#21
|
|||
|
|||
Start your own thread, please!
|
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
In article , "Robert Chung"
wrote: wrote: Rich Clark wrote: I would support you riding across America on a "bring the troops home now" mission, however, and would be happy to donate to that. Funny, but the only reason you get to express your sentiments on this is because better men than you have fought to preserve that right. I had other priorities than military service. I wanted to go, but minorities had taken all the spots. -- tanx, Howard Never take a tenant with a monkey. remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Start your own thread, please!
wrote in message ups.com... B. Lafferty wrote: "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message . .. Sure, I'll make donations to the American Friends Service Committee and Move On in your name. The best was to support the troops is to bring them home NOW and vote Democrat in November. Brian: While I agree with your sentiments, it's wrong to assume a reasonable person couldn't make a reasonable case for the other side (keeping troops there, or putting them there in the first place). And as for the Democratic party, sorry, I can't help but think that Bill Clinton passed up opportunities to deal with this before things got totally out of hand. When the inspectors weren't allowed to inspect, he could have ordered immediate reprisals each and every time. Eventually the message gets home. You let the inspectors do their job, or something gets bombed. A direct linkage. But we seem to have problems with that sort of thing; in our military handbooks, apparently it's a requirement that all such things lead to escalation and ever-greater involvement. I can't believe I'm replying in this thread. Bill Clinton has been out of office for six long years during which the Republican Party has controlled the Executive branch and both Houses of Congress. Bill Clinton didn't invade Iraq. He continued the policies toward Iraq that were in place from the prior Bush administration. The evidence is clear that the intelligence people in Clinton's outgoing National Security Council tried to tell the incoming Bush people about bin Laden but the warnings fell on deaf, ideological ears. Bush and the Republican party made this mess and America is finally waking up--too late for the needlessly dead and maimed. And now the Taliban is returning in Afghanistan because Bush diverted the war machine to Iraq. The only people coming out of this on the plus side are the leaders of the arms industry. And then there's that budget deficit every year under Bush. My kids will be paying for that and their kids as well. Brian, et al... I implore you, please start your own thread if you want to bash Bush or discuss the war itself. I'm not talking about supporting the administration or the war. I'm just trying to generate support for the folks who're asked to do the hard work. If you have a single sympathetic gene in your body for the folks actually fighting, suffering, or dying in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll take your political discussions elsewhere. I can't believe your attitude. You make an off-topic post and then try to get people to only respond in the direction that you approve? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message . .. Sure, I'll make donations to the American Friends Service Committee and Move On in your name. The best was to support the troops is to bring them home NOW and vote Democrat in November. Brian: While I agree with your sentiments, it's wrong to assume a reasonable person couldn't make a reasonable case for the other side (keeping troops there, or putting them there in the first place). And as for the Democratic party, sorry, I can't help but think that Bill Clinton passed up opportunities to deal with this before things got totally out of hand. When the inspectors weren't allowed to inspect, he could have ordered immediate reprisals each and every time. Eventually the message gets home. You let the inspectors do their job, or something gets bombed. A direct linkage. But we seem to have problems with that sort of thing; in our military handbooks, apparently it's a requirement that all such things lead to escalation and ever-greater involvement. You seem to be missing that it was the United Nations that were doing the inspections, not the U.S. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
wrote in message ups.com... Funny, but the only reason you get to express your sentiments on this is because better men than you have fought to preserve that right. Better men than you have been imprisoned and executed to preserve that right as well. RichC |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
