #

    You said my conclusions were wrong, i would like to know which ones.

  98. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 5:35 pm #

    Fine. All of them. Down to your conclusions on how to spell many of your words.

  99. Frank May 30, 2007 at 5:36 pm #

    They are all wrong? how is this?????…????

  100. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 5:40 pm #

    Dunno. Poor schooling? Closed mind? Failure to seek out better sources of information? Overreliance on what others say to build your foundations? I can only identify the symptoms, not the root causes.

  101. Frank May 30, 2007 at 5:42 pm #

    Thats not what i asked, i asked what was wrong with the conclusions, if these conclusions were made by someone else you had not been losing an argument to previously, what is it about the conclusions then that would make them “wrong”.

  102. Frank May 30, 2007 at 5:44 pm #

    Do you want me to take each conclusion and re-post it for you? I need to mnow where my thinking is going off track.

  103. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 5:48 pm #

    I’d settle for a number of one sentence summaries, your choice as to how many, of things you’ve concluded. I’m not willing to re-read the whole blog, but neither would I insist you retype everything you’ve done. 🙂

  104. Frank May 30, 2007 at 5:52 pm #

    Ok ill do it for you then 🙂 see we’re working as a team here, you help me find out whats “wrong” with my way of thinking. You could change my mind if you appear to have a point.

  105. Frank May 30, 2007 at 6:15 pm #

    Problem – How do we turn the entire middle-east into a permanently peaceful region?

    Conclusion #1) When a terroist dies and has a family this = more terorism. How do we defeat

    terrorism if getting rid of it = more terrorism? the only answer to that would be a very long 100+

    year war.

    I came to conclusion #1 based on how large the middle east is, and how wide-spread the hatred

    is for the west. Another factor is this wouldnt be like fighting the nazi’s this enemy doesnt wear

    uniforms and therefor progress would be at a snails pace, taking a very long time. The end result

    would be a peaceful middle-east which is ultimately the adequate environment for terrorism

    control.

    Problem #2- We the people dont have the same information as higher-ranking officials, and we

    are making decisions based on that.

    Conclusion #2) The best thing we the people can do in this situation is vote for the candidate with

    the best morals and character. So at least we know that honest decissions are being made at

    the highest level.”

    The rest of what i said were pre-concieved notions, as the debate went on, these oppionions changed.

  106. Scott May 30, 2007 at 6:36 pm #

    frank and lawhobbit,
    Sorry for interjecting into your debate but I would love to discuss item #2. I am a support of Ron Paul (no surprise) and he is a dignified and honest candidate. But besides him who would you trust with the reins of power at this time? NONE of the other candidates! And frank, no government should ever hold secrets from its population. It breeds corruption and groupthink along with a contempt for the “plebes” mentality. So I am curious as to your pick for President and, lawhobbit, what is your choice?

  107. Scott May 30, 2007 at 6:36 pm #

    oops, supporter!

  108. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 7:02 pm #

    > Problem #1 – How do we turn the entire middle-east into a permanently peaceful region?

    Answer: “You” can’t. That region has been a hotbed of hostility for 6,000 years and you’re not going to change it. Ever. Until THEY get tired of the fighting and decide to make peace among themselves. See comparative history at Europe, China, Ireland, American Revolution, Vietnam, Japan, and so on.

    Alternative answer: You can try the Mongol Horde route and kill them all and stack pyramids of skulls in the city squares. It didn’t work, though, because even after the Mongols did that the region is STILL fighting five centuries later.

    Reason your conclusion is invalid on its face: Killing a terrorist, when done by an outsider, results in a boatload of more terrorists. One hundred years of war will result in a hundred years of boatloads of terrorists. Eventually competent ones will decide to come over here – if they haven’t already – and start making pyramids of skulls in our own cities. Meanwhile the military is off somewhere else instead of defending the nation like it should be.

    > Problem #2- We the people dont have the same information as higher-ranking officials, and we
    are making decisions based on that.

    Answer: You don’t know that, that’s an assumption based on propaganda. Many higher-ranking officials have had exactly the same information we are now seeing today, that information having been suppressed and concealed until the nation could be lied into a conflict. See comparisons at Scott Ritter, Richard Clarke, Philip Giraldi, Michael Scheuer, William Odom, Andrew Bacevich, and Eric Shinseki.

