NJCubScouter

Quixote says, not to me, because I haven't said much on this subject lately: If you honestly think it's about oil, you're seriously deceived. I don't think this is only about oil, or even primarily about oil. But, Quixote, if you think that this war has nothing to do with oil, then you are seriously deceived. At the same time, if you think it has nothing to do with the president (and his advisers) wanting to finish the job his father (and some of the same advisers) started but didn't finish, then you are again seriously deceived. And if you think it has nothing to do with the president wanting revenge on the man who tried to have his father killed, you are once again seriously deceived. I would like to see Saddam Hussein out of there as much as anyone. I strongly supported the last war against him, and he did not particularly endear himself to me by lobbing Scud missiles onto Israel, which was a non-combatant nation at our request, and did not even defend itself, at our request. But I'm still not convinced that it is worth the lives we are going to lose. I'm also not convinced that Iraq gets first priority among places we need to be using military force. I feel far more threatened by North Korea, for example. I also hate the dishonest way this war is being justified, both by the president and by his cheerleaders on Fox News Channel and right-wing talk radio. It is obvious to me that we never had any intention of not attacking, regardless of what the inspectors found or didn't find. If we were going to attack anyway, I wish we hadn't engaged in this whole charade. And just for the record, I don't care what France thinks, or what the UN thinks. I care what I think, and I don't like it. I guess Haliburton should recuse themselves from a possible contact (that is for infrastructure rebuilding, not "oil concessions") because Cheney WAS employed by them before he was VP? I think it's very interesting that we can already identify which companies stand to win contracts to rebuild Iraq. I understand that other countries (including the UK) are complaining that our rebuilding plans are basically skewed to U.S. companies. Frankly, I might not mind so much if American workers are involved, but I get this funny feeling that the U.S. economy is not going to benefit very much. But you just watch how fast the new Iraqi leadership (which will probably turn out to be some guy from California whose grandfather came from Iraq) grants contracts to U.S. oil companies to go in there and take out oil for a nominal fee, and then tell me it had nothing to do with oil.

ScoutNut says: Also, since you wear the last earned rank badge on your left pocket, many new Boy Scouts are wearing the new Webelos rank badge until they earn their Scout rank. I had heard that this was actually permitted, but I have looked in the current Uniform and Insignia Guide and find no mention of it. I have this exact issue with my son right now. He will be a Cub Scout for 4 more days. Right now he is wearing the oval Webelos badge on his pocket (on his tan Webelos/Boy Scout shirt.) On Friday night he will receive the Arrow of Light, and will immediately cross over to Boy Scouts. So, when he attends his first official troop meeting the following Tuesday, I know that we need to get him the red loops to replace the blue and the numerals for the troop (I believe they have their own customized numerals patch with the name of the town underneath.) I believe this troop will sell us their own customized hat and that he gets a Boy Scout neckerchief and slide as part of the joining fee for the troop. But what about the Webelos rank patch? As I said, it is my understanding that it stays on until he earns the Scout badge, but I cannot find any verification of this. By the way, my son just earned the World Conservation award as a Webelos, it has not gone on his uniform yet. Since it is my understanding that he cannot wear this on his Boy Scout uniform, it will go onto his red vest, which will then go into the closet, since it is a Cub Scout thing. I told him that the last few things he earns (activity badges, World Conservation), he will wear for only a few weeks if at all, and he is ok with that.

KoreaScouter says: You know, with all the fuss over Indian-related sports team names, it's only a matter of time before the American Indian Movement goes after OA for the ceremonies and costumes... Actually, it is my understanding that this subject has already come up and been discussed. My information comes solely from reading the Internet, possibly including posts on this forum, so others presumably have better information. However, my general understanding is that representatives of Native American cultures have discussed OA ceremonies and costumes with representatives of the OA and that in fact the OA has made some changes or adopted guidelines in order to ensure that there was nothing offensive. Whether this is something that happened on a national-to-national level or in certain areas of the country, I am not sure of. But it fits right in with my understanding of the OA from when I was a Scout, which is that the use of Native American rituals was intended to give honor, not offense, to those cultures.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

When I have encountered the term in Scouting, it has always been as a gathering of adult leaders on a camping trip or summer camp, at night, generally after the boys had (or were supposed to have) gone to sleep. This experience in the Boy Scout context goes back to the mid-70's, when my father would bring the JASM's (including me) along to the crackerbarrel (and then in my final summer of summer camp, I was an ASM.) Much more recently, at district-wide Cub Family Camporees, the CM's and ACM's and commissioners have gathered in the administrative cabin around 9:30-10:00 at night for coffee and donuts. I do not specifically recall the bill of fare from when I was 16-18 years old but I am sure it was similar. I do not recall any "fancy" spreads such as one or 2 others here have described.

