The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[BeatNikJackie7777]

I'm not excusing it nor justfying it, i'm just saying that it is a fact of life. In fact I said that just because its a part of life doesnt make them right. Wars happen from time to time. When they do happen, I dont think its enough to say "i'm oppossed to war" in order to avoid answering the tough questions and making a moral judgment. Choosing a side while weighing the pros and cons of BOTH sides, which I dont think many have done. I think people have been too consumed with anti-american backlash to truly examine the pros and cons on BOTH sides of the coin.

Quote:

---

This war has nothing to do with our freedoms and everything to do with greed

---

IF this war is about greed, its not just about greed on the US' part...its also greed on the side of certain nations that oppose the war. In fact I would venture to say its more abotu greed and oil for certain nations that have opposed the war. If this were simply about oil for the US, the UK and coalition forces, we would NOT be at war right now. Thats a fact. For us, at least its abotu more than that.

Edited by: BeatNikJackie7777 at: 3/27/03 3:21:12 pm

[justin]

Quote:

---

WAR WILL ALWAYS EXIST

---

Personaly I think that that will always be the case as long as people believe t is true. The only way we're going to end war, or at least minimize the outbreak of war, is if we believe that we can end wars and strive for that. Which means arguing and demonstrating against wars, even after they've started and there seems to be no way out of it. Otherwise the next time this happens the people in charge will think well people will complain to start with but they'll soon shut up once the war has started.

Quote:

---

To make a moral judgement and weigh the difficult issues. And i'm sorry, it is biased and one-sided to feel the US is the evil warmonger here and defend Saddam's regime as the innocents.

---

I don't think that America are evil but I do think that what they and all the country's that support them (which, sadly, includes my own) are doing is wrong.



I don't think that anyone has claimed that President (I think that's right) Hussein's regime is innocent and that most people will agree that it is a corrupt and totalitarian one. However what has been said is that that isn't justification for war and that if it is we won't stop fighting till we're up to our knees in bodies.

I understand, you should be with the person you l-love


I am

[darkmagicwillow]

---

Wars happen from time to time.

---

This make wars sound like weather, something outside of human control. While war may or may not be always with us, no particular war is inevitable and that is what concerns us here. In particular, people are concerned with the next war Bush might start.

---

Choosing a side while weighing the pros and cons of BOTH sides, which I dont think many have done.

---

I find this statement ironic, because while I have explained my reasons carefully for not only this conflict, but also many previous ones, with more historical context than you'll find in most newspaper articles, I haven't seen a similar demonstration of your reasoning on these matters. Perhaps you're not intending to address me, but I'd suggest that it's best to be careful with blanket statements like that.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 3/27/03 2:56:18 pm

[BeatNikJackie7777]

I guess it comes down to whether you think a corrupt and totalitarian regime is worth fighting against.



Dont get me wrong, I think conflicts and wars will always arise in some form or another...that of course, doesnt mean we shouldnt do something about them or do something to resolve them. But that's the key, true resolution. And I personally dont feel the gulf war was truly resolved.



So yes, while I dont think war is somethign we can ever get rid of, I dont think we have to accept them. I'm just saying that when they arise, we shouldnt avoid taking a stance by saying that we simply "dont agree with war." Well, war is here. Its too bad that you dont agree with it but you're going to have to think about it and make some kind of decision about it either way because its directly affecting your life.



When I say "you" here, I mean "you" in general, not any specific person on this board or anywhere.



dmw, they are precisely within the realm of human control, thats why they happen.



specifically, each war has its own causal events. In general, war is an unvoidable thing. If you think that in the future, there will never been another war, I think history has shown us you would be wrong. This of course doesnt make them right. That moral judgment is one we must make on a conflict by conflict basis.

Edited by: BeatNikJackie7777 at: 3/28/03 7:20:59 am

[Diebrock]

Kieli, the Kurds hate Saddam and the Shiites hate him. Both are groups that are being oppressed by him and his Sunnite minority regime (not to say that the ordinary Sunnites aren't oppressed as well). Which is of course why the world supported Saddam, so that the power wouldn't fall to the shiite majority (like Iran). The Kurds have managed to achieve relative autonomy because of the flight ban. I don't know the situation now and if they speak out or not.

The Shiites hate Saddam but they are very scared of him. There probably won't be any uprising and they are gonna praise Saddam until he is definately defeated. Why? Because they don't trust the US. Bush senior encouraged them to rebel against Saddam in the first gulf war. They did. But then the US only watched as Saddam beat the uprising down and killed how many rebels? They won't make that mistake again.



Another thing, things might be better after the war. But right now they have no food, they have no water, maybe their home is gone and they never know when the next bomb will fall. Hundreds are injured, thousands are fleeing, we don't know how many are dead. Right now, because of the coalition and their war, things are worse for them. If your children are starving right now, your husband's been drafted and might never return, your wife's fleeing the city to god knows where to escape the bombs and the coming fights and your father is dead because he was in the marketplace when the bomb hit, you don't think about how much better everything is going to be but why they couldn't have left you alone with the little bit you had.



