The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[justin]

I noticed in the papers today that America are planning on attacking Syria or Iran next. If that is true then I find it pretty amazing. Shouldn't we finish one war before planning another?



Though it does demonstrate why we should keep arguing against this war.



Dennis Miller loses all credibility due his clearly thinking that everyone who is against the war is an imbecile.



In particular

Quote:

---

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

---

I suppose that he's also going to claim that during the Vietnam war Martin Sheen wasn't sent into Laos to assasinate Marlon Brandon or that his son Charlie isn't the deputy mayor of new york.

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


I am

[BeatNikJackie7777]

Cass: Its cool, thanks for taking the time to read my posts

Quote:

---

why can't we realize that imposed democracy is an oxymoron?

---

Gatito Grande: I absolutely agree.



As far as the bias goes, I know I love to play devil's advocate..but at the end of the day I'm kind of in the group that feels there's alot of fanatasicm (sp?) and people being duped on both sides of the issue.



On an unrelated note, The Onion (satire newspaper, i.e. fake news) has been hillarious with their war coverage. Visit at your discretion, especially if you arent familiar with the onion humor or feel as though you would be offended. If not, visit http://www.theonion.com. LOL, the "what do you think?" section on media war coverage is pretty funny too.

Edited by: BeatNikJackie7777 at: 3/29/03 4:13:42 pm

[bzengo]

I've been reading breaking news from The Agonist by Sean Paul Kelley, a non-partisan blog.



I don't remember where I found this link - it might have even been in this thread - but I can't say enough about it.



I'm following the battles, the movements of forces on all sides, the politics, the off-beat, the US and non-US press, and the opinion articles. I'm VASTLY better informed than anyone who is simply following the "news", or even surfing the usual sources.



Highest recommendations.

bzengo


Robert A. Heinlein The Earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep all your eggs.

Prof. Gerard K. O'Neill Is the surface of the Earth really the right place for an expanding technological civilization?

[friskylez]

Kieli, you are correct again, this discussion is not for me...



Apologies for going on about the whole flaming issue..

Im pretty upset, as is everyone here about the war and i

have to say my emotions have been running amuck and have run the gamut..



Im feeling quite conflicted, i love my country but hate this war and the innocents and soldiers who are being killed..I feel for the families of the soldiers on both sides, but i want to support the soldiers as well..I dont want to see another vietnam take place..



Anyway, Im going to try to seperate myself emotionally and try to read what is being said objectively.. I think ill continue to lurk in this thread, its been quite enlightening and interesting to say the least..

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

Edited by: friskylez  at: 3/29/03 10:39:03 pm

[Pipsqueak]

I'm going to interrupt the debate for a second to talk about my personal reaction to the war. Feel free to skip this post if you're not interested.



Before the fighting actually started, I was very very anti-war. I was convinced it was entirely the wrong way to go about solving the problem of Iraq and Saddam. My biggest objection wasn't about "preemptive strikes" or UN approval; it was simply that if we drop bombs, innocent civilians will die. Period. And it sickens me to support an action that will KILL PEOPLE, no matter what good things it might bring about. Some say "Saddam is killing his own people right now, we need to stop him", to which I reply, yes, that's true, but surely there's a way to save the Iraqi people that doesn't involve *contributing to the body count*. I mean, hello!! A person blown up by a bomb isn't going to care whether the bomb was sent by Saddam out of sheer malice, or by the U.S. to "liberate" the country. What difference does it make to them? Dead is dead.



Anyway, that was how I felt. But then the second the war started, I found myself ... just not caring anymore. I used to follow the news religiously, and now I'm actively avoiding it. Even when I occasionally read articles about people - Iraqis or Americans or Britains or others - dying in the war, I just shrug my shoulders and move on. And it makes me feel like such a horrible person, for caring so much earlier and now just being like "ah, whatever". It's so weird to me. This was my reason for opposing the war in the first place, wasn't it? Death was supposed to frighten me and make me sick, right? I wonder if maybe this is my defense mechanism; like, since there's nothing I can do about it, no way that I can stop it, I just stick my head in the sand and pretend it's not happening, because otherwise I'd go crazy.



But still, I feel awful. For seeing dead bodies on the TV screen and not caring. Is anyone else finding themselves reacting this way, too, or am I an evil inhuman freak?



You can go back to debating now.

Live each day as if it were your last; and one day, you'll be right.
| Pipsqueak's Music Videos |

[Kieli]

bzengo: Your article truly had me ROTFLMFAO! Rich Procter's responses had me chortling uncontrollably. I'm disappointed in Dennis Miller though. He used to be a much more intelligent sounding satirist than the little tirade he had published. What a complete waste of time and space. He could have been arguing logically for his side instead of coming off like Bill O'Reilly (whom I really cannot stand). What Dennis fails to realise is that this war is far from simple although I have to admit it does seem kind of stupid. Nothing he said was close to intelligent, meaningful or logical. Apparently those who think celebrities should not posit any opinions about the war publicly forgot to include Mr. Miller. At least Mr. Proctor's rant came off with some degree of coherence and truly had me laughing. He does make several good points well unlike Mr. Miller, sad to say. Thanks so much for the article. It was a good chuckle.



And would you believe that Sean Paul Kelley is related to my professor of Logic at the Uni? Small SMALL world



Cass: Good lord, don't be sucking up to ME I am the least eloquent of the Kittens. This whole thing has finally gotten me off my arse to get a dictionary in hand and polish off the dust on those pieces of paper that tell me I have an education You're quite articulate yourself and have posited a few things that had escaped my attention. Your arguments have kept me on my toes. No worries about the comparison. I was playing along as it gave me a good chuckle.



