Can I just ask

[Brask]

what have people got against the West Wing?

I'm a fan of the program, as are a number of my friends, so we were delighted when the new series hit Britain. I was even more pleased when I saw that it was on on Saturday night at eight- at last a reasonable time for it to be on. Then a week ago it was canceled and then moved from its peak slot to Moday at 11.05. Why? The program is one of the best the station can offer!

[Sanis Prent]

The only thing I have against the West Wing is that Martin Sheen is an utter chowderhead, and I refuse to watch it due to him.

[ReaperFett]

I like the program. I watch it when I can. I dont care what Sheen thinks offcamera, he has every right to say.


But brask, 8PM is a bad time for many. It is a time that you can miss early. It used to be the at the best place, 10PM.

[Sanis Prent]

If said in an ethical, equitable fashion, he has a right to say it, yes.

I still have the right to boycott though :)

[Jason Utylln]

You're for the war??

[Sanis Prent]

Nobody is "for war". I'm for actual steps to solve the situation, instead of idealistic runaround. If it has to come to war, as it looks like it is, then I guess that's the price to pay :\

But seeing that I have at least a dozen friends serving overseas, I most definitely do not want a war. On the other hand, things just can't continue the way they're going, and some things are worth fighting for.

[Jason Utylln]

Nothing has to come to war. My stepdad is a sonar tech. on the USS Alabama and he's out to sea right now (I think I'm allowed to say that) and I've got extended family overseas as well, so I can understand all the crap that's flying. But it's just stupid, I'm sorry. I have total respect for the Military but I'm really shocked at the way America has reacted to people against bloodshed. I've been arrested a couple times for protesting outside Subase Bangor in WA. And George Bush is a hypocrite who thinks that God has appointed him to office at this time, which just shows that he's really starting to lose it. That was off subject but I look at the Government and the Military and just shake my head; it's just going downhill. :(

[Sanis Prent]

And so long as the expression of your views are equitable and ethical, I'll support your rights to them. Doesn't mean I won't torpedo said opinions below the waterline, though. People think that those who make fun of opinions or debase them automatically want to repress them. Quite untrue.

Did you have a permit to protest outside the sub base, and was it orderly?

And why is it bad to have a religious President? You imply an atheist president wouldn't have the faults you perceive in him?

Further, to say that nothing has to come to war is a bit naive. In a world of sentient and quite-often disagreeing beings, war is the final expression of ultimate dissenting view. It isn't pleasant, and I'd much prefer to never see one, but that's a fact of life. Until the end of the world, there will always be disputes settled by violence. It does not villify both sides automatically, and that assumption is dangerously lethargic.

[Jason Utylln]

Everything abuot the protest was orderly, I don't agree with fanatic displays, but they still took those who were residents on the base to the security compound and lkept us overnight.

And I'm not against a religious President, at all. What I am against is when said President is under the impression that he is divinely chosen by a higher force to rule a group of people. It's a sign that something is going on that shouldn't be and is downright dangerous.

[Sanis Prent]

Again, did you have a permit to protest?

Considering he came to office, same as any other president (I saw no hand of God, no Excalibur, no divine Papal mandate), what does it even matter? Why is it wrong to believe that God has chosen you to a task? If anything, that would be a motivating factor to get it right.

[Jason Utylln]

Yes, there was a permit for a protest, under certain terms that were not broken on our part :)

Bush came to office just fine. But he is now under the belief that this upcoming war is God's choosing (which is bull according to the Bible if you want to get technical) and that he has been "chosen"... his attitude regarding religion during public presentation has fluctuated throughout his Presidecy.


Why is it wrong to believe that God has chosen you to a task?

The fact that he simply is not and really truly believes that he is. It's dilusional. He came to office normally, as you stated. He's been completly normal, up until this issue arose, when his use of religious content spewed out of control. I wouldn't have such a big problem with it if he just thought it was a task he was appointed to but Bush has, and is, implieing that God chose him specifically. He's twisting Bible-based views to give an impression that he has divine authority. Now that I have a problem with.

[Sanis Prent]

Please cite instances if you're going to imply that.

[AmazonBabe]

I don't like the idea of war, and I'll be the first to hire someone to break my fiancee's legs if the draft were ever instated (God forbid).

But I do understand that sometimes war is the only option. There are two sides to this, and one side isn't working to keep peace in the world, hence the side trying to keep peace basically has to force the other side to keep peace. And sometimes the only way the other side will listen is if you point a BFG in their face.