BeatNikJackie7777, being German I am very familiar with the very effective anti-semitism hammer. The anti-americanism hammer works the same. Criticizing the government of Israel or America? Bamm. You are anti-whatever. So your arguments don't count.

Please don't do this here. I have said it before and I'll say it again, a lot of the people who are criticizing American policy are Americans. Do you think they hate themselves? Are they any less patriotic because they avail themselves of their right to question their own government?

And am I anti-american because I "examined the pros and cons" and came to a conclusion that goes against the opinion of the American government?

_____________________

"MURDERERS! Remember Orca!!! Free Willy!!!" Yun-kyung bellowed. "The shark in Jaws was just misunderstood!" - Castaway
I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[BeatNikJackie7777]

diebrock, if youve truly examined both aspects, than more power to you...you would have come to a well-thought out decision, which is what I feel more people should do. Even if it means they decide they dont agree with the US. I just have encountered many people (in my hometown here in the US, not in this board) who have taken the "I dont agree with war" stance to avoid taking any side, examining the pros and cons on both sides and thus have immediately decided the US is in the wrong, simply because they started the war.

Quote:

---

Please don't do this here.

---

Why? Arent I entitled to my own opinion as much as you are entitled to yours and to respond to my arguments? Isnt it better that we discuss each others opinions openly so that we understand each other better?

Quote:

---

I have said it before and I'll say it again, a lot of the people who are criticizing American policy are Americans. Do you think they hate themselves? Are they any less patriotic because they avail themselves of their right to question their

---

I didnt specify any nationality. In fact, i'm responding to backlash Ive encountered here in the states. I also didnt say its wrong to come to an anti-american conclusion. I just think the anti-american backlash has become so formidable that many, certainly not all, have been blinded to both sides of the argument. Thats all. If you examine both sides and still come to an anti-american conclustion, than fine, thats your opinion, and everyone is entitled to one.



*instead of double posting, edit your first post and add anything new to that one.

Edited by: Warduke at: 3/27/03 4:09:01 pm

[Diebrock]

That's the thing. The anti-whatever hammer stops the discussion because you don't credit the other to have an opinion other than "I don't like this because the Americans did this"

Also the people who don't agree with the war have clearly taken a side.



You know how I came to my opinion?

War is wrong. That's where I started, that's where probably everyone should start. And nothing that I have heard and read until now has convinced me that this opinion is wrong and this war is justified. I don't have to examine the pros and cons and only THEN build my opinion.



And I didn't come to an anti-american conclusion. I came to a conclusion that does not correspond with the stance the American government has taken. I think that are two very different things.

_____________________

"MURDERERS! Remember Orca!!! Free Willy!!!" Yun-kyung bellowed. "The shark in Jaws was just misunderstood!" - Castaway
I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

Edited by: maudmac at: 3/27/03 4:39:40 pm

[friskylez]

IMO alot of the posts in this thread have been enlightening and interesting..There have indeed been real discssions on a variety of topics involving the war..But IMO there has also been alot of flaming going by some in regard to those who have differing opinions..



For the record, i am anti war, but i support the troops..Im not being duped by this administration, i can think for myself thank you very much..



I believe the soldiers are heros, you dont, so what..I said that IF the Iraqi soldiers executed those in the 507th, their actions werent heroic..Notice the IF, I didnt say they did...Its a cowardly act to line up people who cannot defend themselves and shoot them, no matter who does it...



I repeat, i didnt say do not debate whether soldiers are heroic or ask the mods to stop said debate..Debate to your little hearts content..I state that in IMO it probably wasnt a good topic for debate and even added "but thats just me"...



Just because i said the soldiers are heroic doesnt mean that i dont think there are other heros, yes the police, FD and many others are heros everyday..



And yep i left because of the flaming and yep i did come back, to answer a question someone asked..I thought it was worth responding to..



Kieli, you mentioned people not knowing you and making assumptions, the same thing could be said for those of us who have differing opinions from the majority here..



I have not said anyone who has a differing opinion is wrong, anti american or un american, whatever..



As i said their are some very good discussions going on with people listening to the others view point then making a point about theirs..However, personally i dont feel the need to explain or justify my opinon to anyone because its just that my opinion..



War is an ugly thing and it stirs intense feelings, but infering that someones opinion is wrong is not a debate IMO, its flaming...





i

"Life is what happens while waiting for your ship to come in"

Edited by: friskylez  at: 3/28/03 4:00:55 am

[Penrose Orleans]

Hmmm... I might be too late with this one, but I wanted to comment on one country's right to "police" another: If one nation can violate the sovereignty and/or right to self-determination of one people, a very large, very angry barrel of worms gets opened... how can one say that the US has this special power to change the fates of governments and whole peoples, but that we should still respect democracy based primarily on the fact that it allows the citizens of a country to decide for themselves what kind of nation they want to have?



This fundamental foreign policy of non-interference was used commonly in America, including (I think) during the period of the World Wars-- people acknowledged that there was a fundamental contradiction between intervention and the upholding of sovereignty as a right of nations. Did that make sense? I hope so... --Nora

"Ya estoy curado, anestesiado, ya me he olvidado de tí...