    Reason your conclusion is invalid on its face: It’s what we in law call “presumes facts not in evidence.” Nothing has ever been shown to demonstrate that somehow the “higher ups” have any better knowledge than we who pay attention to good journalists do. They have been proven wrong again and again and again – and the fact that they have to keep shifting and changing their own stories is decided proof of same. On a witness stand, these guys would be toast.

    Second reason your conclusion is invalid on its face: Occam’s Razor. It’s far more likely that they lied us into war for personal benefit than that they had evidence that they still haven’t managed to produce.

  109. Tom Blanton May 30, 2007 at 7:41 pm #

    Frank, it would be interesting if you could tell us where you get your information from. What and who are your sources for the information upon which you base your opinions?

    I find it astounding that you place so much faith in politicians who lie over and over again. This is why I suggested that you read Mr. Bovard’s books. Attention Deficit Democracy goes into great depth about lying politicians.

    You can read the introduction to this book here:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/bovard/bovard19.html

  110. Jim May 30, 2007 at 7:57 pm #

    Tom – thanks for the plug for A.D.D.

    I have alerted the publisher to brace for a surge in demand. (The publisher got teed off ’cause my call woke them up).

  111. Frank May 30, 2007 at 8:24 pm #

    Lawhobbit- ” Problem #2- We the people dont have the same information as higher-ranking officials, and we
    are making decisions based on that.

    Answer: You don’t know that, that’s an assumption based on propaganda. Many higher-ranking officials have had exactly the same information we are now seeing today.”

    What about the classified section of information, in fact i do no that, and proof of this not required.

    “Nothing has ever been shown to demonstrate that somehow the “higher ups” have any better knowledge than we who pay attention to good journalists do”
    There is proof, and you have not looked an inch. classified documents, information we would prefer to keep from the enemy is what im refering to. You think that doesnt exist? Are you serious!

    My conclusions still stand, your arguments are weak, there is no way you will convince 1 soul classified information doesnt exist, AKA “information high-ranking officials know that we dont” To make an argument based on this in the middle of debate is quite humorous.

  112. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 8:30 pm #

    And we were making such progress. Frank, your spelling and diction do not lead me to believe for one instant that you have access to any “classified information” that was not actually available to the general public prior to the war.

    So unless you can offer some kind of evidence as to what you know – not what you’ve heard from others, but what you personally know, then it’s not MY argument that’s weak.

    Proof is only required if you want truth. If you want to believe your own personal fantasies, then by all means go ahead – just don’t pretend to hope to convince people that actually pay attention and actually do know (note the more traditional English spelling) what’s going on.

    In other words, feel free to buy the bullshit for yourself, but don’t try peddling it here.

  113. Frank May 30, 2007 at 8:39 pm #

    “your spelling and diction do not lead me to believe for one instant that you have access to any “classified information”
    Put 2 and 2 together lawhobbit, For one i never mentioned having access to classified information, I said exactly that i know classified information exists, that the public knows nothing about,it exists, is all. Most likely a key component to the decisions made in hte past.

  114. Frank May 30, 2007 at 8:44 pm #

    The bset agruemnet you hvae esatiblshed tuhs far during tihs wlohe dbeate is taht I hvae rceurnirg tpoys…congratulations!

  115. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 8:53 pm #

    Frank, if you haven’t seen the classified information then how do you know that it’s there? Why in the name of Ghu would you trust someone who’s lied to you repeatedly about everything else? Are you wilfully ignorant, in addition to your spelling deficiencies? You are clearly clueless when it comes to history, sociology, and politics.

    Oh, and by the way – if it’s that important, why aren’t you over there helping out? Or, as I suggested earlier, are you just typing in between killing innocent civilians there in Baghdad?

  116. Frank May 30, 2007 at 9:05 pm #

    “Frank, if you haven’t seen the classified information then how do you know that it’s there?”
    This is your argument, that the government doesnt have classified informarion and the public knows absolutely everything thats going on..

    “Are you wilfully ignorant, in addition to your spelling deficiencies? You are clearly clueless when it comes to history, sociology, and politics.”

    No you are ignorant, classified information does exist, you sit here and claim the administration is lying giving out wrong information and then immediately aftewards you base an argument on something saying you in fact have ALL the information!!

    Totally condratdictory, totally a thoughtless argument.