It sounds to me like both "sides" need "help," probably including a CR (or if "absent," a commissioner) to knock the CC's and SM's heads together and get them to play nice. The problems with the CC are obvious, but from the SM side, you say the patrol method exists only on paper. How are the boys getting the full benefit of the program if the patrol method exists only on paper? How does a boy learn leadership other than by being a PL, SPL or other position, and not just on paper? I speak not from a wealth of personal experience, other than what I remember from my own youth. My only son also has just chosen a troop and will cross over on March 21. Fortunately there does not seem to be any political intrigue in this troop, in fact there was just a "peaceful" transition from one SM to the next with the old one becoming CC. When we went to visit a meeting, things seemed pretty chaotic. One of the ASM's explained to me that they had had a camping trip planned to start the following evening but it was cancelled due to an expected snowstorm (which turned out to be the big recent East Coast snowstorm.) Therefore the program was kind of "up in the air." That didn't sound so good to me. I did see 2 ASM's working with individual boys on advancement, so SOMETHING productive was going on. The ASM also told me that the SPL is brand new, 14 years old, and is still learning how to get things under control. Well, that actually sounded a bit better -- like they know the goal is "boy run," but the boy still needs a couple meetings to tie things together. I could tell that the SM and ASM's were making a studied effort NOT to get the boys under control, apparently figuring that the new SPL would get the message. OK, I think I can live with that. But enough about me. One Hour (ha ha on the name), if I were you I probably would be an ASM so I could keep an eye on what kind of program the boys are getting, and whether there is any way you can nudge things toward the patrol method and boy-run. But I would keep the addresses of the other local troops handy in case that does not work. (By the way, the reason my son chose this troop was NOT the chaos -- THAT I would have a problem with. The main reason is that last year's Webelos 2 den, including a few boys that he had become friends with, joined this troop en masse, so this is where he knows other boys and has friends.)

By the way, another description of the basic facts may be found at http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/supreme/a-195-97.opn.html This is the New Jersey Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Dale's favor, which was reversed by a 5-4 vote on the U.S. Supreme Court. This decision includes the following: James Dale became a member of BSA in 1978 at the age of eight. He remained a youth member of BSA until his eighteenth birthday in l988. Dale was an exemplary scout. During his long membership, he earned many badges and honors, including the award of an Eagle Scout Badge, an honor achieved by only the top three percent of all scouts. On March 21, 1989, Dale sought adult membership in BSA. Monmouth Council and BSA accepted and approved his application for the position of Assistant Scoutmaster of Troop 73, where he served for approximately sixteen months. In July 1990, Dale was interviewed by the Star-Ledger, which ran an article reporting on a seminar that addressed the psychological and health needs of lesbian and gay teenagers. In connection with the interview, Dale's photo appeared in the Star-Ledger with a caption identifying him as co-president of the Rutgers University Lesbian/Gay Alliance. Later that month, Dale received a letter from BSA Monmouth Council Executive James W. Kay, revoking Dale's BSA membership. In response to Dale's request for the basis of the Monmouth Council's decision to revoke his BSA membership, Kay indicated that the standards for leadership established by the BSA specifically forbade membership to homosexuals.

There is nothing in what I have read about the case (which includes what Merlyn posted) that suggests that James Dale was ever seen dressed in anything "ostentatious," or that he ever did so. The event that he attended, leading to the newspaper story that led to his removal, was not a "gay rally" with men dressing like ballerinas. The Supreme Court opinion makes clear that it was a "seminar"; a serious discussion of the issues facing gay teenagers. Elsewhere I have read that Dale participated in the seminar because he hoped that his experiences in dealing with the "discovery" process and with the discrimination he had faced, would help younger people going through the same process. Considering the fact that Dale was an assistant scoutmaster and nobody in his unit knew he was gay, and that he was interested in helping youth regardless of their orientation, it seems to me that a guy like this would be a pretty good role model for anybody.