Hoy me despido de tu ausencia- ya estoy en paz." -Manu Chao, 'La Despedida'

[Gatito Grande]

Wow. It's amazing how this thread has grown the few days I've been away (this is a very good thing).



Re: "anti-American": if one keeps calling anti-Bush & Co. people around the world "Anti-American" (and treating them accordingly), one might eventually succeed in making them anti-American. It hasn't quite happened yet, fortunately. Could we not go there?



GG "God Bless [Rogue state w/ unelected government and "WMD"]! Land (and Bill of Rights---while it lasts) that I love!" Out

[justin]

Quote:

---

The Kurds have managed to achieve relative autonomy because of the flight ban. I don't know the situation now and if they speak out or not.

---

One of the effects of this autonomy is that Turkish terrorists have been using Northern Iraq as a base. Which is why in the last reports that I read Turkey was thinking about sending it's troops into Iraq to deal with them.

Quote:

---

You know how I came to my opinion?

War is wrong. That's where I started, that's where probably everyone should start.

---

I'd say that that is a valid point. I think that war is always wrong and that we should only consider it in exceptional circumstances, which is not the case here.



Or as Jimmy Carter put it

War may be a necessary evil but no matter how necessary it is, it is always evil.

I understand, you should be with the person you l-love


I am

[dekalog]

Beatnik Jackie could you explain what you mean by this:

"IF this war is about greed, its not just about greed on the US' part...its also greed on the side of certain nations that oppose the war. In fact I would venture to say its more about greed and oil for certain nations that have opposed the war."



I'm not trying to be rude or flaming - I just don't get what exactly you are implying here - which nations are you referring to, and what are they trying to gain? If you could explain what you mean by this it would be greatly appreciated.



As for the policing comment - well it just scares me - and is very reminiscent of what a group of neo conservatives came up with in their think tank piece mentioned earlier in this thread. It's kind of ironic (not in a good way) that their catastrophic event happened, and the US felt the UN of no use in this current matter and might indeed as they wished become irrelevant. I for one do not want a New World Order.



And I just wanted to also comment on the 'anti-American' thing. I've been hearing this on the news, here, pretty much everywhere. All I can speak for is myself. I'm against this war and feel that diplomacy would have been a better resolution, yes I have read and informed myself, and have debated for myself the pros and cons, and no this does not make me anti-American. Disagreeing and voicing concerns over world matters which will effect me and everyone else on the planet is, to me, not a waste of time, nor does it make me 'against' or 'anti' any particular group in the world - including Americans.



That said I don't agree with George Bush or Tony Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq. I think that in our society we are in a dangerous position and that this action has just put us closer to an unchangeable precipice of disaster. Nothing in the world would ease my mind more than if I could be convinced that this war would change the world to a better place - but all I can see from this action are the consequences - for all of us - including America - a country I am more afraid FOR right now than ever before. I have friends who live there and because of this action in Iraq I am more fearful for their lives because of how this war is being played up by those who can use it against the US.



Yes there are people out there that are anti-American, as there are people out there that are anti-gay, or anti-anything that isn't them, but the people who are opposed to this war and talk about their concerns aren't those people. If someone is saying something that can be considered as anti-American challenge them on that - not on their views towards this war.

[cassiopeia191]

Quote:

---

War is an ugly thing and it stirs intense feelings, but infering that someones opinion is wrong is not a debate IMO, its flaming...

---

People aren't "flamed" for having a different opinion but the facts on which they base this point of view are closely examined as they often turn out to be somewhat weak or in some cases, more of a rumour than a fact.



You obviously didn't read my post or others carefully enough because you write things like this: " I said that IF the Iraqi soldiers executed those in the 507th, their actions werent heroic..Notice the IF, I didnt say they did...Its a cowardly act to line up people who cannot defend themselves and shoot them, no matter who does it..." Please note that this point has been made before so you don't really need to respond as if someone said anything in the other direction. Oh, and don't feel flamed because I'm writing this ... you don't seem to take opinions based on facts and well thought-out arguments very well. That's your business but I wish you would stop labeling this discussion as unfair while the only one I see acting vaguely unfair is you. The other ones are having a discussion.

Quote:

---

Debate to your little hearts content..

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Yes the US has been involved in wars. So have almost every other country! Yes the US has started conflicts....So have many other countries! Yes we've made mistakes. So has every other nation.

---

BeatNikJackie7777, I don't think thsi is the point. The point is, the US is making mistakes this very moment although they know better. It's one thing to make mistakes, it's another thing to deliberately make them. This is very simplified but I do expect that we learn from our past and this war isn't based on the interest of the world and the people who live in it, underlying are very special interests of very specific people.

Quote:

---

Re: "anti-American": if one keeps calling anti-Bush & Co. people around the world "Anti-American" (and treating them accordingly), one might eventually succeed in making them anti-American.