  117. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 9:08 pm #

    Well, Frank, I have to concede – you certainly know your way around thoughtless arguments.

  118. Frank May 30, 2007 at 9:09 pm #

    I have gotten good at this there are so many people in this country like yourself it amazes me. 🙂

  119. Frank May 30, 2007 at 9:11 pm #

    Im sure if you won this debate, very unlikely… you wouldnt concider these arguemnts to be thooughtless. If you really thought this why would have kept at it for so long!

  120. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 9:15 pm #

    Frank, you are obviously too slow to realize it stopped being a debate some time ago and that I’m merely taking cheap shots at your woeful ignorance in order to pass the time and amuse the other readers.

    I work in a field where evidence is important. You don’t have any, admit you don’t, and can only blather about how “they must have some.” Sorry, but that don’t cut it – especially not when hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered as a result of the actions of this and previous administrations.

    No evidence = case closed.

  121. Frank May 30, 2007 at 9:16 pm #

    I have stated my evideence repeatedly, apparently you cant read.

  122. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 9:18 pm #

    Frank, your “evidence” is “they know stuff.” That’s not evidence, that’s hearsay – and not even good hearsay. Give me links to documents proving your inane assertions, otherwise you’re just taking up valuable bandwidth here on the site.

  123. Frank May 30, 2007 at 9:20 pm #

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information How about here lawhobbit, you are the only person reasing this questioning hte existense of restricted documents and information.

  124. Frank May 30, 2007 at 9:23 pm #

    Now that i have educated you on the mere existence of secret information, do we agree that We (the people) are making decisions with a Lack of information. Do we agree this is a problem to some extent?

  125. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 9:23 pm #

    Ummmmm….no. Your reading skills appear to be on par with your spelling ones. I am questioning the existence of any “classified information” that “they” have that gave the American government cause to engage in a war of unprovoked aggression (i.e. “war crime”) against a nation that posed none (i.e. zero, zip, nada, bupkis) threat to us.

    Nice try at a bait and switch argument, though. Hope that works out better among the rest of your nursery because out here in the Adult World we don’t fall for crap like that.

  126. Frank May 30, 2007 at 9:26 pm #

    Why are you bringing up exactly what i explained to you previously, Do you not believe wikipedia? Are thet lying to the world!

    The explaining is now finished, there is nothing more to be said lawhobbit.

  127. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 9:27 pm #

    Edit: that should be “…no (i.e. none, zero, zip, nada, bupkis) threat to us.”

    My apologies to the literacy and logic challenged among us. I have no intent to make your already difficult job of comprehending what the Big People are talking about any more difficult than it already obviously is.

  128. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 9:28 pm #

    So, Frank, on to more pleasant topics.

    What’s the atmosphere like on your home planet? Are the methane storms kicking up this time of year?

  129. Frank May 30, 2007 at 9:33 pm #

    That is your closing statement? A personal attack!
    You stayed in this debate to simply dish out personal attacks on me and had no solid argument as your foundation this whole time.

    You continue with personal attacks and somehow condider this to be adultlike. Where as i stayed in this debate to prove my point not only to you, to others reading.

    If this is hte case hwy didnt you just ask for my e-mail and send these attacks to me in that way?

  130. Frank May 30, 2007 at 9:34 pm #

    Wouldnt that be more adultlike as you say?

  131. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 9:50 pm #

    Frank, once you admitted you couldn’t really debate my comments have been nothing BUT personal attacks.

    Duh.

    The reason I’m not emailing you is because, as I said previously, I’m playing to the unseen audience. Since it’s apparent I’m not going to get anything substantive or useful from you, I may as well go for the cheap laughs.

  132. Frank May 30, 2007 at 9:55 pm #

    I never admitted to not beng able to debate your comments, please show proof of this as you require proof to comprehend even the most simple ideas.

  133. Frank May 30, 2007 at 10:01 pm #

    You think you are clever, you think your personal attacks are discrediting my logical argument.

    That works in real life, but on the internet where readers can look back on everything i wrote before hand it does nothing at all.

  134. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 10:08 pm #

    No Frank, you do not have any logical argument to discredit. You have naked assertions, innuendo, hearsay, and patent parroting.

    And you absolutely did admit you couldn’t debate when you said you couldn’t provide any actual evidence to back up your claims. Then compounded that felony by attempting a bait and switch argument.