[Sanis Prent]

I've already made arrangements to sign up for reserve duty, once I graduate (which is in a year). I refuse to support something like this without also being willing to make the same sacrifice that others are willing to make.

[Brask]

I assume you mean Sheen's invovment in anti-war efforts, Sanis. But that is no reason to move my favourite program!

None the less whilst we are on talk of war, which seems to be the only thing talk about these days, I have something to say. Has anyone considered that this is politically motivated thn morally motivated? Bush vowed to wipe out terrorists and the so called "axis of evil"- he has to go through with it. If he doesn't then he looks weak and won't be re-elected. He is going about it the wrong way though. His handling of the UN is a joke, as is Blair's.

What is the point of an organisation to promote peace and co-operation between nations, through actions agreed by all members, if one member's wishes are placed above the rest? The US and Britain presume to dictate to the rest of the UN, they must follow the wishes of the majority- which is not to go to war.

And has anyone considered what will happen if the US or Britain act without a mandate from the UN? The UN Charter calls for sanctions aginst members who do such things. Imagine the US under a trade embargo from all other UN members! The US is the last super-power they have a responsibility to the world to act responsibly.

Britain's no better. Our PM is still operating as if it's the Cold War! "If the US says jump we have to do it." We are independant now, "the Ruskies aren't going to Nuke us!" The majority in Britian are against war, and the govt. gets its mandate from the people- it is supposed to follow their wishes. To be honest I think Blair is acting the way he is because he has such a huge majority in Parliament and no other party can challenge him. He can't lose power and he knows it.

I'm done ranting now.

[Sanis Prent]

You honestly think the nations in the UN will line up to put sanctions on America? :lol that's rich. Who do you think that hurts more? Not America, that's for sure.

The sticking point over whether we get UN support doesn't lie in Iraq. It lies in Europe, and some very hypocritical, petty dealings. France is trying to create some kind of neo-European hegemony, and is conveniently using Iraq as a pretext for it. You think for a second they actually sit on this moral high horse they claim to be perched on? They're a nation that arms terrorists, votes for anti-semites, putters around on smuggled oil, and wines & dines mass-murdering dictators.

So yeah, I have a hard time validating any "mandate" the United Nations tries to concoct. I don't think we should humor France and Germany, nor the other fence-sitters that are more interested in drama-queen EU politics than actual life & death scenarios.

The first thing these hypocrites say is "war is never the answer". Look them dead in the eye and ask for an alternative, and they'll freeze like deer in the headlights. More inspections? Got a decades worth of inspectors that can attest to that strategy being worthless. So without total, unconditional compliance and cooperation from Iraq (which we're miles away from), what is this miracle answer? As much as I'd love to export Sean Penn to Baghdad, that isn't the answer either. Sorry, I'm not content to sit on my duff and wait for these people to think of something. People are dying now. It can be prevented, and should be.

[Brask]

Have you ever heard of the League of Nations? It fell apart because:

1. Its powerful members (France, Italy, Briatin and Japan) started to follow their own interest over those of the majority.

2. The members should have applied sanctions but instead they ignored the more powerful nations' actions.

3. They stopped listening to each other.

This lead to World War II. I seriously doubt whether sanctions would be applied but they should be!

[Sanis Prent]

The League fell apart due to irrelevance to larger powers, and a massive trend of appeasement.

Sound familiar?

[Brask]

How did we get onto this? I was asking about the West Wing and suddenly we are on the topic of wars and C20 history! Any way you're probably right about tthe whole thing its just frustrating.

[Sanis Prent]

Well, you did ask :)

But I'm perfectly content to drop the issue here.

[ReaperFett]

Just one thing I want to respond to.


You honestly think the nations in the UN will line up to put sanctions on America? that's rich. Who do you think that hurts more? Not America, that's for sure.
I remember one of the arguments for attacking Iraq was that they were carrying on doing what they were doing, not scared of action. Funny how that is.

And sure, the US wouldnt have a problem. But what about the UK? We'd be screwed. The US doesnt care if were there or not either, save to be able to take over once the wars over. Im yet to actually see anything positive the UK would actually get out of this, just alienation and problems.

It's amazing. Back when all this war on Iraq thing started, I was 100% in support. Since people have tried to convince other countries it is right, its dropped to just over 50% Id say. Shows what a top job they're doing.