---

Word! It is true that this sentiment is arising and it should be no surprise considering how the US government indeed has violated fundamental values and laws in this world over the past months. I have witnessed a concert where the lead singer invited the crowd to join him to burn an American flag ... I immediately started booing. I am sick to be labeled Anti-American because I care enough to express concern for this world and America and my American friends, to critizise when I see grave mistakes are made --or a crime, as breaking international law is a crime. If people can't accept criticism they might think about not discussing this war or going to places where their opinion is shared. It seems immature to me to call someone anti-anything because they speak out against something -- it is also a good excuse to not take their arguments seriously as they are induced by "anti-American feelings" rather than common sense. Please, let us not go there. Also, it might not hurt to look at America itself and see how not too few people there react to opposition -- there is a scary article from a Tennessee newspaper on one of the war threads about people smashing a Peugeot "for peace"...oh yeah, and because it's French. I have mentioned before that I heard about the weirdest appearances of anti-German and anti-French sentiment (or ressentiment) or generally hate directed towards the ones who oppose Bush's decisions.This is fanatical, nothing else. So please, let's make a difference between actions like those and the opinions which are expressed here. If i.e. Kieli said that she's going to burn all books written by American authors in her backyard tonight, it's anti-American (and dumb) but if she speaks out against this war (not only her, everyone who has expressed this opinion) she is everything but.

Let's keep this fair and leave expressions starting with anti-and ending with the name of a country.

As for me, I don't support Bush...in fact, I have never had such negative feelings about anyone else before in my life. But while Bush is an American, he is not America.

"Oh, isn't life a terrible thing, thank God?"

Edited by: cassiopeia191 at: 3/28/03 6:03:31 am

[AmbersSecretAdmirer]

I have remained very quiet on this issue. And it has to be said that many of the points I may make have been said by others so I am merely adding a voice to that rather than making original points.



I am completely and utterly opposed to this war. I consider it to be unlawful, immoral and without any redeeming qualities about it whatsoever.



I am not Anti-American, I am Anti-Bush and Anti-Blair. I am against the leaders of our two nations, not the nations in themselves.



I am not an appeasor, I do not support Saddam or his Iraqi regime. It is my belief that the combination of Weapons inspectors and the easing of sanctions would have aided Iraq and it's people far better than the horrid bloodbath we are currently involved in.



I do not oppose the troops, they have my support in so much as getting them home. They have become merely puppets in the machinations of two men so drunk on power they are prepared to use anyone to further their aims.



I believe that this is not about ridding the world of a dictator or freeing the Iraqi people. It is partly about oil rights in the region and partly about a man who knows that only being seen as war hero will give him any chance of winning a second term in office. Yes, I believe that Bush is that self-serving, that he is willing to buy his second term with the innocent bloos of loyal soldiers and Iraqi civilians.



The day war broke out was the day all here in the west should have hung our heads in collective shame.



As a wise man once said:



WAR DOES NOT DETERMINE WHO IS RIGHT!!

WAR DETERMINES WHO IS LEFT!!

[BeatNikJackie7777]

Ok, I'm going to say it one more time. I didnt say that if you oppose the war you are anti-american. In fact I went back and posted about this to clarify once or twice I believe. And in my second post abotu how its not wrong to weigh the pros and cons and still be "anti-american" what I meant was anti-american involvement in this war. Maybe I should have used a different term in that post. But in the first long post about war, I stand by my use of the term, because I know I dont say anywhere that being opposed to the war makes you anti-american. There have been several US policies I dont agree with in the past and I dont consider myself anti-american in anyway neither should anyone else. But I do think there is an anti-american bias that has been growing steadily since before this war and has come to forefront now. Or people who consider america at every turn like a sumpreme being fallen from grace. I just wanted to state that we do make mistakes, because its only human. I have heard a lot of people (not here) make some unfair arguments abotu the US based on this bias. I guess as much as I remain informed, as much as I am conflicted as to whether or not I agree with this war, at the end of the day I think the US is still a great nation I am immensely proud to be a part of. And again, thats just me. I'm not saying nobody but me is patroitic or anything. I'm sure many, many of you here love the US, you just disagree with the war. Thats great. But as for me, and I can only speak for myself, I just think thats why some of the very unfair arguments ive heard (again, not on this board, but in my hometown) have irked me. Thats all I wanted to say.



Ive also said several times that while I feel wars will always exist, that doesnt make them right and that doesnt mean we shouldnt take steps to either avoid them or resolve them. Ive said that several times. Please go back and read all my posts before you slam me for somethign I didnt say. Thank you.

Edited by: BeatNikJackie7777 at: 3/28/03 7:14:55 am

[xita]

I don't think there has been any flaming. If there had been we would have stopped it. Intense, heated debate, sure. I think many more people fall on one side of the issue here but that in an of itself is not flaming.

-----------------------------------

Only 50 cents

[Kieli]

Cass: ACK!! You used ME in a book burning example? Good heavens, am I that bad? And here I was thinking I was actually doing a fair job of stating my case without flaming or emotional outbursts. (notes that she absolutely adores books and to think of burning them is simply abhorrent to her)

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

[dekalog]

Kieli admit it - I saw you with the match - or was that just evidence of you trying destroy your smut before we could read it.

[friskylez]

"People aren't "flamed" for having a different opinion but the facts on which they base this point of view are closely examined as they often turn out to be somewhat weak or in some cases, more of a rumour than a fact."



