• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Anti-War/Anti-Bush = Anti-American

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Okay, with my extreme liberal views, it is quite common for me to be rebutted as "Anti-American" or "Anti-Troops" or a "coward" or a "terrorist lover" followed by telling me to leave the country. After hearing this so many times, it starts to take a toll and forces you to reflect on if to some degree these allegations are true. I have come to the conclusion that they are not. Here's why. [feedback wanted, especially constructive contrasting views]

As for being anti-war. I am 100% against the war in Iraq. I tend to side with just war theorists when deciding when it is appropriate to go to war. Iraq, even if everything that Bush claimed was true, would not generally be considered a good enough reason to wage the horrible act of war on that country. As such, I have always been against it. Now that it has been proven that there are no WMD's and never were, as well as all but proven that the administration has twisted intelligence in order to sell the war to the public, I am that much more against it.

Unfortunately, this has been translated somehow to mean that I am anti-soldiers, which is 100% not the case. I am completely behind all the soldiers who are out there with extremely few exceptions (i.e. some in Guantánamo Bay). Those men and women out there are making the ultimate sacrifice for what they believe to be the purpose of American Freedoms. These are the same sacrifices that the service men and women of all past wars, including the American Revolution, made. They are heros.

Now, the actual cause they are working for is a different story. As they think they are giving their lives for American freedom, their heroism is undeniable, but the goal they are actually working for is not one which I support. The soldiers actions are perfect in motives, deserving my everlasting gratitude as they protect the freedoms I cherish, but in this instance they're vision has been clouded. They generally are young and have been mislead.

This is where I pose a question.

Which is worse, not supporting a war which our country is in or sending young American men and women to give the ultimate sacrifice to serve an unjust purpose?

I submit that the latter is.

As for being a coward. I don't understand how those who argue for the war claiming that I'm a coward. It seems like an unfair assessment. You do not know me or what I stand for. It suprises virtually everyone I talk with that I'm shipping off to boot camp in January for the Marine Corps. I do it for one reason and one reason alone. If I go, I save someone else from having to. I disagree with the reasons for this war, but I've never forgotten that those are Americans in combat.

As for being a Terrorist lover, this is hardly worth debating. Honestly, who likes terrorists? I know I don't. I've never had a problem with taking them out. Their actions are unacceptable. If they do not feel like they can play by the rules in this world, they don't deserve to be on it.

So... yeah. There's a little glimpse of how my mind works. As I said before, feel free to comment as long as it's not just to flame.
 

FiremanRyan

Active member
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
283
Reaction score
1
Location
Chico, CA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
first of all, congrats on enlisting with the USMC. i was in your place once with the Air Force until i was in a car accident, its exciting stuff.

now to answer your question, i agree that its worse to send our troops into a conflict that doesnt need to be fought. but the question is whether or not you believe this war is unjust. while i think there were avoidable miscalculations and some things that werent handled the way they should have been, i personally support the invasion of Iraq. intellegence from around the world told us they had WMD all through the 90's, they completely disregarded UN resolutions while not allowing their inspectors into the country, non-compliance to these resolutions dictated a military intervention to enforce them (which is why ive always been confused on why the UN didnt support the war since it was their resolutions and their words authorizing force for non-compliance), and so on and so on. this came with other, 'bonus' effects like becoming a humanitarian effort and promoting peace and stability in the region once a democratic government was in place.

and from what i see, fewer and fewer supports of Iraq are claiming that the anti-war crowd is anti-american. everyone is entitled to an opinion and thats the beauty of this country, its what the terrorists want to take away from us. however, there has been some anti-american behavior from the left but its few and far between.
 
Last edited:

Messerschmitt

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
as well as all but proven that the administration has twisted intelligence in order to sell the war to the public, I am that much more against it.
I have never seen any factual evidence to support that the administration has altered intel. The press is a free press to keep things like that from happening or at least bring them to light.

