Main Entry: re·pub·lic

Pronunciation: ri-'p&-blik

Function: noun

Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC

Date: 1604

1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>

3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia

Also: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic

for which it stands..."

And one last: The United States is a Republc (http://www.senate.gov/~byrd/speech-repub.htm)

IEunuch.

(Trying to figure out if Canada is a Dominion, Confederation, or simply a "constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy".)

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2003 6:56 am I still say we should try everything we can before we start shooting. What about sanctions, cut off his ability to sell oil, bankrupt the bastard.

I guess what I fear the most is that if we bomb Iraq is that it will escalate. A1 you are so right about dirty bombs and they scar the hell out of me. I don’t want this to turn into WWIII, which it has the making for and being right may not be the right answer. I don't want Einstein’s words may come back to haunt us, "If we have a WWIII, WWIV will be fought with slingshots".

I guess sense 9/11 no American and certainly not me has had the warm cozy that we have always enjoyed. It makes me mad as hell and what the hell lets make glass of IRAQ and get over it. Where then do we go? Nowhere in history has a religious war made any sense and that is what I see this as. Are we prepared to kill or wipe out every Muslim nation that supports terrorists? Are we prepared to do this as a nation at what cost? I don't ever remember reading about a religious war that was won.

I don’t know the answers, all I have is questions, the same questions I stated above.

In the gulf war a dozen years ago there was a defined objective, we had a mandate from almost every nation, we may have not defined that objective completely as we should have but we did accomplish our goal, what is our goal in this one? To stop terrorists or to kill Saddam or both? Will this stop the terrorists? NO. Will it stop Saddam? YES. Who replaces him? which country is next? Which country that has [q

uote="A-1 (imported)" time=104

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2003 6:56 am 7275220]
weapons of mass destruction that

we are pissed at do we take out next? China for its stand on Human rights? Does this not give other countrys the same logic in ther
[/quote]
e conflicts with there enemys? India and Pakistan?

I am sorry that we have gotten you so upset.

The U.N. tried sanctions and all that did was drive the standard of living in Iraq down and drove the population to the verge of starvation. Sanctions were relaxed as a humanitarian effort to the people of Iraq.

There is no country that is next. Iran has a reactor up and running and it is capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium. The Middle-Eastern nuclear power programs have centrifuge-type enrichment equipment for uranium. North Korea has a similar program. Converting these nuclear power programs int nuclear weapons is tanamount to beating plowshares into swords. The only reason to do it is to be an aggressor.

It is a good indicator that you want to fight.

A "dirty" plutonium bomb detonated becaue of conventional explosives. The long-term problem from them is that plutonium is put in the bomb and it contaminates the whole area with plutonium. Plutonium is one of the most toxic substances known. In addition to being a heavy metal that can poison with toxicity like lead or mercury, it is radioactive.

A particle of plutonium dust wiill be significantly radioactive for thousands of years. In its decay chain it releases alpha particles. An alpha particle is doubly ionizing radiation and it causes sumperficial damage. It releases lots and lots of low level radiation. If ingested or trapped in the lung as a dust plutonium can cause a cancer to develop.

The country that hosts Al-jezzera (spelled wrong, probably) is poised to convert from a kingdom to a democracy. (A republic, if you will) It is an example of a progressive Arab state that leads the area by hosting the technology of satellite T.V. for all of the Arab states in the Middle East. It is an example of an oaisis of culture in an intellectually barren landscape.

It is a fond hope that Iraq may become such a state after Saddam is gone. It certainly cannot happen with him and vestiges of his regime in place. Remember, the cradle of civilization was Iraq.

As for the war, call it what you will, but Iraq has de-stablized the region for far too long. America is going to do this thing in a show of strength, which is, in my humble opinion, how despotic dictators or terrorists must be dealt with...by fear and intimidation. It is all that they understand.

Good buddies, pray hard that peace should prevail. In the absence of that, pray for minimal death on both sides and pray that the action is short and decisive.

A-1

Amen to that brother.

Andrew: See what you started

...if you guys don't watch out I'll have you all holding Rosary beads and reciting your HAIL MARYS!

A-1

River

I suspect that AOL didn’

JesusA (imported) wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2003 9:52 am t give any indication of what that cost might be. Serious attempts by different groups of experts have come up with strikingly similar ranges of cost – depending on how much Iraqi resistance there is, the extent of damage to the Iraqi infrastructure, etc. The estimates I have seen all have a TOP end of the range over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. The high I have seen was 1.4 Trillion. They also estimate something in the low THOUSANDS of American lives lost during the 8 to 15 year occupation of Iraq that will be necessary before a democratic regime can effectively take over.

Are we really prepared for this cost? It may well be much lower, but we shouldn’t go in unless we are prepared to accept the worst cast scenario.

I have serious doubts that the Bush regime has any serious plans to rebuild Iraq after its destruction. Their new budget includes ZERO DOLLARS for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, despite all of their promises. Southeastern Afghanistan is already returning to Taliban control.

To go in, destroy what’s there, and then quickly leave would probably result in a worse situation than we have at present. Not just in Iraq, but throughout the Islamic World.

10 years later we have a good idea what that cost really is, and how right Jesus was in this post, from Feb 28th 2003.

I also reread all the post from that time, I suggest you do as well it is very enlightening and a little heart breaking.

River