I havent stated any "facts" as you put it because i was stating my opinion based on what i FEEL..The soldiers are heros, thats my opinon and i didnt write down my reasons for believing this, just that i do..So there are no "facts" to be examined..



Same with everything else i have said..I havent been involved in other parts of the war discussion, the foreign policy of the US or anything else because i dont have enough "facts" to join the discussion..



I am not as well versed in american foreign politics as it appears everyone else is, so i dont partake in that discussion..



i do realize you were pointing out that no one said the Iraqi soldiers were heros, i dont remember quoting anyone or saying they did either..It was merely a statement..



If i enter into a discussion where i need to present facts to back up something ive said, ill do that..If i were involved in the foreign policy discussion for example..



However, i dont need to base my opinon regarding the soldiers or how i FEEL about my country on facts because i am not trying to "prove" anything to anyone..



My opinons in those areas are based on MY feelings, there are neither facts nor rumors to be had regarding those..Telling me my feelings are wrong is flaming and that is my opinion.

"Life is what happens while waiting for your ship to come in"

[Kieli]

dekalog: Now really! My smut is always available and fair game. I have nothing to hide....erm...well...not really ANYHOOO....



friskylez:I think you're mistaken about what flaming truly is. Here's a little definition: "Flaming has come to refer to almost any mail insult. Originating in usenet, flames were carefully honed responses to real or perceived insults; sarcastic, artistic, often literary in allusion. The art has long since disappeared, and flame wars can be abusive, aggressive and unpleasant exchanges in newsgroups, mailing lists and email. They are a serious reminder that it is vital to think before mailing; an insult cannot be withdrawn."



So do you really think you're being abused because people disagree with you? Initially you stated that you had opinions and then planned on witholding judgment as said here:

Quote:

---

My opinion is, no one wants war, no one likes war...Until i know, im going to hold off judgement on what has ensued...

---

You subsequently decided you didn't like the discussion and threatened to leave on several occasions. Now, knowing that this discussion was offending you on several levels as a patriot, you are now accusing us of flaming you? I don't see any name-calling, bashing or what-have-you. I do see a lot of dissent and requests for proof of your arguments. Where you specifically state what is your opinion, can be noted. However, there were several instances that it was not clarified and thus seemed like you were attempting to support your arguments with opinions thinly veiled as facts.



Lest you mistake my intentions, this is not flaming...this is clarification of an accusation that you have put forth to other posters who disagreed with you and have carefully laid out their arguments why the do so. We are sorry if you feel you're being attacked but that might just be your personal observation. There is no language here to remotely suggest flaming (and trust me, I've been flamed lots of times since I started using the Internet in 1987...trust me, this place is damned civil compared to what it could be if this discussion were to be on, say, the evil BBS of all BBS, Yahoo Bulleting Boards...). If someone were to be truly upset, they would take issue with your unproven accusation.



You've held your own, and that is to be respected and commended. But accusing others of flaming without proof is uncalled for.

---

ETA: I found some VERY telling news articles today about the White House "stifiling anti-war dissent" and other forms of anti-war backlash that are happening here in the US. Thought I'd share:



story.news.yahoo.com/news...0328005230



www.sptimes.com/2003/03/2..._eve.shtml (I find it amusing that they would even ASSUME that Susan Sarandon would take any limelight away from a charity event to protest the war...it's such a lame duck excuse)



story.news.yahoo.com/news...aqis_fbi_7 (this article was rather telling....anyone see a familiar path we might be heading down?)

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: maudmac at: 3/28/03 2:52:49 pm

[darkmagicwillow]

The Bush administration seems to be focused on alienating every other nation in the world, with Rumsfield attacking Syria, who admittedly isn't a friend, but this quote sounds like the US might plan on taking on Syria next:

---

We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments," he said.

---

The US ambassador delivered a rebuke to Canada for not supporting the war, and hinting that there could be economic consequences. Here's the article. Economic threats were also raised against Mexico when it didn't vote with the US in the security council, while Turkey was alternately threatened and offered several billion dollars of foreign aid to let American troops invade northern Iraq from Turkish soil.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[urnofosiris]

Let's move away from the topic of flaming now. It hasn't been happening here. There is some irritation and occasional sarcasm toward each other, which we all need to be careful about, but on the whole people are disagreeing in a respectful manner. If someone does feel like they are being spoken to in a way that violates our FAQ and we haven't acted on it, you can mail one of the mods, with a specific quote, and we can take a closer look.

-------------------------


Coffee, Food, Kisses and Gay Love........Get it while you are hot

Edited by: DrG at: 3/29/03 7:57:12 am

[Kieli]

DMW: Why am I not surprised? Let's use strong arm tactics, shall we, to intimidate our friends and act like petulant children when they don't side with us or if we don't get our way. I am totally and thoroughly disgusted with the way our government is acting. If our intent was to totally isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and piss off every friend we ever had, I'd say Bush has the right people for the job. After looking at this article, apparently they're doing that job too well. Have these people forgotten that a good bit of the goods we use in this country are IMPORTED?