    Very very tacky. Typical of the Right Wing Troll (Trollus Unbrainus) but not what one usually expects to find in a high class establishment like this. I’m surprised Jim let you in the door.

  135. Frank May 30, 2007 at 10:14 pm #

    “And you absolutely did admit you couldn’t debate when you said you couldn’t provide any actual evidence to back up your claims. Then compounded that felony by attempting a bait and switch argument.” Where is this! Please Please give a quote or something.

    You are so silly you are saying i “have no proof to back up my claims” when i in fact do. Why dont you provide proof of my lack of proof.

  136. Jim May 30, 2007 at 10:16 pm #

    Shizam!
    Maybe Frank is actually George W. in disguise.

    This “provide proof of my lack of proof” is akin to the Bush administration’s demand in late 2002 that Iraq prove that it did not possess any Weapons of Mass Destruction. And when the Iraqis submitted 12,000 pages of evidence, the Bush team dismissed it with a wave of the hand – since everyone knows you can’t trust rascally A-rabs.

    The demand to “prove that something didn’t exist” was sufficient to justify carnage that has already killed hundreds of thousands.

    A small price for a logic lesson, eh?

  137. Frank May 30, 2007 at 10:16 pm #

    Proof is such an important concept to folk like yourself, yet you never provide proof with your accusations, “arguments”, and personal attacks.

    Thank you for making a fool of yourself and helping me re-enforce my point over and over and over and over and over…………

  138. Frank May 30, 2007 at 10:18 pm #

    Jim, certainly you see even the chance of saddam still having left over chemicals from the iraq-iran war is a risk we could not take at the time.

  139. scott May 30, 2007 at 10:21 pm #

    Frank,

    Seems since I have been away that lawhobbit has been educating you but to no avail. So here goes it! Please answer this one inquiry: do politicians lie? It seems that you have faith in others to run the show but if the system is corrupt how does the public even have a chance to fix it?

  140. Frank May 30, 2007 at 10:26 pm #

    Politicians do lie Scott. The only real thing the public can do with an administration that holds back information so greatly is vote for candidates that are honest and have good character. Since this administration is holding back information so greatly, theres no way we can make a decision on the war before a new president takes office, That decision would be based on the lack of information this administration is known for.

    This all is consistent with my stance this whole time by the way.

  141. scott May 30, 2007 at 10:29 pm #

    And in reference to your assertion that we needed to take out Saddam, why? Iraq does not and did not have WMDs. More and more evidence has come out that they destroyed them long before we showed up. And, the Iraqis had not even attacked us! We were the aggressors!

  142. scott May 30, 2007 at 10:31 pm #

    So why trust others in the government? They do not have any better insight than the rest of us. It is the misplaced mythos of government that got us into the mess we are now in!

  143. Frank May 30, 2007 at 10:33 pm #

    But they did in fact! Saddam used them in the iraq-iran war, and i posted a link up there that shows they didnt only have these, they had the ability to create, and store them also! If they can store them, it is certainly probable they stored some in a secret place for future use. There is an entire desert in Iraq, no telling if or where these weapons still exist.

  144. Frank May 30, 2007 at 10:35 pm #

    Dont you think if bush was such a decietful person he would have at least framed saddam?

  145. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 10:39 pm #

    Scott, I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that Frank has zero military experience. Otherwise he’d know that Saddam only used chemical weapons, much like the Iranians did, and that chemical weapons are battlefield weapons of limited utility and not truly “weapons of mass destruction.” Since that’s what he’s heard, though, that’s what he parrots.

    And we were assured, Frank, that the American government knew exactly where all those alleged weapons were – and yet they’ve found nothing except some fragments of AMERICAN supplied mustard gas shells.

    Ignorant and fearful, yet slavishly loyal to the military state. Hallmarks of the Republican Troll.

  146. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 10:41 pm #

    Ummm…Frank….”framing Saddam” is exactly what Bush did.

    DUH redux*.

    *that means “again,” Frank.

  147. Frank May 30, 2007 at 10:41 pm #

    Chemical weapons do in fact go under the classifation of WMD’s. HERE IS YOUR PROOF!! GOD.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction

    “The phrase broadly encompasses several areas of weapon synthesis, including nuclear, biological, chemical “

  148. Frank May 30, 2007 at 10:43 pm #

    Ummm…Frank….”framing Saddam” is exactly what Bush did.