Bob says: There is no single religion conspiracy. Very clever Bob, change what I say and then respond to that, instead of responding to what I actually said. I don't even know what "single religion conspiracy" means, and I have never used the word "conspiracy" at all on this topic. What I am saying is that it is impossible to justify exclusion of gays except on religious grounds. I have seen people try to do it, by saying that anti-homosexuality is an established societal moral principle, but they end up running headlong into the fact that in our society, today, the consensus against homosexuality no longer exists. There is often then a discussion about whether morality can change from time to time, and the obvious answer is that, sure it can: Unless it's dictated by God. So it always comes back to religion -- not a single religion or denomination, but that group of religions and denominations and sub-denominations that believes both that homosexuality is immoral and that exclusion of the gays is appropriate. The BSA's web site itself refers to faith-based values, ignoring the fact that other religions (including the one of which I happen to be a member) have values that are different. I believe Acco quoted the Declaration of Religious Principles: Absolutely non-sectarian, it says. The practice of excluding gays based on moral grounds is absolutely sectarian. There are membership requirements. I know, I've seen them a number of times. Not once have I seen anything about sexual orientation. The voices of the charter organization representatives on the Executive Committee do matter. They may matter in a practical sense, but if they are contradicting the fundamental documents of the organization, which they are, in a higher sense they are irrelevant. I also need to go back to one of your other posts, Bob, where you mention that leaders can be ousted by their units for marital infidelity, other wrongdoing, or even just being a bad example (obesity, etc.) The difference is that, as you say, the unit can remove them. It is a matter of, shall I say it? Local Option. So if you want to analogize these things to avowed homosexuality, I am right with you. The policy should be exactly the same. The unit should be permitted to make the decision.

Bob, as I have said before, and as I think TwoCubDad said recently: If I thought that exclusion of gays was really a principle of the BSA, I probably would leave. But it isn't. It hasn't even been adopted as a rule or policy. It is just based on an interpretation of the Scout Oath and Law, and I think it is a misinterpretation. And the fact that the representatives of representatives of chartered organizations interprets words a particular way, does not make it right. Also, as I have explained before, this is really about reps of one group of religions imposing their religious beliefs on others, in violation of the BSA's Declaration of Religious Principles. So it is the majority of the national executive committee who won't follow the rules. If anyone should leave, it is them, not me. Some day, this error will be corrected.

Bryan, I'll deal with your posts in reverse order. Packsaddle and OldGreyEagle have answered your second post, I would just add 2 things: One, the BSA itself disclaims any justification for its anti-gay policy based on prevention of child molestation. That is what the Youth Protection guidelines, and the ban on leaders (gay or straight) who have been convicted of sex crimes, are for. Second, the part about the average gay man having had 250 sexual partners is irrelevant, even if it is true. I have known heterosexual men who have probably had far more sexual partners than that. Wilt Chamberlain, if you believe his claims of having had sex with 40,000 women, boosts up the average pretty far all by himself. The point isn't what some people do, or what an average person does. The point is what a particular person who has applied for a leadership position in the BSA does. If a person (gay or straight) is openly leading a lifestyle where they have a different partner every night and make no secret about it, I doubt first of all that they are going to apply to be Scoutmaster, and if they do, it seems doubtful to me that they are going to be accepted. Orientation has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, if all you know about a person is that he has been living with the same person for 30 years and never talks about his sex life, why does it matter whether his roommate happens to be a woman who calls herself Mrs. Applicant, or a man, and they have a rainbow flag hanging outside their house. (OK tj, packsaddle, littlebillie etc., I need help here, would the latter be considered "avowed"? I'm looking for an example of "avowed" but not too blatant to be a Scouter.) One thing I feel compelled to keep pointing out about the James Dale case: From the court opinions we do not actually know anything about his personal life, meaning who he may have done what with and when, behind closed doors. All we really know is that he was the co-president of the Rutgers Gay Alliance (or similar name) and that he spoke at a seminar about the struggles faced by teenagers as they deal with the discovery that they are attracted to persons of the same gender. So the "250 average" business goes out the window. It doesn't apply to the Dale case or, I suspect, the vast majority of other situations where an openly gay person has been (or currently is) a Scouter. Promiscuous or "married," if you "admit" being gay, you're out. And I have to ask, since your statistics are for gay men, what about Lesbians? (Does that still get capitalized? It's tough keeping track of these things.) If they are avowed, they can't be Scouters either. And yet I see no dire health statistics about them in your post. So it can't really be about health statistics, can it? But now to your first post, Bryan. I found the part about Christians not eating meat containing blood to be interesting. For Jews (of which I am one, though non-observant), this is one of the Kosher laws. To my knowledge, Christians do NOT observe this law, at least not in the way that Jews who "keep Kosher" do. To be Kosher, an animal must be slaughtered in a way that drains out the blood, and when the animal is butchered and the meat prepared for cooking, it must be in such a way that the "blood parts" are removed. (I'm not an expert in this, so I can't explain it any better than that. I'm sure there are Web sites that do, though.) This is one of the reasons that Kosher meats cost considerably more than the comparable non-Kosher variety, because a significant amount is "wasted" along the way. (Though I suppose that an observant Jew (or the Lord, for that matter) would not look at it as "waste.") The point is, I have never known of a Christian who goes through all this to eat a steak or a hamburger. (And not that many Jews either, but some. The ShopRite near my house has a Kosher meat counter, and I am sure the guy there knows all about this, not that I necessarily want to ask.) I have never even heard a Christian talking about needing to have meat prepared in a certain way so that there is no blood in it. So if Christians do observe this Levitical law, it must be in a completely different way.