*sigh* I'm sad, really sad. This is not the America I grew up loving. It's worse than I ever could have imagined.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

[friskylez]

"My opinion is, no one wants war, no one likes war...I seriously doubt Bush woke up one morning and said hey ill think ill invade Iraq so i can piss off the world...He had information and he made a decision based on that information...



It will be interesting to see if world opinion changes when the Iraqi people speak out once SH is ousted and we find out what was really going on in that country.....



Until i know, im going to hold off judgement on what has ensued...Im not gonna bash the US (and im not saying anyone is) and im not suddenly going to become ashamed

of being an American (im not saying anyone is)..."



Kieli, That was my entire quote regarding the parts you quoted out of context..I have not given my opininon about why this war is taking place and i have not taken part in those discussions nor have i said anyone was wrong in their opinion as to why this war is going on..I have said that i love my country, im proud to be an american and i support the troops and feel they are heros..



And according to the definition you posted, flaming isnt the proper word..Perhaps a derivative of it could be used althogh i have no idea what that would be...Xita point taken and i will cease and desist with the flaming comments...

"Life is what happens while waiting for your ship to come in"

[justastraightdog]

I always thought that a ground rule for military forces is "hope for the best but be prepared for the worst". If a commander knows that the road ahead is likely to be mined, he'll tell his soldiers to be cautious. Even if he has four intelligence reports stating that the road is free and only one saying otherwise, he won't tell his troops that there's no danger and that they can advance carelessly. And if he does so, he won't be a commander for very long.



I thought all the "freedom and democracy for Iraq", "they'll welcome us as friends and liberators" was just typical war propaganda any government has to do to win the home front. Everyone with half a brain and the tiniest bit of insight into the situation in the arabic world knew that this was complete nonsense. But then I saw interviews with US soldiers ... and - they've been told the same!



Yes, the troops have to think that they are doing the right thing. They have to be motivated so that they are ready to cross a minefield to capture a key strategic position. But to do so by not telling them that there is a minefield is irresponsible and inhuman. It shows the same lack of respect towards human lives as using civilians as human shields for military facilities.



IMHO there's a consequence: Criticizing the military leadership and tactics and questioning the government's propaganda should be an obligation for all those who want to protect US soldiers from being mere canon fodder. How many "surprising" guerilla attacks and suicide bombers will it take before the US patriots learn that waving little flags doesn't help at all? That patriotism means the love for one's own country, for one's own people, but not necessarily the love for one's own government. The moment the government is obviously harmful for the country and its people, it's the patriots' first and most honorable duty to protest. And sending soldiers unprepared into a war that is already condemned by a huge majority of nations and threatens to turn reliable friends like France, Germany, Russia, Turkey almost into enemies, that inevitably produces hundreds of new possible anti-American terrorists in the Islamic world each and every day, is harmful for the USA and its people, no matter what.



The Iraqi people hate Saddam. That's not even a question. There are only a few things they hate more. The USA, which was Saddam's main supporter for decades and which has shamelessly betrayed those who fought against him after the last gulf war, is one of them. The UK, the old colonial ruler, which has surpressed and exploited the country for decades, is another one. Watching those infidels bombing, attacking and therewith desecrate some of the Islam's most sacred places doesn't help either. They don't fight for Saddam, they fight for their own sovereignty, dignity, pride, belief; they don't fight to protect a criminal regime, they fight to protect their home, their life.



US and UK forces invading Iraq to free its people and stabilize the region is like sending the German army to occupy Israel to deal with the Palestinian situation. No matter how good the intentions are, it won't work. You can't deny history.



And while the USA's lack of history often is an advantage by providing a greater flexibility, it can also be a huge drawback. How shall a young US soldier, for whom the Korean war is already ancient history, understand those, for whom things that happened 500 or 1000 years ago are as important for their current lives as things that happened 5 years ago? But the soldier (or at least the military leadership) has to understand them, or he can neither fight nor help them appropriately. If not, he may meet some Iraqis and tell them "be happy, I'll bring you democracy" only to be very surprised by their answer: "Democracy? Is that what made you rich and us poor? Is that what our colonial rulers had? Is that what we had to fight against in endless bloody wars, only to gain control on our own natural resources and to become sovereign nations? Is that what the laicistic apostate Turkey has? Is that what our arch-enemy Israel has? No, thanks, stay away with such an evil thing".

_______________________________
Though here at journey's end I lie in darkness buried deep, beyond all towers strong and high, beyond all mountains steep,
above all shadows rides the Sun and Stars for ever dwell: I will not say the Day is done, nor bid the Stars farewell.

[xita]

We will never find out the truth because main stream american media will not allow us to see it. The iraqi people they may interview could be a small sample and be held as the great example. Would you really feel liberated when someone comes and destroys your towns and cities, kills countless civilians, and then allows american corporations to take over your resources?

-----------------------------------

Only 50 cents

[Kieli]

Friskylez: Actually I edited the entire comment because the stating your opinion part was the only part that was indeed taken in context, the rest of your comment had no bearing on the issue at hand and was thus unnecessary. Perhaps you might want to look again and see why this was so. As such, your truncated quote was indeed "taken within context".