    DUH redux*.

    *that means “again,” Frank

    Oh no Lawhobbit, you failed to provide the proof that you require from everyone else. Please fix this.

  149. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 10:44 pm #

    Frank, Frank, Frank….

    Want a cracker?

    I can go in and change that wikipedia entry right now. The fact that others can’t get their definitions straight in no way binds those of us who actually use language for a living.

    By the way, Frank, wikipedia is not accepted as actual source material in any real discussion. Just thought you’d like to know what colleges are doing these days.

  150. Frank May 30, 2007 at 10:45 pm #

    You are creating your own reality with every comment.

  151. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 10:46 pm #

    No, Frank, I only require proof from people who make stupid parroting assertions without logic or thought to back them up (i.e. “Frank”). I doubt you’ll find me demanding proof from Jim or Scott or most of the other actual thinking posters here.

  152. Frank May 30, 2007 at 10:47 pm #

    Oh come on Lawhobbit you cant deny the dictionary either!

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/WMD

    wmd

    noun
    a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons) [syn: weapon of mass destruction]

  153. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 10:50 pm #

    Frank, Frank, Frank,

    That’s the definition of ordinary bombs, which war criminals are dropping on Iraqis every day. And yet I don’t see that in your crappy incomplete definition.

    Duh yet again.

  154. scott May 30, 2007 at 10:50 pm #

    In fairness to you frank, it is hard for Americans to have no other view of ourselves than the white knight that vanquishes dragons. But we are not or I mean our government is not. We the people are very blessed and giving but we have accepted as fact that which is only tall tales and half-truths. Yes, saddam had WMDs (chemical) but according to his son-in-law who defected in the mid-90s, they had destroyed it because of the relentless bombings and sanctions. The son-in-law went back to Iraq and he was then executed (Saddam had promised no punishment). And don’t forget that during the 80s, the US encouraged Saddam to attack Iran thus plunging both nations into the 8 year Iran-Iraq War (stalemate). Have you seen the clip of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in Baghdad during that time period?

  155. Frank May 30, 2007 at 10:51 pm #

    Lawhobbit has done the impossible!!! Show me the dictionary YOU go by! This is hillarious!

  156. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 10:52 pm #

    Scott……………..don’t make me start treating you like Frank! 😉

    Chemical and biological weapons are not actual WMDs. That is a term made up by politicians, like “assault weapon” which has no real meaning but sounds awfully scary to parrots like Frank.

    Which is what it’s supposed to do.

  157. Frank May 30, 2007 at 10:55 pm #

    They are Lawhobbit, you ask for proof and i give the most solid possible, why ask if you are going to deny the dictionary?

    Give me an example of proof you would accept if you refuse the dictionary as good enough proof.

  158. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 10:56 pm #

    No Frank, you’ve shown me words out of dubious sources. That’s not proof.

    Nice try, though.

  159. Frank May 30, 2007 at 10:57 pm #

    It doesnt matter even if its a term made up by pollitians anyway, A chemical weapon attack can be just as dealy as a nuclear bomb ok, so why does it matter which one terrorists use?

  160. Frank May 30, 2007 at 10:58 pm #

    “No Frank, you’ve shown me words out of dubious sources. That’s not proof.

    Nice try, though.”

    WHAT IS PROOF THEN WHY DO YOU ASK FOR IT.

  161. Frank May 30, 2007 at 11:00 pm #

    http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=wmd THIS IS THE DEFINITION USED BY PRINCETON UNIVERCITY, THIS IS A .EDU WEBSITE.

  162. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 11:01 pm #

    Frank, do you know what a tautology is?

  163. Frank May 30, 2007 at 11:03 pm #

    Is it a tautology? If there is no need to repeat it then maybe i have gotten through to your head? Is this the case!!!

  164. Lawhobbit May 30, 2007 at 11:04 pm #

    And clearly I’m not going to find any good flap holsters on ebay, so I’ll pick up on this tomorrow – unless somebody else has finally slapped some thought into Frank’s “mind” before then.

  165. Frank May 30, 2007 at 11:05 pm #

    Another personal attack, leaving like a classy-adult. You havent gotten into my mind because you havent presented anything substancial at all. At all.