Bob, I don't understand why you can't acknowledge the simple fact that the BSA policy should be rewritten to accomplish what you and I both agree should be the policy: No smoking at Scouting events. Until you do, it seems to me that you also risk endangering Scouts, by advocating a policy that does not adequately protect them from having "role models" who smoke. (My hands are clean: There is no smoking at any event in my pack.) I also don't understand why you can't answer my question about the Cub Scout leader book. Could it be that the BSA sometimes makes mistakes? Or is that not a permissible area of discussion?

Bob, actually, if someone is writing a rule, his approach should be just the opposite of what you describe. It should not be to choose words that can be interpreted to prohibit what the writer is trying to prohibit. It should be to choose words that cannot be interpreted ANY OTHER WAY than to prohibit that conduct. Or stated another way, it should be to choose words that cannot be interpreted at all. Stated in terms of attitude, the writer should not assume a positive attitude by those who are expected to follow the rule, because those who take the positive approach are probably not the people the rule is aimed at in the first place. The attitude SHOULD be a negative one -- assume that someone is going to try to sneak around the rule, and write language that closes off all means of escape. The BSA rule writers seem to follow the same approach described above, because in the majority of BSA rules there is no "wiggle room." Which makes one wonder when there is. And can you explain why the Cub Scout leader book, at least the one that was current until last year, does not seem to follow the same policy? I cannot locate my copy of the newer one at the moment to see what it says.

First, let me say that I think smoking should be prohibited at all Scouting events, period. That should dispel any questions about my motivation in saying that the rule language quoted by BobWhite is NOT clear. Why don't they just come out and say it the way I said it: Smoking is prohibited at Scouting events and activities. They can leave off the period. The only time I have seen this a smoking policy in writing was in the Cub Scout Leader Book, and it had language that was different from what BobWhite quoted, and it indicated that smoking was NOT prohibited. It said something like, smoking in the presence of boys is "strongly discouraged," or something like that. I don't know if it has been changed, but if it has, they need to take all of the statements about smoking and make them consistent.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

I personally appreciate the information and perspective that Merlyn provides, even though I often disagree with his opinions. I hope he keeps posting.