As far as whether or not you've taken part in those discussions, well that is debatable. I had a whole argument laying out in great detail your participation in this War/Politics thread against your own self-professed better judgment. I deleted it because I decided it wasn't necessary. You will believe what you wish.



You can't say you've not participated in the discussions, because clearly you have. People are naturally going to ask others to substantiate their opinions with facts if they truly want to understand WHY people form those opinions. For many people, mere emotion won't cut it as those arguments usually tend to have no substantial support, they're just reactionary. If you think that people are picking on you because of that, then perhaps this discussion is truly not for you.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 3/29/03 9:31:30 am

[bzengo]

From the Smirking Chimp



Rich Procter: 'Dennis Miller rants - Rich Procter counter-rants'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Rich Procter



First, the Rant by Dennis Miller



All the rhetoric on whether or not we should go to war against Iraq has got my insane little brain spinning like a roulette wheel. I enjoy reading opinions from both sides, but I have detected a hint of confusion from some of you.



As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice someone ever gave me. He told me about the KISS method ("Keep it Simple, Stupid"). So, with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for those who don't quite get it. My hope is that we can simplify things a bit and recognize a few important facts.



Here are 10 things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important issue:







1) President Bush and Saddam Hussein.....Hussein is the bad guy.



2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing, keep this in mind. They have Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.



3) If you use Google Search and type in "French Military Victories," your reply will be "Did you mean French Military Defeats?"



4) If your only anti-war slogan is "No war for oil," sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.



5) Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.



6) Despite what some seem to believe, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He just plays one on TV.



7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "Infidel" and Bin Laden wants you dead, too.



8)If you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but not in the danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the Dell computer dude.



9)We are not trying to liberate them.



10) Whether you are for military action, or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all need to support them without reservation.



I hope this helps.



The COUNTER-RANT



By Rich Procter



Dennis, babe -- When you addressed those 'who don't quite get it,' I didn't realize you were talking about yourself. So here are my 10 things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important issue:



1) President Bush and Saddam Hussein. Hussein's the bad guy. The Iraqi citizens aren't. We've invaded their frickin' country, and we're barbecuin' 'em by the hundreds because Bush lied America into this insanity. And they're supposed to love us for doing this? Do you see any Victory parades? Rose petals? Am I missing something?



2) The United Nations Inspectors went to Iraq as hawks, and came back as doves, calling Iraq a "wrecked country" that was not a threat to its neighbors, or the US. Did you miss this info-tidbit?



3) If you use Google Search and type in "George Bush Military Service, Vietnam," your reply will be, "Do you mean George Bush, AVOIDANCE of Military Service, Vietnam?" If this chickenhawk is so gung-ho to take down evil-doers, how come he passed up the opportunity to do it personally when he had the chance?



4) If your only justification for nukking the crap out of the Iraqis is "we're already there, so we have to support our boys," sue your school district, go the Public Library and get any available book on Vietnam. This was the government line in '65. 50,000 deaths later we pulled out - beaten and humiliated. You do the math.



5) Bush and Powell tried to get the UN on board for their big Middle East adventure. The UN told them to calm down and get real. They invaded anyway. How is this different from not asking the UN at all?



6) Despite what you've been lead to believe, George Bush was NOT elected President of the United States. That would be Al Gore. Bush was selected by the Supreme Court Justices appointed by his father. Surprised you missed this. It was in all the papers.



7) Whether you're pro-war or anti-war, you're an infidel and bin Laden wants you dead. So the difference is that if you're anti-war, your very own American Attorney General John Ashcroft ALSO wants you dead...or at least declared an 'enemy combatant,' thrown in a Navy brig somewhere, stripped of your rights, with no attorney, no charges, no trial date, and no hope of ever getting out.



8) If you believe in the "Liberal Media Conspiracy" after watching the Media Whores give Bush a free pass in this fiasco, you need to re-set your AM radio pre-sets to SportsTalk, and get rid of wingnut bloviators like Limbaugh who have washed, rinsed and spun-dry your brain.



9) We are not trying to liberate them. No shit, Sherlock. From what I can gather from the Bushies, God himself is whispering to his hand-picked emissary to bring democracy, Christianity, ExxonMobil and McDonalds to these poor people. If you think this plan is going to cut it, you've been smokin' too much of Woody Harrelson's hemp doormat.



10) If enough people had gotten mad enough in 1965 and demanded that Lyndon Johnson get the hell out of Vietnam, 50,000 men (and millions of Vietnamese) would not have been slaughtered for no reason. If you believe we've got another nut in the White House hypnotized by chickenhawk think-tank armchair Generals bound and determined to get us into World War III, doncha kinda think it's a good idea to speak up? Like, maybe, supporting our troops might include not getting them killed for no reason? I mean, isn't that sorta what living in a free country is all about, Sparky?



I hope this helps.



Rich Procter

[cassiopeia191]

Kieli: I know, I just wanted to make the example sound more ridiculous..heh. As I love books myself (dusted about 900 of them today ), it seemed like one of those worst-case-scenarios with you as the metaphorical cherry on top. I didn't mean to imply anything



See, I don't wanna suck up or anything but I just wanted to say that I admire how eloquently and articulately you have voiced your opinion so far...many times, I found myself thinking: "Damn! I wish I could have said it like that. I wish I could express myself like she does. *sniffle*".