  166. Frank May 30, 2007 at 11:07 pm #

    Im very open to any ideas you have been holding back all this time. Please feel free to leave it all on the table Lawhobbit.

  167. Frank May 30, 2007 at 11:09 pm #

    My ideas actually changed somewhat from where they were entering this debate, i dont mindlessly stick to one idea, i listen to my oppositions claims and try to learn as much as i can from them. I go for 2 sides of the story, and form a 3rd angle using the best information i can obtain.

  168. Jim May 30, 2007 at 11:11 pm #

    LawHobbit – that’s an excellent point about how politicians absurdly stretched the definition to concoct a new category – WMDs – that is supposed to frighten people into submission.

    And they are almost never called on this crap.

  169. Frank May 30, 2007 at 11:12 pm #

    Jim if this is such an excellent claim can you explain to me why?

  170. Jim May 30, 2007 at 11:18 pm #

    Maybe tomorrow.
    I’m years behind on my beauty sleep.
    (This blog logs the time entries for the Central Time Zone, which is mysterious, since I’m east. )

  171. Frank May 30, 2007 at 11:30 pm #

    The whole point is it doesnt matter what exactly the defininition of WMD is. Nuclear weapons fall under the category because they destroy everything, people and buildings. Chemical weapons came to fall under the category because they destroy people on a mass scale also. Just because the buildings are still standing doesnt make a weopon any less deadly. It makes it a less wreckless weapon. But not a less destructive weapon in the sense of human lives.

    American lives are what terrorists want, they dont care how they kill you they will even take themselves also.

    Should we change the name to weapons of mass killing? Would it make any difference at all, i think not.

  172. Frank May 30, 2007 at 11:33 pm #

    Jim, i appreciate the fact you didnt resort to personal attacks, You stick to the debate at hand, with less bullshit and its appreciated.

  173. Mace Price May 31, 2007 at 1:22 am #

    …Frank just doesn’t get it. But, there’s a lot of people who don’t.

  174. Lawhobbit May 31, 2007 at 9:46 am #

    Au contraire, Frank, the whole issue of WMD definition is EXACTLY the point. There are perfectly serviceable words already out there – “nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons” to describe the concept. So why invent a whole new acronym? Thoughtful people such as Our Gentle Host and many others here ask that “why” question and reach the correct conclusion – that the state wants to scare the ignorant into doing (or not doing) something.

    But let me give you a chance to demonstrate your non-ignorance, Frank, and thereby impress me. You claim a chemical weapon is (and I paraphrase lightly) “a weapon of mass destruction becuase it destroys people on a mass scale.” So tell me – what’s the footprint of an LD50 dose for a mustard gas shell fired from a 155mm artillery piece, presuming optimal height and ignoring arguendo any climatic or geographic factors?

    If you can’t answer that then you have amply demonstrated that you don’t actually have a clue as to whether a chemical weapon is truly capable of “mass destruction” and you are – as I’ve repeatedly pointed out – simply parroting what others have spoon fed you, not “independently thinking.”

    On the other hand, I’m all for the term that was in vogue for some time, “weapons of mass terror,” because they do scare the snot out of the ignorant like yourself.

  175. Lawhobbit May 31, 2007 at 9:47 am #

    Oh, and Jim, I also appreciate you not doing any personal attacks. It leaves more for me to do. 🙂

  176. Franz May 31, 2007 at 10:40 am #

    “But let me give you a chance to demonstrate your non-ignorance, Frank, and thereby impress me. You claim a chemical weapon is (and I paraphrase lightly) “a weapon of mass destruction becuase it destroys people on a mass scale.” So tell me – what’s the footprint of an LD50 dose for a mustard gas shell fired from a 155mm artillery piece, presuming optimal height and ignoring arguendo any climatic or geographic factors? ”

    I dont need to answer this question because its irrelavant. You are assuming if al-queda got their hands on a mustand gas shell they wouldnt improvise it into a new devise.

    If they take out the mustard gas, and put it into a suitcase and enter a subway, it doesnt make any difference again lawhobbit if they blow up mustard gas in a shell or a suitcase. The mustard gas kills, either way.

    “Oh, and Jim, I also appreciate you not doing any personal attacks. It leaves more for me to do. ”

    Keep them coming im a adult and am not effected by these comments to any extent. I see it as a compliment that you point out me not dishout out personal attacks, in a debate that is a sign of weakness, a last resort when your initial argument is obliterated.