And still nobody has even tried to explain how it is that Iraq got to the top of the "danger" list, or the "terrorism" list. North Korea has nuclear weapons, we know because they've said so. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and terrorists, including al Qaeda. Now, I know that the terrorists are mainly in portions of Pakistan that actually are not controlled by the central government, but doesn't that fact make people a little nervous? I also know that General Musharraf is our good buddy now, but I think it would take him about 30 seconds to not be our good buddy anymore if he decided it was in his personal interest. And, let's see, what's that country where most of the 9/11 terrorists were from? A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans believe they were mostly from Iraq. That means that the current administration has done a pretty good job selling this war to the public, because the fact is that none of them were from Iraq. Most of them were from Saudi Arabia, but if we really looked we would probably find good evidence that the Saudi monarchy gives all kinds of money to terrorists. We know that they finance Palestinian terrorists. I hear a lot of talk about "links," but our government seems to ignore the "links" between Saudi Arabia and terrorism. Could it have something to do with the direct business involvement by Father Bush in Saudi Arabia? I know, I know, a Republican could never possibly have any motivation other than what's best for the country. I just thought I'd ask. And what about the Palestinian terrorists and other Arab terrorists in and around Syria and Lebanon? Their groups killed Americans long before we ever had any argument with Saddam Hussein. What are we doing about them? I mean, other than telling Israel that they should be negotiating with the terrorist-in-chief, Yasser Arafat. And what about terrorists in Indonesia? Or the Phillipines? There are terrorists all over the world -- and countries with nuclear weapons -- and countries that have invaded neighbors -- and countries with mad-man dictators. Iraq is not the only one, and again, they are not at the top of the list. I would just like to see a little consistency in our policy before that policy is used as a justification to send our young people into a war.

One of my problems with this is, our actions have not matched our rhetoric. President Bush has been talking about Iraq and its threat to our nation since shortly after 9/11/01. He received authorization to do something months ago. And, Rooster, you're right, we don't know all of the evidence that our government has, but that only makes it more curious that we haven't done anything yet. When I say that, I don't mean that we should have sent ground forces in already. We have taken military action against Iraq several times since the end of ground action in 1991, with not a single soldier or marine sent into battle. We have sent bombers and missiles, none of which take nearly as much time to deploy as has passed since President Bush first said we were going after Saddam Hussein. We could have been bombing anything that looks like it might be useful in making weapons, and basically wiped out his entire defensive capability. That is what we did before we sent in ground forces in Desert Storm. Why haven't we done that? And I'm not necessarily saying that we should have; what I am saying is that the fact that we haven't, makes me wonder whether the president really thinks we need to.

Well, Rooster, if that is the case about the electors, I guess that what I "understood" was not correct. The fact that electors can vote for whoever they want, in some states legally and in some illegally (though the "rogue" vote still counts), makes the electoral system even more ridiculous than I already thought it was. We voters have no clue in the world who these 538 (1 for each Senate and House seat and 3 for D.C.) people are, and yet they are the only people in the country whose votes actually count for president. In and of itself, the "fix" for that would be to eliminate the actual electors and simply count the electoral votes by state based on who wins that state. But I personally think that the whole electoral system is a ridiculous anachronism and that we should elect the president directly. We are one nation, not simply a collection of states. I have a direct vote for my county registrar of deeds and mortgages, but not for the most important position in the country. How absurd.

It is my understanding that ALL states have laws requiring their electors to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. However, if one of them violates the law, the consequence is the same as violating any other criminal law, i.e. probably a fine, though I don't know if it has really been enforced the few times this has happened. The law does NOT change the elector's vote -- it still counts for the "wrong" candidate. The often heard statement that the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy, is both meaningless and not completely correct. The original, technical definition of "republic" is any nation where the people are sovereign, that is, there is no monarch. A second definition has developed, basically, a nation where the people actually govern themselves through elected representatives. The second definition is essentially the same as a "representative democracy" -- not "mob rule" as in a "pure democracy" (which has probably never existed in practice), but rule through elected representatives. Some countries are technically republics, but are not truly representative democracies, examples, Egypt, Iraq, the Phillipines during the time of Marcos. There may be "elections" but there is only one party, and no real democracy. Some countries are representative democracies but not republics, because they have a monarch, though one who does not truly rule. Examples: the United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark. The U.S. is a republic under both definitions, in other words, a representative democracy.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