Rich Clark wrote: wrote in message ups.com... So, I'd like to ask everyone to NOT hijack the thread, turning it into a political debate. That's been done to death in previous threads and isn't appropriate here. I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what's appropriate. *I* don't think it's appropriate for someone to represent bicyclists, even by the remotest inference, as supporting this war, since I am a bicyclist and I don't support the war. You may think that it's possible to separate "support the troops" from "support the war," but I don't. The troops are there to execute an immoral and illegal policy on behalf of a rogue government, and the only support I can conscientiously give them is to try to get them out of there. Helping them in their mission makes me complicit in it. I would support you riding across America on a "bring the troops home now" mission, however, and would be happy to donate to that. RichC Rich, I think you're over-thinking this. I don't presume to represent all cyclists, nor do I think that anyone will assume such after seeing me riding along by myself. Perhaps if I organized large group rides in major cities all across the country, involving many thousands of cyclists, folks might think we as group are "pro-war". I'm tying my desire to raise awareness for what I think is a worthy cause to my riding a bike, well... 1) I like riding a bike and have thought of riding cross-country on a fixed gear for a while, and 2) it's not like I can just call up a bunch of TV stations and talk them into running a story about a guy on his couch who thinks his story deserves to be told. Hell, the very reason I'm doing the ride on a fixed-gear is to differentiate the ride as something worthy of at least a little interest/curiosity. Lot's of folks have ridden in support of various causes, and the only way to generate interest is to be a bit different. I respect your opinions, and your right to have/express them. I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe you share mine, or to make you complicit in the war effort. I strongly believe, as do many of my liberal friends, that it's entirely possible to support the troops while not supporting the war. The reason I posted any information here at all is because I thought a bunch of fellow cyclists MIGHT be interested in the notion of the fixed-gear continental crossing. Apparently there are plenty of folks who are so caught up in their hatred for all things 'Bush' they completely missed that. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
wrote in message ups.com... Rich Clark wrote: wrote in message ups.com... So, I'd like to ask everyone to NOT hijack the thread, turning it into a political debate. That's been done to death in previous threads and isn't appropriate here. I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what's appropriate. *I* don't think it's appropriate for someone to represent bicyclists, even by the remotest inference, as supporting this war, since I am a bicyclist and I don't support the war. You may think that it's possible to separate "support the troops" from "support the war," but I don't. The troops are there to execute an immoral and illegal policy on behalf of a rogue government, and the only support I can conscientiously give them is to try to get them out of there. Helping them in their mission makes me complicit in it. I would support you riding across America on a "bring the troops home now" mission, however, and would be happy to donate to that. RichC Rich, I think you're over-thinking this. I don't presume to represent all cyclists, nor do I think that anyone will assume such after seeing me riding along by myself. Perhaps if I organized large group rides in major cities all across the country, involving many thousands of cyclists, folks might think we as group are "pro-war". I'm tying my desire to raise awareness for what I think is a worthy cause to my riding a bike, well... 1) I like riding a bike and have thought of riding cross-country on a fixed gear for a while, and 2) it's not like I can just call up a bunch of TV stations and talk them into running a story about a guy on his couch who thinks his story deserves to be told. Hell, the very reason I'm doing the ride on a fixed-gear is to differentiate the ride as something worthy of at least a little interest/curiosity. Lot's of folks have ridden in support of various causes, and the only way to generate interest is to be a bit different. I respect your opinions, and your right to have/express them. I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe you share mine, or to make you complicit in the war effort. I strongly believe, as do many of my liberal friends, that it's entirely possible to support the troops while not supporting the war. The reason I posted any information here at all is because I thought a bunch of fellow cyclists MIGHT be interested in the notion of the fixed-gear continental crossing. Apparently there are plenty of folks who are so caught up in their hatred for all things 'Bush' they completely missed that. It sounds like you wanted to ride you bike cross-country and get attention for yourself...then went looking for a cause that you could use to get attention. Very sad. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
