Ok Mike, you want war at all costs. This is a cost of war:  http://www.slate.com/id/2122730/

Take a good long look Mike, because this is what the children see. If you want war so be it, but then you stay away from the threads that talk of protecting the children. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't want your help protecting any children under my watch.

__________________

you must understand that the peace promoting corrupt UN that the left loves refuses to step up to the plate to stop that particular conflict , it is fought by islamic groups affiliated with other extremest groups that America is at war with who are attacking those innocents .    bad example on your part.                                 that conflict is not caused or contributed to by America.   

so , do you wish to see american children painting pictures like those ?  i do not .

Wow, you just don't get it Mike. War is not just about getting even, it's about people. You will go to the wall defending your point of view regardless of who gets hurt. That post was not about who was at war, it was about how the children are harmed. But you refused to see that, you had to justify the war. You really showed me but good didn't you? I don't have the words to express my complete disbelief in your thought process. What kind of picture do you think a 1st grader here in this country would draw if they listened to your ranting and raving? I'd bet anything it would look like the ones I asked you to look at. But even that wouldn't matter to you would it, you would just continue to justify your hate. I meant what I said in the last post, don't try to help the children on my watch. I hope thet never know that much hate.

shughes wrote:

---

Maybe you can relate to this site better Mike. This is what you have been fighting for here isn't it?  http://www.warchildren.org/hidden_killer.html This is the consequence of war both at home and away. This is what hate has done to your family. How can you defend this?  

---

    what hate are you refering to ? how can i defend something i had nothing to do with ? good question ,  no possible answer .

    the only hate i have been seeing on this site radiates from yourself , an alleged liberal pasifist . how out of character for a liberal pacifist .    despite what you have typed ,  my blood pressure does not go up when i am on here , no anger no hate - and clearly i am not a pacifist or a liberal .    

         i choose war this time - not for revenge - but to solve a problem that can not be solved any other way . i prefer to see no children butchered by war - but i would prefer to see small numbers of the children of our enemies butchered before seeing wholesale slaughter of the the children of Americans,  which will be the end result of not choosing war at this time .

         war is war , there will be collateral damage , it can not be totally stopped but our military is doing very good about limiting it . consider the firebombings of dresden and tokyo during ww2 , thousands of non military people burned up , nothing close happening this time , guided weapons are for the most part landing on the bad guys and missing the innocents .  

   i have agreed to not debate DU on this blog . so i won't .  contact me direct if you wish .

There is NO SUCH THING as "Collateral" children victims! We choose to make that so. If it is O.K. to have children as collateral, then it is O.K. to kill your kid if he or she is taken hostage because the hostage taker is dangerous, and, instead of a hostage negotiator, we just need a sniper with a heavy barrel . 308 Remington with a Eunerdl scope--if we take both off their heads of in the one shot, so be it--we can't have nasty hostage takers potentially taking another hostage sometime in the future, so we shoot them both.

Not much sense there. WAR IS NOT GOOD FOR LITTLE CHILDREN--or for dead mothers with brain tumors, worse for living breathing models.

"Come Senators, Congressmen please heed the call, don't stand in the doorway don't block up the hall."

Another good song by Dylan is "With God on our side." God is ONLY ever on the side of the pacifist. God is NOT on the side of the arms bearer. Sorry. In the song, everyone regardless of which side they're on, has God on THEIR side. Ironic isn't it?

The Muslims are right, aren't they? No, that's the Mormons who are. Oh, wait, it's the Episcopalians that are the only ones that have it correct. Or is it the Buddhists, Sufis, Rumminites or Rostaas? What about all those people in the South Pacific that worship coconuts, they are the chosen ones...aren't they? Of all of these, who's children are expendable because one General doesn't like another one? How many "collateral" deaths of children would be O.K. with God because we continue to disagree?

If you buy more than $10-20 a week in gasoline (and grumble about the price), then you are helping to fuel these collateral deaths of children too--so you can take that extra Sunday drive (or have other's vehicles to fix) or leave the basement light on all night and not care, or to generally feel smug--superior to the rest of the world, and entitled. The entitled part is where all belief systems fail.

I think it was Phil Collins or Peter Gabriel who said it best this way "I'd rather trust a country man than a town man." In this case, I'd rather trust a man who fixes bicycles.

Isn't that counter productive  to what is going in the paper tomorrow.

Anonymous wrote:

---

There is NO SUCH THING as "Collateral" children victims! We choose to make that so. If it is O.K. to have children as collateral, then it is O.K. to kill your kid if he or she is taken hostage because the hostage taker is dangerous, and, instead of a hostage negotiator, we just need a sniper with a heavy barrel . 308 Remington with a Eunerdl scope--if we take both off their heads of in the one shot, so be it--we can't have nasty hostage takers potentially taking another hostage sometime in the future, so we shoot them both. Not much sense there. WAR IS NOT GOOD FOR LITTLE CHILDREN.

---

This really says it all.

-- Edited by alwayswatching at 14:55, 2005-07-23

NO DOVEY, this has absolutely NOTHING at all to do with maturity or being a nice person--THIS IS EXACTLY about WHAT MIKE OF THE MOUNTAIN HAS BEEN SAYING--READ THE DAMN thread and POST ABOUT KILLING THE ENEMY'S KIDS!!! Jesus. You just don't get this do you? Have someone explain the simp-le statements to you, will you? Do you EVEN understand the phrase "collateral damage?"