Okay, enough.



_____________________



BNJ7777: I read your previous posts again and I apologize if I have reacted too quickly. You made your point very carefully but when I read it, I was like: 'She called us anti-American! Why, oh why did she do that...how could she...'.

I also reacted to the reproach of anti-Americanism in general without stating it clearly in my post. Hearing about anti-European (well, only Old Europe) clichés and about anti-Americanism everytime the opposition to war makes a point...

I take it too personally and am hurt to hear all that because of my own fondness for the US ... so I jumped on you. Sorry.



I was thinking and talking about the whole "bringing democracy to Iraq" argument with my brother again today...he pointed out to me a thing that I had considered but not really thought about until now. I don't know if this has been mentioned before and I am a little tired...so forgive me if I am repetitive.



There is a vast majority of Shiites in Iraq, which is supressed now by the current Sunnites administration... but after Saddam Hussein is overthrown, the US will be careful to prevent them from forming the new government. Why? They have no interest in establishing a system under controll of Shiites (aka the people) because of Iran where Shiites are in power. The USA supported Iraq in the first place (Gulf War I) to establish a bastion against Iran...so the whole thing about giving them Iraqis some liberty is a lie for promotional purposes. It won't happen because the government won't represent the people... which makes me wonder yet again where the reasons for this war are. Because if Saddam Hussein really is such a threat to the world, it should be no problem to present evidence which leads to the UN reacting. It really is that easy.

We should also take a closer look at the UN "Oil for food" (I'm not sure if this is correct name, in German it's "Öl für Lebensmittel") program...I read a really insightful article about it in today's newspaper...unfortunately, it's in German.

I do think that this is a good example for how this war is led for economical reasons.

Edited by: cassiopeia191 at: 3/29/03 12:58:02 pm

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

But I do think there is an anti-american bias that has been growing steadily since before this war and has come to forefront now. Or people who consider america at every turn like a supreme being fallen from grace.I just wanted to state that we do make mistakes, because its only human.

---

BNJ, you're onto something important here. There is widespread disappointment, and growing anger, at the United States---but that is precisely because [U.S. of] Americans in general, and this president in particular, have claimed divine appointment in their role in world affairs.



The history of the U.S.---as a British colony founded by many religious dissenters---guarantees that this quasi-religious claim of America as a Chosen Nation will recur. Moreover, the U.S. (and its citizens) can claim legitimate pride in their development of electoral democracy (until recently anyway!) and progressive extension of civil rights (Keep an eye on the Supreme Court to see if us queers are finally gonna get our "liberty and justice" that's supposed to come to us as part of the "for all.")



However U.S. history and pride are no excuse for the kind of "American supremacism" that our presidents regularly preach to us (Yanks) as a way to make us feel good about ourselves (and more importantly, get re-elected). OK, we're the world's "only remaining superpower": is there any reason why we should not only seek to maintain this status, but actually enlarge it? That we should not only have the largest (most powerful) military, but actually be more powerful than all other militaries combined?



You rightly say, BNJ, that the U.S. does "make mistakes, because its only human." But that is exactly the kind of humility (ironically, the "humility" GWB ran on in '2000) that is completely lacking in U.S. foreign policy now. That France, Germany, Russia and China (not to mention the entire Arab world, and much of the world's people, per opinion polls) could disagree w/ this war (as opposed to inspections, *not* "appeasement") can only be attributed by Bush & Co. as some kind of moral failing or intellectual naivete. It's as if Bush & Co. think that Chirac, et al. are somehow incapable of studying the same geo-political facts that we are, and coming to a different (rational) conclusion. Or worse, that they just don't have the same Divine Mandate that the "City on a Hill" (Pilgrim's term for their new American civilization) does. (A mandate guaranteed by the blood of 9/11 victims---good thing no one else has ever suffered terrorism, huh?)

Quote:

---

I have heard a lot of people (not here) make some unfair arguments about the US based on this bias. I guess as much as I remain informed, as much as I am conflicted as to whether or not I agree with this war, at the end of the day I think the US is still a great nation I am immensely proud to be a part of.

---

BNJ, I think that there is a synergism at work here, between "unfair arguments about the US" and unfair (if not deluded) American faith-claims about the U.S. and its role in the world. "At the end of the day" the U.S. will still have many accomplishments of which to be proud (the Bill of Rights I mentioned in my post above is probably my favorite), a diverse culture of incredible richness, and (if we can protect it) a land of unending beauty. (Cue "America the Beautiful"!)



Nevertheless, at the end of today (not to mention tomorrow), whether I claim pride in being a citizen of the United States will depend on whether we can reign in our sense of self-importance and willingness to impose our will based on our might.



If American-style democracy is so great (and, for the most part, I believe it still is), why can't we trust the peoples of the world to turn to it, of their own free will? What's more, why can't we realize that imposed democracy is an oxymoron?



GG American humility: that would sure make me proud! Out