Frank Drackman wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Rich Clark wrote: wrote in message ups.com... So, I'd like to ask everyone to NOT hijack the thread, turning it into a political debate. That's been done to death in previous threads and isn't appropriate here. I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what's appropriate. *I* don't think it's appropriate for someone to represent bicyclists, even by the remotest inference, as supporting this war, since I am a bicyclist and I don't support the war. You may think that it's possible to separate "support the troops" from "support the war," but I don't. The troops are there to execute an immoral and illegal policy on behalf of a rogue government, and the only support I can conscientiously give them is to try to get them out of there. Helping them in their mission makes me complicit in it. I would support you riding across America on a "bring the troops home now" mission, however, and would be happy to donate to that. RichC Rich, I think you're over-thinking this. I don't presume to represent all cyclists, nor do I think that anyone will assume such after seeing me riding along by myself. Perhaps if I organized large group rides in major cities all across the country, involving many thousands of cyclists, folks might think we as group are "pro-war". I'm tying my desire to raise awareness for what I think is a worthy cause to my riding a bike, well... 1) I like riding a bike and have thought of riding cross-country on a fixed gear for a while, and 2) it's not like I can just call up a bunch of TV stations and talk them into running a story about a guy on his couch who thinks his story deserves to be told. Hell, the very reason I'm doing the ride on a fixed-gear is to differentiate the ride as something worthy of at least a little interest/curiosity. Lot's of folks have ridden in support of various causes, and the only way to generate interest is to be a bit different. I respect your opinions, and your right to have/express them. I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe you share mine, or to make you complicit in the war effort. I strongly believe, as do many of my liberal friends, that it's entirely possible to support the troops while not supporting the war. The reason I posted any information here at all is because I thought a bunch of fellow cyclists MIGHT be interested in the notion of the fixed-gear continental crossing. Apparently there are plenty of folks who are so caught up in their hatred for all things 'Bush' they completely missed that. It sounds like you wanted to ride you bike cross-country and get attention for yourself...then went looking for a cause that you could use to get attention. Very sad. Frank, You couldn't be more wrong. Yes, I had thought of riding cross country for awhile. But, my motivation is not to raise attention to me, regardless of how you see it. I saw an opportunity to do something good with something I was thinking of doing anyway. If you see that as self-serving, so be it. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Trek 4 the Troops
wrote in message ups.com... Rich, I think you're over-thinking this. I don't presume to represent all cyclists, nor do I think that anyone will assume such after seeing me riding along by myself. Perhaps if I organized large group rides in major cities all across the country, involving many thousands of cyclists, folks might think we as group are "pro-war". I'm tying my desire to raise awareness for what I think is a worthy cause to my riding a bike, well... 1) I like riding a bike and have thought of riding cross-country on a fixed gear for a while, and 2) it's not like I can just call up a bunch of TV stations and talk them into running a story about a guy on his couch who thinks his story deserves to be told. Hell, the very reason I'm doing the ride on a fixed-gear is to differentiate the ride as something worthy of at least a little interest/curiosity. Lot's of folks have ridden in support of various causes, and the only way to generate interest is to be a bit different. I respect your opinions, and your right to have/express them. I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe you share mine, or to make you complicit in the war effort. I strongly believe, as do many of my liberal friends, that it's entirely possible to support the troops while not supporting the war. The reason I posted any information here at all is because I thought a bunch of fellow cyclists MIGHT be interested in the notion of the fixed-gear continental crossing. Many of us are interested in that aspect of a trans-america ride. Apparently there are plenty of folks who are so caught up in their hatred for all things 'Bush' they completely missed that. Hate Bush? No. I think he's a terribly manipulated moron, but it's the policies promulgated by the Republican leadership that are disgusting. That includes Iraq policy, pre-emptinve war and contempt for internationl structures that might lead to peaceful international dispute resolution as well as much of their domestic policy. I doubt you would have gotten the response you have if you had announced that you were riding to fundraise for the USO. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trek 4 the Troops | [email protected] | General | 134 | November 27th 06 01:14 PM |
Trek 4 the Troops | [email protected] | Racing | 178 | November 27th 06 01:14 PM |
Trek 4 the Troops | [email protected] | Social Issues | 125 | November 27th 06 01:14 PM |
Road Bike Geometry: Traditional vs. Comfort (eg. Trek 1000 vs. Trek Pilot 1.0) | Gray | Techniques | 32 | September 14th 06 11:48 PM |
2004 - Trek 1400? Trek 1200? comments? | yuri budilov | Techniques | 1 | April 4th 04 10:53 PM |