  177. Franz May 31, 2007 at 10:47 am #

    Before you respond lawhobbit, i am aware that mustard gas kills 1% of those exposed, while the rest of the surviviors form blisters on up to 50% of their bodies. In a subway with 10000+ people, this would kill dozens and injure thusands.

  178. Lawhobbit May 31, 2007 at 10:58 am #

    > I dont need to answer this question because its irrelavant.

    I’ll take that as a “no,” then and rest my case in proving your ignorance to all and sundry here. 😀

    As for your followup, it is not an answer to my question and simply piles on the evidence already demonstrated.

    And actually, Frank, based on your inability to actually reason you’re psychologically about a five year old child. Here’s an excellent article discussing your problem: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom07/bloom07_index.html Feel free to skip ahead to the fifth paragraph from the bottom – it’s the money quote.

  179. Franz May 31, 2007 at 11:04 am #

    Look, the reason of the irrelavence of your comments is simple. Im not ignorant, your comment simply is irrelavent. The reason we went to iraq, was because terrorists could get a hld of chemical weapons. It doesnt matter if they take the chmeicals out of shells, or if htey find them in a tanker. They will improvise them into the exact asame devise, either way. This makes your comment absolutely irrelavent, which is why im not going to answer your question.

  180. Franz May 31, 2007 at 11:07 am #

    “And actually, Frank, based on your inability to actually reason you’re psychologically about a five year old child” Who is the five year old child who can do nothing more than dish out personal attacks? You claim i have the innability ot reason, yet you havent given me anything to reason with.

  181. Franz May 31, 2007 at 11:11 am #

    I quote you here lawhobbit

    “Frank, once you admitted you couldn’t really debate my comments have been nothing BUT personal attacks”

    I in fact do have the “innability to reason” with “nothing BUT personal attacks”

  182. Franz May 31, 2007 at 11:15 am #

    You are confused and shake your head saying “frank, frank, frank….. you ust dont get it.”

    It is obvious you are saying nothing that is possible to get. Should i “get” your presonal attacks? if you want me to understand your viewpoint please state it without the childish remarks.

  183. Lawhobbit May 31, 2007 at 11:18 am #

    I suppose we could ask Our Gentle Host to put up a poll, asking the question “Is Frank Ignorant?” It’d be interesting to see where the jury would come back on it.

    But Frank, whatever makes you “think” (and in your case I use the term loosely) that terrorists (defined here as “people who don’t like us invading their countries and killing them) would only be able to get chemical weapons (US surplus, in most cases) from Iraq? The things sell on the open market. And the reason it’s horribly irrelevant, except for purposes of scaring the bejeebers out of the ignoratti like yourself is because chemical weapons are not weapons of “mass destruction.” The things are incredibly hard to use, as anybody with any NBC (that’s Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical for those of you like Frank without real military experience) training can tell you.

    Frank, buddy, you can go down to the local Safeway and pick up a bunch of goodies to produce chlorine gas. Right over the counter. And making other chemical goodies is not that much harder.

    For that matter, you’d get a lot better bang for your buck just setting off a propane bomb in a subway.

    Nope, chemical weapons are only scary to the ignorant. And since you’re afraid of them and refusing to be educated…..the conclusion is obvious. Ignorance is curable. Stupid is a way of life and forever. 😀

    Finally, what part of “I’m just here to play hacky-sack with your pathetic ego” did you not understand? I’m not here to debate, argue, or educate you – you’ve made it clear you’re not amenable. I’m here to kick you around for laughs until either I or Our Gentle Host gets tired of it. You’re presuming I’m treating you as a thoughtful adult. Trust me – I’m not. 😛

  184. Franz May 31, 2007 at 11:33 am #

    You pointing out that terrorists can get this stuff on the open market doesnt make me stupid ok. They didnt only use mustard gas in the iraq-iran war, g-series and h-series gasses were also used. If chlorine gas was more deadly that mustard,g-series,and h-series gasses why does the military not use chlorine gas bombs instead? The answer is simple, chlorine gas and propane bombs arent as deadly. The goal is to prevent terrorists from getting a hold of more deadly substances.