Which is worse, not supporting a war which our country is in or sending young American men and women to give the ultimate sacrifice to serve an unjust purpose?
The cause is completely justifiable. If religious extremists(terrorists) believe in their extreme version of Muslim that people who do not believe in what they believe, will be killed is completely unacceptable. Hence 9/11, if it is someone's only goal in life is to end yours or at least ruin it. Then there is no reasoning with these people and they either must be killed on the spot, or they must be sentenced and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. I have no remorse or acceptance for religious extremists(terrorists), if they are spread throughout the middle east than it must be necessary to make our presence know in Iraq; so that it will draw all of the extremists who want to harm others to one place where they can be dealt with much more easily, than going into every middle eastern country searching for religious extremists(terrorists). Going into Iraq also has an added bonus of freeing people from an awful and horrible dictator. Who used biological weapons on the people to the north the Kurdish, and who also randomly sought regular people out for torture and then death who's bodies were later thrown into mass graves.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
IValueFreedom said:
As such, I have always been against it. Now that it has been proven that there are no WMD's and never were, as well as all but proven that the administration has twisted intelligence in order to sell the war to the public, I am that much more against it.
I agree with your sentiments. Just being anti-war doesn't make you anti soilders. However I think where this comes in is when people are constantly going "Our boys are over there for nothing," or "Our president is just sending our kids out to die," or "There's no point in being in Iraq." Saying these kind of things, not backing them up as many do, and saying it in front of men and women of the military is where the problem comes in. Its kind of like doing a job you take very seriously, you feel good about doing, and then having someone come by and go "Oh, i respect people that do that job....but its a pointless stupid job that no one should ever actually do and its stupid that that job is even there." Doesn't matter if you "respect them" or not, if you then go on and basically belittle everything they're doing without giving good reasons for it it still feels like crap.

However I fully agree with you. I don't agree with people calling someone that has reasons for being against the iraq war "Corward" or "terrorist lover" and i think it just breeds the wrong kind of attitudes to the war. No one is going to ever go "Oh my god, you're right...i AM a coward. Well not i am going to support the war since you called me that! thank you!"

That being said, i have issues with the two things you said. I have no seen anything stating full 100% "proof" there was never any WMD's at any point in Iraq or being developed in Iraq. I'm not saying there were, and I agree it was looked horrible we never found anything, but the ease in which things like that can be hidden in the middle of the desert or slipped to another country quickly is remarkably easy.

And i don't see how its "all but proven" they lied to the public knowingly and willingly while manipulating information? A good bit of the reports i've seen basically show that there was bad information gathered from numerous sources...Britian, Egypt, and us amongst others. Going on faulty information sucks, and is a black eye for the adminstration, but i'd love to see a good bit of "all but proven" proof that they did lie and manipulate knowingly
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Zyphlin said:
That being said, i have issues with the two things you said. I have no seen anything stating full 100% "proof" there was never any WMD's at any point in Iraq or being developed in Iraq. I'm not saying there were, and I agree it was looked horrible we never found anything, but the ease in which things like that can be hidden in the middle of the desert or slipped to another country quickly is remarkably easy.
The thing I always hate about the WMD thing is that some people don't understand that we could not afford to have Saddam hang around; weapons or not...I recall the Dulfer Report saying that Saddam had everything BUT weapons stockpiles. He had the recipes, the scientists, the infrastructure, and the intent to build WMD once the sanctions were lifted. And thanks to his Oil-for-Food bribes, the sanctions were being eroded in the UN Security Council every year. Dulfer concluded that Saddam was actually more dangerous than we had anticipated before the war.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Messerschmitt said:
I have never seen any factual evidence to support that the administration has altered intel.
I"m not sure about "altering" intel but it was deliberately misrepresented. Examine this thread for some straightforward instances: Team Bush and "Best Info Available @ the Time"

Messerschmitt said:
The press is a free press to keep things like that from happening or at least bring them to light.
That's the theory. Some of what they have reported has gone unnoticed. The signal gets lost in the noise. Even when it's not, not every thirsty horse will drink when led to water.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
cnredd said:
The thing I always hate about the WMD thing is that some people don't understand that we could not afford to have Saddam hang around; weapons or not...I recall the Dulfer Report saying that Saddam had everything BUT weapons stockpiles. He had the recipes, the scientists, the infrastructure, and the intent to build WMD once the sanctions were lifted. And thanks to his Oil-for-Food bribes, the sanctions were being eroded in the UN Security Council every year. Dulfer concluded that Saddam was actually more dangerous than we had anticipated before the war.
Agreed, but my view alters a bit. See, I know that war was probably necessary, but I wanted two things, and two things to make it legitmate in my mind-more UN/world involvement and more information on the part of the administration. The information part comes from more information coming into the intel people at that time from reliable sources, not just relying on information from flyovers and from reports from years before. I would have liked to see more world involvement because that would have lessened the burden on our troops more and alleiviated some of the cost to, well, me.