Just how much chemical and nuclear waste did you ingest while you were here? Did you drink well water? Aren't YOU and your children collaterally damaged? Have NitWit explain it, please.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is NO SUCH THING as "Collateral" children victims! We choose to make that so. If it is O.K. to have children as collateral, then it is O.K. to kill your kid if he or she is taken hostage because the hostage taker is dangerous, and, instead of a hostage negotiator, we just need a sniper with a heavy barrel . 308 Remington with a Eunerdl scope--if we take both off their heads of in the one shot, so be it--we can't have nasty hostage takers potentially taking another hostage sometime in the future, so we shoot them both. Not much sense there. WAR IS NOT GOOD FOR LITTLE CHILDREN.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Couldn't leave YOU alone"?? What's that mean? You have NO IDEA who this is.  You consistently don't read the threads and then you make stuff up in your head that people are talking always about you, and THEN want a response..wah, wah. This is the last to you. Scary cookoo! Theory? What theory? You got a case...get a nut wrench. 

These words have nothing to do with Dovey! There, you're out of it. And I mean that...

MIKE OF THE MOUNTAIN DID NOT WRITE--

i choose war this time . i prefer to see children butchered by war - i prefer to see small children butchered before seeing wholesale slaughter of the the children,  which will be the end result of not choosing war at this time . 

         war is war , there will be collateral damage , it can not be totally stopped but our military is firebombing dresden and tokyo thousands of people burned up , guided weapons are for the most part landing on the innocents .  

 

Here is WHAT MIKE OF THE MOUNTAIN did write--

i choose war this time - not for revenge - but to solve a problem that can not be solved any other way . i prefer to see no children butchered by war - but i would prefer to see small numbers of the children of our enemies butchered before seeing wholesale slaughter of the the children of Americans,  which will be the end result of not choosing war at this time .

         war is war , there will be collateral damage , it can not be totally stopped but our military is doing very good about limiting it . consider the firebombings of dresden and tokyo during ww2 , thousands of non military people burned up , nothing close happening this time , guided weapons are for the most part landing on the bad guys and missing the innocents .  

anonymous Case: IF your friend's friend drinks only bottled water and has exclusively since birth, what's the problem with Fox Neocon's. Seems like the same hypocracy kind of thing drinking Perrier Frenchy and then complaining about the tap or well water quality. Never drank it--why do you care?

I bet you also drive a big SUV too!

i am back -  here is what i said ....

    "     i choose war this time - not for revenge - but to solve a problem that can not be solved any other way . i prefer to see no children butchered by war - but i would prefer to see small numbers of the children of our enemies butchered before seeing wholesale slaughter of the the children of Americans,  which will be the end result of not choosing war at this time . "

here is what the liberal pacifists anony-mouse takes from my statement , typical liberal tactic by the by ;    not so anony-mouse ,   i recogognise your scorn .  

"but i would prefer to see small numbers of the children of our enemies butchered.."

    i have lived through an explosion , i have felt my flesh torn and burned i have felt the heat and concusion wave , i have been temporaraly blinded and deafened by the blast , i have felt my bones being fragmented and splintered and i have felt the pain - the pain which does not let up and does not go away , i have waited in the hospital for most of a day dripping from my injuries because another guy was more blown up than me and his life depended on the skill of the surgeons , whereas my injuries although crippleing would not have been fatal unless infection got me ,  i asked the doctors what they were cooking that smelled so good , and i was told what i was smelling , that pleasant odor of barbecued meat was actually my wounds , i was smelling my own flesh that had been cooked by the blast .       butchered is an accurate word .    when a piece of ordnance blows up , people in the area get butchered - this is a fact the i am qualified to relate .  i have the scars , i have the steel in my body i have the blast particles imbedded in my self , you can see it .

       i dont wish that on anyone , not even the pudding head liberal pacifists , not the children of the enemy but more than anything not the American children and not the American people.    American collateral damage is un-intentional , mistakes are made , things malfunction , but to the American military protecting the civilians of the enemy  has high priority  . even when they are suspected of being enemy military and legitimate targets .    the American military never intentionaly targets civilians .

this particular batch of liberal pacifists claim to be so concerned about the "children" as long as they are the children of the enemy ; but American children dont concern them at all, American people dont seem to concern them -  the fact that American people and children were butchered and splattered and vaporised by an un justified act of cowardice against civilians matters not to them , the fact that body parts were still being recovered from window sills and awnings and rooftops months after the event does not trouble them - the fact that 44 million American children have been butchered and continue to be butchered is very acceptable to them ,     not to me .

   my mom would have used the word hypocrits here , i never liked that word too much but here it applies , if it never applied anywhere else in history , it applies here .

      i choose war- not for revenge , i choose war for the same reason our grand parents chose war in ww2 , because there is an enemy out there that would butcher more Americans and more American children and if they are not stopped now it will cost more American lives to stop them later .  we will conserve the lives of American children and American people by ending the threat now .      i find myself less concerned for the welfare of the enemy than for the welfare of my grandchildren .

the goals of the liberal pasifists are not known to me , but based on their actions and words the goals appear to involve the death of Americans and American Children and the weakening of America -   i do not support these goals .

   if they would have me i would be proud to stand with the Mormons , many of them are honorable people .