[Sanis Prent]

I highly doubt that even supposed sanctions on England would phase them much. It might dent some quarterly earnings, but considering trade ties across the pond are still cozy, it really wouldn't be anything to fret over.

As for positive gains, how about one less insane, murderous, arch-nemesis to worry about? How about the chance to enact real, fruitful progress in the middle east, that will eventually benefit all countries in the region? These are the same things that America gets. I didn't really see anything else for us on the list.

[Miryan no Trunks]

A couple things I'd like to throw my own opinion into this about, though doubtlessly it will be torn apart like a retreating bag of meat by ravenous vornskrs..

I haven't heard much of Bush's claims to have been chosen by god, but assuming that they Are true, how can Anyone claim that no problems can arise because of it? 1: If he honestly believes he's chosen by god, then that can Very easily slip to delusion, where he believes his actions are Controlled by god, and everything he does is both ordered and sanctioned by god. Who's to say that after this is over, he won't decide that because god has chosen him to rule America, it doesn't also want him to rule Other countries, with his blessed wisdom and power? Surely the chosen one could do a Much better job than the lowly peasents they have running them Now, right? 2: By making these claims, he's alienating anyone in the USA who isn't Christian really (Or Catholic, or whichever religion he is) What happens when the fanatics start saying to members of other religions "Even our President knows the truth, why are you so Stupid?" Internal battling is fuuunnn.

Secondly, USA going on it's own against the wishes of all it's allies, is surely not going to Win it any friends. Already Americans seem to have a "you're with us or you're against us" mentality in this, a battle which mainly only Americans think should happen. I mean, it seems that even us Canadians are being considered enemies by some, and what, because a lack of precedent left us without the requirement to do a complete background check on anyone who looked to be muslim, or from that area, who was entering the states? And I won't get into the bombing of Canadian soldiers during a live-ammo exercise in a known training zone. What'll happen when the USA has no more allies? Is Bush going to just sit there and hope things get better with time? Cause that doesn't seem his style. Again we revert to a campaign against the rest of the world. United World of America here we come.

I mean, how could that be wrong? It's god's will.

Also.. a question. Are gas-prices skyrocketing down in the states as well?- Where I'm assuming we in Canada get our oil from- Or are the companies that Hold the gas just boosting up the import prices for us, so they can stockpile more of it for Americans? Cause last I heard, there wasn't a shortage..

Lol, oh, and I haven't seen the West Wing, so I'm indifferent about it myself =^

[Sanis Prent]

Somewhere in your skewed perceptions of things, you seem to have confused America with a fundamentalist state. Why can't our president express his beliefs, in an age where people try to sterilize personal beliefs pertaining to religion from any public forum? He has these beliefs. Its quite something to see somebody come forward who isn't afraid to say it, to be honest. I've seen an unprecedented crack-down against religion in this country, and I respect President Bush for not bowing down to that pressure. That being said, the Presidency is subject to the laws of a secular state. I don't know where you got the impression that we had become a theocracy, but we're most assuredly not. Regardless of religious beliefs, the president is still held to the same legal accountabilities that any other president before him has been. Your outlandish hypotheticals are simply not possible.

As for allies, we appreciate them greatly, and will work with them to the best of our ability, but quite frankly, I'm willing to risk alienating those that are fairweather friends in order to keep my home safe. We've bent over backwards plenty of times to bail lots of other nations out, and I don't think its too much to demand this kind of hard-line stance against our enemies.

As for the incident of friendly fire you allude to, that came to pass due to mistakes on both our nations armed forces. Its tragic, but learn and move on.

Gas prices have bumped a nickel in the past 2 weeks. They're somewhat high, but I've seen worse before.

[DarthHERA]

West Wing = My fav show. *now that x-files is gone* sniffle*

That and Buffy these days :)

[Beldarine]

Sanis, my friend.. You've been lucky then. I have never seen gas prices so high in Orlando. They've topped 1.79/gl in some places, it's killing me.

I just want to add one, small, minor opinion. I am fence-sitting right now on the war with Iraq. I neither support it nor am against it, I honestly don't know what to think.

BUT.. to the person who stated that the U.N. has a right to impose sanctions on those that go against their will... All the U.S. is doing is imposing the cease-fire agreement that Hussein AGREED to after the Gulf War. THE SAME cease-fire agreement that was put forth by the U.N. That cease-fire agreement stated that Hussein would disarm all weapons within 15 days of the war's end or else military action would be resumed against him.