Acco says: What are the federal and state non-discrimination laws? Last time I looked, you could discriminate on the basis of sex and sexual orientation in many states. If by "sex" you mean gender, I was not aware of that. I thought that all states prohibited discrimination in employment, public accomodations, etc. on the basis of race, sex (gender), religion and national origin (and maybe others I'm not thinking of.) I know that New Jersey does, and the federal government does as well. (Note, every anti-discrimination law has some exceptions to it, so nobody needs to tell me that churches don't have to hire Muslim caretakers or that it's ok to limit draft registration to men, I already know that.) Acco, you are correct that some states do not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I believe that federal law also does not prohibit this, or at least, the main civil rights laws, i.e. Title VII, do not. However, according to the ACLU press release, this lawsuit is based not only on discrimination against gays, but also on discrimination against atheists. Under federal law, discrimination against atheists constitutes discrimination on the basis of "religion." I am not sure if this is true under the law of all states; my suspicion would be, yes in some, no in others. P.S. Your first two links require registration to get access to the articles. I noticed that too. I hate that. Most of the major newspaper sites do that now. I almost never register, because I figure I'll get more junk e-mail and I get enough now, thanks. One time I must have registered to read a legal article on a site sponsored by the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis, which otherwise I have never heard of specifically, but ever since then I have been getting mail from bamsl.org about every seminar on Decedents Estates and Trusts Under Missouri Law and every meet-the-judges dinner in Greater St. Louis. I have never bothered to figure out how to get myself off the mailing list.

Pat Buchanan is hardly your typical right-wing conservative. He really has his own "wing." He is not a typical isolationist either. His opposition to Desert Storm II is not surprising, considering that he was just about the only "conservative" to oppose Desert Storm I. Nor are his motivations in opposing war with Iraq in any way related to those of the "peace protesters," or to those of us who question whether the war is a good idea, but who if we did invade, would wave the flag (at least at first) and hope for an easy victory and a rapid withdrawal. To find out what Buchanan's motivations are, I think all you have to do is read the article. Look at all the references to Israel and Ariel Sharon. He believes that the motivating force behind the war is Israel and its supporters in this country. (That would include me, so I guess the fact that I don't necessarily support the war doesn't help his argument.) His famous quote about Desert Storm I was something like, the only people supporting the war are Israelis and their "amen corner" in the United States. What do you think, all you out there who supported Desert Storm I? Did you support it because it would help Israel? Buchanan thinks that that was your (our) motivation. And while we're at it, what is the real ideology behind Buchanan's views? Let's see: He thinks Israel is controlling U.S. foreign policy (a proposition that would come as a great surprise to the government of Israel, which has endured constant, public criticism from the U.S. government for its dealings with the Palestinians.) He criticizes Israel and its supporters in this country every chance he gets. He is clearly pro-Palestinian at the expense of Israel (read the article.) He opposed the prosecution of Nazi war criminals by the U.S. government. He encouraged Ronald Reagan to honor the graves of Nazi SS soldiers in Bittburg, Germany (remember that? That was Buchanan's doing.) And on top of all that, he has written articles claiming that certain portions of the Holocaust did not occur. Add it all together, and it's pretty clear to me. Oh, and he hates gay people, too. Just thought I'd throw that in.

Does anyone want to suggest that the Old Baldy council admits gays and atheists? Sure. Not knowingly, though. I think this is a really interesting case. The BSA is probably going to say that it is in "compliance" with all anti-discrimination laws, because to the extent that its practices would otherwise violate those laws, the laws themselves are unconstitutional. This would be based on the "Dale" case. In other words, the argument would be that the aspects of anti-discrimination law that the BSA is "violating," do not atually exist as far as the BSA is concerned. In legal lingo, I think the BSA would say that to deny them public funding would "burden" their First Amendment right to expressive association. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has generally given Congress (and federal agencies) wide latitude to place conditions on the granting of federal funds, basically on the premise that the receipt of these funds is a "privilege" rather than a "right." But using the federal false swearing act makes it difficult. Until the courts decide whether the BSA has to comply with policies banning discrimination in public facilities and funding, it is tough to say that the BSA knowingly made a false statement. As far as they were concerned, they were not violating the law, so they did not swear falsely. If anyone is waiting for an actual opinion from me as to which legal argument is correct, you'll have to continue to wait. Merlyn, is there any specific case law on BSA use of public facilities or funding yet? There have been a number of stories about cases involving facilities, but I have not heard about any published opinions. (This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