But now that we are there, what do I think? Stay until the job is done, just hurry the hell up. Spend like there is no tomorrow on training, I don't care how much it costs, just hurry up and get out as soon as possible when the job is done.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Of course Bush altered intelligence!

Bush and Co. picked and chose only the intelligence they wanted to use to justify war with Iraq, ignoring all the intelligence that didn't give them what they wanted. It's been proven over and over in various threads in Debate Politics.

Where have all of you been? Don't you read these forums?

I give up. There are none so blind that will not see.

Instead of war, invest in people.

Bush/Karl Rove = Flip-flop, flip-flop,flip-flop
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
For anyone wanting to understand the wide range of "debate forum" responses...look at the last two posts...

ShamMol responds intelligently...Hoot responds like a whiney child....
 

rudy0908

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
286
Reaction score
0
Location
st. louis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
cnredd said:
For anyone wanting to understand the wide range of "debate forum" responses...look at the last two posts...

ShamMol responds intelligently...Hoot responds like a whiney child....
I was just about to post the same thing. :)
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
rudy0908 said:
I was just about to post the same thing. :)

I ain't no angel, but I usully respond to a post with the same demeaner as the post intends...

If someone throws out an intellectually stimualting comment, it will be answered with such...

If you throw out hate filled rhetoric, I will reply with snide comments..

I don't expect you to actually do this, but If you looked at all of my past posts, you'll see they range from thought provoking insight all the way down to personal attacks and insults...But you'd also see that I never instigate; it's all in the form of rebuttal.
 

rudy0908

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
286
Reaction score
0
Location
st. louis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
cnredd said:
I ain't no angel, but I usully respond to a post with the same demeaner as the post intends...

If someone throws out an intellectually stimualting comment, it will be answered with such...

If you throw out hate filled rhetoric, I will reply with snide comments..

I don't expect you to actually do this, but If you looked at all of my past posts, you'll see they range from thought provoking insight all the way down to personal attacks and insults...But you'd also see that I never instigate; it's all in the form of rebuttal.
I don't know what you're talking about.
 

Alastor

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
645
Reaction score
45
Location
Reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
IValueFreedom said:
As for being anti-war. I am 100% against the war in Iraq. I tend to side with just war theorists when deciding when it is appropriate to go to war. Iraq, even if everything that Bush claimed was true, would not generally be considered a good enough reason to wage the horrible act of war on that country.
I disagree. Had we had credible and solid evidence, rather than the lie we got, I would have (and at the time did while operating under the assumption that my government knew what it was doing) supported an invasion of Iraq.

I lost much face as a result of my support since it turned out to be a sham, but I would do so again if I felt the evidence was credible.

Now that it has been proven that there are no WMD's and never were, as well as all but proven that the administration has twisted intelligence in order to sell the war to the public, I am that much more against it.
Meh, it's nothing that Clinton wasn't doing either. It's not like it was totally Dubya's fault - ever since his father left office we've heard everyone in government talking about Iraq and its proliferational tendencies. I don't think the Bush administration went out of its way to lie to us. Nor do I find that to be the case with Clinton. Rather, I find it a case of gross incompetence at the hands of our under-funded and autonomous intelligence agencies.

Unfortunately, this has been translated somehow to mean that I am anti-soldiers, which is 100% not the case.
No sweat. I feel you. I'm prior military; first Gulf War vet to boot. I too am bitter about Iraq and our involvement there now.

Now, the actual cause they are working for is a different story. As they think they are giving their lives for American freedom, their heroism is undeniable, but the goal they are actually working for is not one which I support. The soldiers actions are perfect in motives, deserving my everlasting gratitude as they protect the freedoms I cherish, but in this instance they're vision has been clouded. They generally are young and have been mislead.
As a soldier, I think I can safely state that what the soldiers over there now have to fight for is the idea of establishing a free and peaceful Iraq that finally returns to the first world, after an absence of over 2000 years. They're fighting for the Iraqi people now, and for the world to find peace in the Middle East through the diplomatic engagements that Iraq will provide. That's a noble cause, no?

One worth dying for if I say so myself.