Obviously the 15 days has long come and passed. The U.N. passed many ordinances stating Saddam will disarm "immediately" or other vague terms such as that, and they balk at having to set a specific date.

Saddam Hussein is in violation of the same cease-fire agreement he asked for, and the U.N. gave to him. He signed it, the U.N. endorsed it, now they need to enforce it. If France cannot stomach the idea, then maybe that's just too bad.

And on a side note... If anyone, ever, ever tells me that I have to order "freedom fries" instead of "french fries" I will shove the french fries right up their nose. The idea that changing the name of a stupid, greasy food will somehow be significant in the grand scheme of things is idiotic, and I refuse to be a part of it.

Oh, and I don't like the West Wing.. But then again, I don't watch too much T.V.

[ReaperFett]

They've topped 1.79/gl in some places, it's killing me.

Never go to Europe then :)

[Miryan no Trunks]

My skewed perception. Charlie, you know how no-one sees themselves the same way everyone else does?


Why can't our president express his beliefs, in an age where people try to sterilize personal beliefs pertaining to religion from any public forum?

People try to remove religious beliefs from any public forum, because Having religion an open topic to any form of debate has never ended happily. People believe what they want to believe, some accept that and keep their own beliefs to themselves, and some believe that everyone should believe the same as them, and make their opinion on that quite vocal. I know quite well from experience that "bible-thumpers" can get extremely angry, and sometimes violent when their beliefs are questioned or disagreed with. I've seen it happen numerous times. That's what they do. So you take such over-the-top Zeal, and provide it with a public figure of power - The President - to further strengthen their points (after all, he believes it and he's the President, why shouldn't everyone?) Some people will just ignore it, but some will stand up for their Own beliefs. And that could very well lead to some rather unpleasent situations. Of course, if you have reason to believe that America is immune to Religious Zeal, please share it.


As for allies, we appreciate them greatly, and will work with them to the best of our ability

And I repeat, many Americans are considering Canada to be a terrorist harbouring nation. I have personally heard an obscene amount of rather venomous talk, about how "Canada should be next after Korea" and many other similar topics, in different places. You and the others here may know better, Charlie, but you're not the LCD of Americans.


I'm willing to risk alienating those that are fairweather friends in order to keep my home safe. We've bent over backwards plenty of times to bail lots of other nations out, and I don't think its too much to demand this kind of hard-line stance against our enemies.

And no-one's arguing that the USA has helped other countries out in situations where they believed they were doing the right thing. That's the differance though, Isn't it. This time, the other countries think the USA is going about things the wrong way. Would you really expect the US to send troops and munitions over to another country to help out Britain or France or whomever in an attack that the US didn't think was neccesary?


Its tragic, but learn and move on.

No problems here, but I wonder what the lesson is.


Gas prices have bumped a nickel in the past 2 weeks. They're somewhat high, but I've seen worse before.

They've gone from an already expensive 70 cents to over a buck a litre here in the last few months =P A day's paycheque to fill up the car isn't happy.

[Sanis Prent]

People try to remove religious beliefs from any public forum, because Having religion an open topic to any form of debate has never ended happily.

This sounds like Thought Police rhetoric. Don't claim the religious do this, when atheistic charlatans have been doing it for years, under a politically-correct force field.


People believe what they want to believe, some accept that and keep their own beliefs to themselves, and some believe that everyone should believe the same as them, and make their opinion on that quite vocal. I know quite well from experience that "bible-thumpers" can get extremely angry, and sometimes violent when their beliefs are questioned or disagreed with. I've seen it happen numerous times. That's what they do.

Or they could simply express their beliefs. You're generalizing far too much. Not every Christian is Jerry Falwell, thank God.


Some people will just ignore it, but some will stand up for their Own beliefs. And that could very well lead to some rather unpleasent situations.

Good grief, this sounds like something out of 1984 or something. Its oppression in sheep's clothing. The hypocrisy of not minding a president who knowingly breaks the laws of his country to perjure himself under oath, but being so staunchly against a president because he admits that he is a devout Christian...is MIND-BOGGLING.


Of course, if you have reason to believe that America is immune to Religious Zeal, please share it.

Don't put words into my mouth, please. I said we aren't a theocracy. There is a distinct difference, in that religious beliefs are not transmuted into government policy.


And I repeat, many Americans are considering Canada to be a terrorist harbouring nation.

I never claimed America to be idiot free. Somebody buys boy band CD's after all.