Kwc says: Yet we are about to do the same thing by invading Iraq. This is not a position that the US has taken in the past. We respond, we don't draw first blood. Hmm, I suspect Salvador Allende might disagree. (If he was still alive, that is, but he isn't because our CIA had him assassinated.) I think it might be more correct to say that this IS a position that the U.S. has taken in the past, but it's generally not one that we take anymore since the collapse of the USSR'nt. I agree with your main point though, Kwc. I understand why we want Saddam Hussein out, but I'm not sure how he got on top of the list of people to send Americans into battle to accomplish that goal. And although I have not brought this up before: I also don't think we have a good enough idea what we might leave behind in Iraq when we're done. If you think Hussein is the only "bad man" in the country and the only one who wishes us harm, I have some news for you. We may end up like the Soviets in Afghanistan, or ourselves in Vietnam, staying there for years to "protect our investment," losing thousands of men every year along the way. I just want to be clear, I'm not some peacenik and I'm not one of the guys you are watching on TV at antiwar protests. I just think we need to be clear about the risks and the need to do this before we do it, and I am not at all convinced that our president has made the case that the need outweighs the risks. Maybe he will tonight, but I'll be at a school board meeting, being a part of the government.

Rooster says: I trust him and our current government officials to analyze the situation properly and to act accordingly. I guess that's where we differ. I think that politics is playing too big a role in the decision-making about this. Karl Rove as much as admitted that when he said they weren't going to start the war last July or August because "you don't bring out new products over the summer." I think the timing had a lot to do with the elections last November, and the timing now has a lot to do with the elections a year from this November. That's not to say that politics did not play a role in foreign/military policy in the last administration, of course it did. It's just that in the last administration, the vast majority of our war-making (mainly Kosovo and Iraq) was done from the air, and due to our technological superiority, relatively few American lives were lost. (Obviously aircraft can get shot down, like the helicopter in Somalia.) But now we appear to be talking about a ground war; if we were going to do a lot of bombing, I think we would have started long ago. We've had one ground war going on in Afghanistan, though you have to pay really close attention to know it's still going on. I heard something about there being a major battle today, though I'm sure the vast majority of Americans will never know about it. Whether our troops are involved in these ongoing battles, I don't even know, and I try to stay up on these things. I don't think anybody's covering it up, I just think the media has correctly concluded that most people don't care anymore, we're on to the next war. Afghanistan is like so 15 minutes ago, you know? But the point is that nobody rational had any problem with us fighting in Afghanistan, due to the direct link between their government and a direct attack on our country. There is a self-described Communist on New York City talk radio, who never supports any military action by the U.S., and he was supporting the war in Afghanistan (on our side, that is.) That says something to me. But even in Afghanistan, I think most people (including me) are of the impression that our casualties have been relatively few and far between. That just is not the case for Iraq. There is going to be much more significant loss of U.S. life, with benefits (including "loss avoidance") that are speculative at best.

Re: Elton John, Freddie Mercury, etc. Let's not forget that great "leading man" of the 50s and 60s, Rock Hudson. Not to mention one of the greatest players in the history of football, O.J. Simpson. I think that the public too often forgets that being able to act, or sing, or run with a football, does not necessarily mean that you have anything else of great significance to contribute, or that your life should be some sort of role model. I hate all of the celebrity news and gossip that seems to be all around me. I don't want to know who Ben Affleck is dating, I am barely sure which one of the gaggle of current actors he even is. Very rarely, someone distinguishes himself/herself in entertainment or sports and turns out to be a genuinely good person who is someone to emulate, and who can excel in other areas. Bill Bradley comes to mind. But in most cases -- look, I am the biggest Beatles fan I know, but I don't want my children taking LSD or cheating on their spouses.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

I heard on the radio that General Norman Schwarzkopf said, last night or this morning (i.e. after the latest report from the U.N. inspectors) that the U.S. should give the inspectors more time to work, and that war in Iraq is not inevitable, and might not be necessary. I find it pretty persuasive that a someone with Schwarzkopf's military record is saying this. I definitely trust him more than the politicians on all sides of the issue. And for the record, whenever i have heard the general make any sort of political remark, it has been pro-Republican, or at the very least anti-Clinton. So he has no political ax to grind against the president. He just isn't sure that this is the cause into which we should commit the lives of American service-people, and neither am I.