Which is worse, not supporting a war which our country is in or sending young American men and women to give the ultimate sacrifice to serve an unjust purpose?

I submit that the latter is.
We can do nothing about the former now, and I find the latter to be inaccurate as described above anyway. This makes your question hypothetical and anectdotal to me, and thus I cannot answer.

Good luck in the Marines. My little brother just got out. Whatever your reasons for going, they are indeed your own and you need not justify them to me or anyone else.

Personally, I enlisted to get away from a girl and the spectre of a long dead ghost that loomed over my life. I found greater cause as I continued of course, and I served well and honorably to the best of my ability in every challenge I faced. But I don't need to defend my reasons to anyone, and my track record speaks for itself.

You should take similar liberties. Your reasons are yours, and that's all one needs to know. The same goes for those that choose not to serve I might add. One never need justify following their own convictions to me.
 

tanenger

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"Those men and women out there are making the ultimate sacrifice for what they believe to be the purpose of American Freedoms. These are the same sacrifices that the service men and women of all past wars, including the American Revolution, made. They are heros."

I don't think those people are stupid enough to believe that. Practically all of them realize they're fighting to make a bunch of dictators in Washington rich, and there's not a thing they can do about it. They've got a choice of going to prison or gambling that they won't be the next one to be killed. Which would you do?
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
tanenger said:
Practically all of them realize they're fighting to make a bunch of dictators in Washington rich, and there's not a thing they can do about it. They've got a choice of going to prison or gambling that they won't be the next one to be killed. Which would you do?
WHAT? Okay, so I guess now we're a dictatorship. I know some people in the military, and what you're saying about them is 180 degrees inaccurate.

Anyway, to other people on this forum, I understand that anti-war and anti-Bush is certainly not anti-American. The other day I actually saw some protestor holding a sign saying "Victory to the Iraqi Insurgents." He was probably just trying to get some attention, but it made me sick. That's what I'd call anti-American.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Connecticutter said:
The other day I actually saw some protestor holding a sign saying "Victory to the Iraqi Insurgents." He was probably just trying to get some attention, but it made me sick. That's what I'd call anti-American.
Did he have a pin that said, "Massachussetts Senator"?
 

Alastor

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
645
Reaction score
45
Location
Reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The other day I actually saw some protestor holding a sign saying "Victory to the Iraqi Insurgents." He was probably just trying to get some attention, but it made me sick. That's what I'd call anti-American.
Did you stop and talk to him? Perhaps his point was, "This is what we're doing" rather than, "This is what I hope happens."
 

tanenger

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As German Bishop Martin Niemoler said about the situation under Hitler:
When Nazis put communists in the concentration camp, I did not protest because I was not a communist; when they persecuted the social democrats, I did not protest because I was not a social democrat; When they massacred the Jews, I did not protest because I was not a Jew; When they banned all political parties and trade unions, I did not protest because I was not one of them; when they came for me, there was no one to speak for me.
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cnredd said:
Did he have a pin that said, "Massachussetts Senator"?
No - he was not a Massachusetts Senator, but its funny you ask because this did, in fact, happen in Massachusetts. It was a large man who sort of looked like Michael Moore but wasn't.

Alaster said:
Did you stop and talk to him? Perhaps his point was, "This is what we're doing" rather than, "This is what I hope happens."
I didn't want to talk to him because I thought he just wanted attention, and besides I was about to sit down and have lunch and I wasn't in the mood. However, it looked like a communist party event, so I think they actually want the insurgents to win. I fully recognize though, that this is not the opinion of most anti-war Americans. I know many people who are against the war.
 

Alastor

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
645
Reaction score
45
Location
Reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
tanenger said:
As German Bishop Martin Niemoler said about the situation under Hitler:
When Nazis put communists in the concentration camp, I did not protest because I was not a communist; when they persecuted the social democrats, I did not protest because I was not a social democrat; When they massacred the Jews, I did not protest because I was not a Jew; When they banned all political parties and trade unions, I did not protest because I was not one of them; when they came for me, there was no one to speak for me.
And that's a great quote, Tanenger. So we should be vocal, and we should run ads, and we should be engaged in the issue and bombard them with information on it and why we finally abandoned it ourselves.

But that doesn't change the fact that imposed democracy, or especially imposed American democracy specifically, isn't really democracy.