Would you really expect the US to send troops and munitions over to another country to help out Britain or France or whomever in an attack that the US didn't think was neccesary?

Then don't do it. Whether you do or not, we will. Our allies obviously have the self determination and sovereignity to say no. But saying no, like all things, isn't without consequences.


I wonder what the lesson is.

Americans = confirm via IFF before attacking.
Canadians = inform allies of plans in an area, rather than going in unannounced.

[Miryan no Trunks]

This sounds like Thought Police rhetoric. Don't claim the religious do this, when atheistic charlatans have been doing it for years, under a politically-correct force field.

And I claimed it was the Religious that do it Where? I'm talking about what Happens, not what I believe is right. Why do you think religion is withheld from public forums, if not to prevent bickering among the zealous?


Or they could simply express their beliefs. You're generalizing far too much. Not every Christian is Jerry Falwell, thank God.

No, I never said they were. But some Are like him, and I've dealt with a good number of those that are in my life.


Good grief, this sounds like something out of 1984 or something. Its oppression in sheep's clothing. The hypocrisy of not minding a president who knowingly breaks the laws of his country to perjure himself under oath, but being so staunchly against a president because he admits that he is a devout Christian...is MIND-BOGGLING.

Yup, I'm huge into opressing thoughts and beliefs. You caught me there. And on top of that, I was perfectally fine with what Clinton did. I mentioned that a Lot in my post. And I quote, Don't put words in my mouth, please. Some people don't follow the idea that how one percieves the way society works is automatically the way they believe is right, you know.


Don't put words in my mouth, please. I said we aren't a theocracy. There is a distinct difference, in that religious beliefs are not transmuted into government policy.

I said what I said because while I'm focusing on those that get fanatical over religion, you seem to be disacknowledging them entirely. All I was asking was if there was a reason.


I never claimed America to be idiot free. Somebody buys boy band CD's after all.

Nope, you never claimed it, but so far you've been speaking as if it were.


But saying no, like all things, isn't without consequences.

True, likely the US will be much less willing to help out any countries that didn't help Them out in this. Though considering how often any of the US's allies get attacked or brought into heavy conflict, they likely won't need to worry for a while

I do have one other question though. A while back, a group of, as I heard, mostly Canadians, but some people from other UN-countries as well, went down to some facility in the states to check for illegal WMD's. They'd sent a letter or some such thing 2 weeks prior to state they were going to do so, and on arrival were either denied entrance, or were arrested for trespassing, or some such thing. Now, if I Did hear accurately, and that Is what happened, wouldn't it seem kindof odd that while the US is so gung-ho about Iraq destroying all their illegal WMD's, they display no obligation to demonstrate that they have none themselves?

[Sanis Prent]

Miryan, if I am addressing you...then that pronoun will be present in my examples.

To your question, the reports are true. Some asinine fools had the audacity to set up that publicity stunt, and don't have the common sense to discern the difference between the situation in Iraq, and whatever they're trying to get across.

We have WMDs. Duh. So does Canada. They're not illegal though. Even if there was a possibility of such an outlandish thing, we still wouldn't let a bunch of burned out peaceniks and civvies, with no qualifications to be self-appointed inspectors (Unlike the UN-mandated ones in Iraq) onto our military bases. To think so is absurd. Those guys should definitely be arrested. I doubt they had a permit to trespass (protest, or whatever you want to call it).

[Lady Vader]

They've topped 1.79/gl in some places, it's killing me.

:lol

Boy, that's cheap compared to CA almost $3 per gallon gas.

And even then, CA $3 per gallon doesn't compare to Europe's whopping... what is it now? Something equivilent to $7? I forget...

[Zakatiel Rhinehart]

Japan is worse >_<

Hell, I really considering getting a Motorcycle...

[Brask]

What have I done? I've unleashed yet another war debate! Arrrgh....

*runs a round tearing out hair, before falling to his knees and imploring the Heavens*

[Miryan no Trunks]

Miryan, if I am addressing you...then that pronoun will be present in my examples.

I'm sorry, I guess I just assumed that because you were responding to my posts. I'll try not to make that mistake anymore. And thanks for clearing that up, I honestly didn't know whether they were mandated to be there or not.

[Sanis Prent]

No it was some activist group, whose name I've expunged from my brain. Yeah, if Dr. Blix wanted to do that, we'd whisk him from base to base, with tours, powerpoint presentations, and enough paper trails to kill a sequoiya (sp) forest. That isn't the problem.