  185. Lawhobbit May 31, 2007 at 11:39 am #

    Duh. You make yourself look stupid just fine. I just point out the bits others might have missed. 😛

    Hey – let’s try again, just for giggles: How do you disperse mustard gas for maximum effect against personnel? Bonus points for describing an effective methodology for getting that delivery system into a subway. You do not have to phrase your answer in the form of a question.

    PS: Your bit about propane not being deadly is laughable in its demonstration of your ongoing ignorance. Further bonus points to the pop quiz above: What’s an FAE and why does the military love them?

  186. Franz May 31, 2007 at 11:39 am #

    I could use your logic to come up with this statement.

    “Terrorists can put cynide in your water supply for a much cheaper price than a nuclear attack” Therefor we shouldnt worry about a nuclear attack.”

  187. Franz May 31, 2007 at 11:45 am #

    “PS: Your bit about propane not being deadly is laughable in its demonstration of your ongoing ignorance. Further bonus points to the pop quiz above: What’s an FAE and why does the military love them?”

    You cant go down to the store and turn a propane tank into a thermobaric weapon with hime-made materials. Thats not possible, propane sold at local stores in in a gasseous state, where-as to be used in a thermobaric bomb it has to be in liquid state.

  188. Lawhobbit May 31, 2007 at 11:46 am #

    No Frank, you can’t, because the amount of cyanide needed to make that happen would require a long chain of dump trucks working for days. Again demonstrating why you’re a poster child for the adjective “blithering.”

    I also note you’re again passing on answering not terribly difficult questions, content to rest in the darkness of your ignorance. 😀

    PS: This is called “Socratic Method,” wherein I attempt (with obvious limited luck) to get you to answer the questions and thus educate yourself. Clearly a method unsuitable for one such as yourself who prefers to have his thoughts handed to him by others, but it’s early in the day and I can allow myself a modicum of hope. 😀

  189. Franz May 31, 2007 at 11:47 am #

    Lawhobbit you missed the concept, If you took 10000 gallons of cynide it would be cheaper than buying a nuke on the blackmarket.

  190. Franz May 31, 2007 at 12:05 pm #

    It would take about 6 trucks full of cynide to have 100,000 gallons. That = 378,541,180 grams. 50 grams is enough to kill a person. If you inject this into a water supply the effects would be “more bang for the buck” as you say ,compared to buying a nuke.

  191. Franz May 31, 2007 at 12:34 pm #

    Depending on where a terrorist injects the cyanide is the main factor in an attack such as this. You wouldnt go down to NYC’s rezervoir and inject it there, by the time it passed through all the pipes to the city dilution would have taken place. So to counteract this, you inject in in the pipes directly near or inside of the city itself.

  192. Franz May 31, 2007 at 12:44 pm #

    Are you done now lawhobbit? I dont see where this is going, we are rambling in a random direction which has nothing to do with why i came here and its completely off-topic.

    I came here to say

    “The best thing we the people can do in this situation is vote for the candidate with the best morals and character. So at least we know that honest decissions are being made at the highest level. ”

    Lawhobbit doesnt agree with that statement so instead tries to turn the debate into a mud-slinging contest, rittled with personal attacks.

  193. Franz May 31, 2007 at 12:53 pm #

    “Since this administration is holding back information so greatly, theres no way we can make a decision on the war before a new president takes office, That decision would be based on the lack of information this administration is known for”

    Here I quote myself, Lawhobbit seems to think i trust the current administration, this is not the case however. I know they have lied to us and kept back all sorts of information, they have hampered decision-making abilities by doing this.

    I simply ask the question “how are we to make the correct decision now under these cercumstances?”

  194. charlie June 1, 2007 at 12:37 am #

    This old, turn 60 this year, former Marine, Viet Nam vet, has a cooment for you all. Every one of them younger than mid 40’s could be my kid. They are ALL kids who are have to go and die for a damned lie!
    OUR kids are being killed for the lies of this criminal administration. And I don’t care how you try to dress that one up!
    semper fi

  195. Frank June 2, 2007 at 5:12 pm #

    They arent kids, it is part of their job description and there are some who enjoy going over there because you get payed extra.

    It wasnt a lie, we went in on the possability of weapons, not the guarantee of weapons. THe possability alone is enough to go in.

  196. Frank June 2, 2007 at 5:15 pm #

    We have stayed to protect isreal, if iran had not been so blatently threatening Isreal we would have gone by now.