In my opinion, we should exert all possible sway and influence upon them until they relent. But ultimately, the choice to relent must be their own.
 

Tetracide

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Location
West Coast, U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
If you can think of a better type of government to suit the countries needs, I'd love to hear it, along with specific reason(s) that you think Democracy sucks (especially American Democracy...ewww).
 

Alastor

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
645
Reaction score
45
Location
Reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
If you can think of a better type of government to suit the countries needs, I'd love to hear it, along with specific reason(s) that you think Democracy sucks (especially American Democracy...ewww).
Bad form. Tsk tsk. It reminds me of how a child reacts when hearing things they don't like to hear, but that are none the less reality.

I never said American democracy (note the small "d") sucks. That's preposterous, and I take it as an attempt to sling mud and distract from the issue.

What I said, quite clearly, multiple times (but that apparently still escapes you) is that if we impose our particular brand of democracy onto the Iraqi people rather than allowing them to choose the course themselves, that it's not really a democracy. It's an imposed liberalist dictatorship.

That would eventually fail - and it'd be more ammunition for those that attempt to portray the U.S. as an invader and conquerer.

Rather, I encourage us to engage the Iraqi people, and spend money on ads, radio shows, newspaper articles and editorials, campaigns, etc... and simply win their hearts and minds on the issue. After all, there are good and rational reasons that we extended equality to women across the board. If we share those same arguments with the Iraqis now, especially in a free and more open society, we truly ought to be able to sway them.

All we need to do is make sound arguments, be persistent, and allow them the time it takes to go through what every other democracy in the history of the world has gone through - growing pains as they come out of an ultra-conservative system and into the second and first worlds.
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Alastor said:
What I said, quite clearly, multiple times (but that apparently still escapes you) is that if we impose our particular brand of democracy onto the Iraqi people rather than allowing them to choose the course themselves, that it's not really a democracy. It's an imposed liberalist dictatorship.
Would you please explain to me how we are imposing "our" brand of democracy when the Iraq's are drawing up their own constitution to be voted on by them?

.

Rather, I encourage us to engage the Iraqi people, and spend money on ads, radio shows, newspaper articles and editorials, campaigns, etc... and simply win their hearts and minds on the issue. After all, there are good and rational reasons that we extended equality to women across the board. If we share those same arguments with the Iraqis now, especially in a free and more open society, we truly ought to be able to sway them.

All we need to do is make sound arguments, be persistent, and allow them the time it takes to go through what every other democracy in the history of the world has gone through - growing pains as they come out of an ultra-conservative system and into the second and first worlds.
What the hell do you think we are doing now?
 

Tetracide

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Location
West Coast, U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I was being immature for a reason, since I have a hard time taking your points seriously. I assume you have the same problem. It's ok, we'll work through it together.

Actually, if you have been following the establishment of the Iraqi government, their style is much different than the style here at home. And no longer are U.S. officials dictating policy in Iraq.

Although, you believe that the current standing government is bound to fail, and I don't think I can change your mind. The same people said Allawi would never form a real government - that he was just a puppet and that it would turn into a dictatorship. That turned out to be false. Then with the elections, people like yourself screamed the government would be washed away in a tidal wave of blood from violence and some dictatorship with corporate American at the helm would emerge. That also failed to come true.

I don't know about you, but I have more faith in the Iraqi people, and the words that I've hear come out of the Iraqi Prime Minister than your negativism.
 

Alastor

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
645
Reaction score
45
Location
Reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
teacher said:
What the hell do you think we are doing now?
I have no problem with that. I support that. But for us to impose it as some here have suggested we should, is what I do not agree with.

Although, you believe that the current standing government is bound to fail, and I don't think I can change your mind.
No I don't. Tsk tsk again. I never said anything of the sort. I said we compound our own problems and those of Iraq by insisting they have a Constitution that mimics ours, rather than one they design and approve of on their own. I potentially see it exascerbating their problems to the point where they may fail if those in the region perceive them as a puppet more than an independent nation.

You misunderstood me and put words in my mouth for the second time in as many posts. I'd appreciate it if that didn't happen as a consistent form of argument.

That pretty much makes the rest of your point moot - again. Now if you'd like to argue the issues I have raised rather than simply claim I've said things I never did so that you can argue about those and perhaps win...

Well, that'd be just dandy with me.
 
Top Bottom