GG: Well said, my friend. Well said. You've managed to articulate a point I was trying to get across but my efforts have thus far been totally unsuccessful.



Justin: ROTFLMAO!



Pipsqueak: Apparently you aren't alone in the non-caring arena. I was reading the paper today and found that there was a poll about people who have been tuning out the war coverage as they are getting sick of the 24/7 announcements on almost every channel. IMHO I think people are getting tired of the hype. The media is trying to make this war look as heroic and justified as it can and in the process is overdoing it.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

[BBOvenGuy]

Quote:

---

I noticed in the papers today that America are planning on attacking Syria or Iran next. If that is true then I find it pretty amazing. Shouldn't we finish one war before planning another?

---

That's something of an overstatement. Donald Rumsfeld did some saber-rattling because there are rumors that both Syria and Iran have been sending military aid to the Iraqis. I don't think we'll be launching attacks on them any time soon. At least I hope not.



Personally, I think if there's going to be another war any time soon, it'll be with North Korea. Bush won't start that one, but so far he hasn't done diddly squat to prevent it.

"The first task of anyone, lest you get canceled, is to entertain people, because they ain't there for message." - Dick Wolf

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

Anyway, that was how I felt. But then the second the war started, I found myself ... just not caring anymore. I used to follow the news religiously, and now I'm actively avoiding it. Even when I occasionally read articles about people - Iraqis or Americans or Britains or others - dying in the war, I just shrug my shoulders and move on. And it makes me feel like such a horrible person, for caring so much earlier and now just being like "ah, whatever".

---

That's the "weight of the world", sweetie. We (peace activists) all feel this way (Buffy "I just wanted it over with"). Take a breather and don't beat yourself up over it.



Have CNN on in the background, and that slipping-on-a-banana-peel sound you hear is the sound of one consensus cracking ("We'll 'Shock and Awe' 'em, and they'll collapse w/in days!") and a new one starting to form ("What the heck are we doing here? Don't the Iraqis want to be 'liberated'?"). As this happens, peaceniks like us will naturally be invigorated (especially as the shift-in-the-winders claim to have had "serious doubts all along"). At that point, the trick will be suppressing your "Told You So's," not sticking your head in the sand.



Just hang in there---our moment/movement will come 'round again.



GG There's true multilateralism, then there's the "Coalition of the Billing" (as in, billing the U.S. taxpayers!). What would we rather have, the paid-for *applause* of, say, Estonia? Or prescription drug coverage? (Cuz it ain't gonna be both) Out

[The Angry Lion]

hey pipsqeak you just described my reaction too, I mean Im still impassioned but I dont know if I could march again like i did on feb 16, I guess its a kind of sucker punch, you know, up till the last minute I thought it may be avoided but.......



I am feeling quite demoralized, and I try to snap out of it I do, but its hard. I wonder what it must have been like for vietnam activists, when that conflict just went on and on and on, its been little more then a week and Im sick of it

this one time, at witch camp!

[bzengo]

From The Agonist



10:38 EST An average of about 100 people are killed or wounded every day in Baghdad because of bombing by U.S. and British forces, International Red Cross officials said March 30 in Baghdad.





This is of course, the bombing campaign. Once the actual house to house fighting starts, expect tens of thousands of deaths.



Edited to add:



From The New York Times: Either Take a Shot or Take a Chance

(free registration required)



"It's a judgment call," Corporal McIntosh said. "If the risks outweigh the losses, then you don't take the shot."



But in the heat of a firefight, both men conceded, when the calculus often warps, a shot not taken in one set of circumstances may suddenly present itself as a life-or-death necessity.



"We dropped a few civilians," Sergeant Schrumpf said, "but what do you do?"



To illustrate, the sergeant offered a pair of examples from earlier in the week.



"There was one Iraqi soldier, and 25 women and children," he said, "I didn't take the shot."



But more than once, Sergeant Schrumpf said, he faced a different choice: one Iraqi soldier standing among two or three civilians. He recalled one such incident, in which he and other men in his unit opened fire. He recalled watching one of the women standing near the Iraqi soldier go down.



"I'm sorry," the sergeant said. "But the chick was in the way."

bzengo


Robert A. Heinlein The Earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep all your eggs.

Prof. Gerard K. O'Neill Is the surface of the Earth really the right place for an expanding technological civilization?

Edited by: bzengo at: 3/30/03 2:19:16 pm

[Gatito Grande]

I'd rather that a dozen soldiers (which is to say, "armed persons"), of any nationality die, than one civilian die. I'd rather that a hundred soldiers die, than one child die.



GG Of course, I'd prefer that no one die---or at least, no one kill Out

[mariacomet]

I want to apologize for perhaps saying what has been said, or arguing what has been arguing. I have avoided this thread like the plague and now find myself thirteen pages behind. I admit, I did NOT read all thirteen pages.



Having said that, I love my country. I did before 9/11 and I do now. I am not suggesting that people who do not think as I do, do NOT love this country. My country, happens to be America.



My parents, happen to be from Cuba. They happened to be for Castro at one point. They happened to be against him, after they came to some realizations about exactly what kind of ruler he was going to be. Two years ago, one of my cousins (who I have never met) was so overwhelmed by the conditions there, that he committed suicide.



About that same time, my grandmother, who desperately needed heart medication that is not available any other way then by mail from the us - got a package. The package was from my mom, containing the aforementioned medicine. My relatives held this package hostage. They forced my grandmother to sign over what amounts to a two room, broken down shack before they gave her the medication.



At the time, hearing this, I was livid. But then my mother gently said, 'You don't understand. They have nothing.'



I thought about that. To have nothing. In this country, one can be homeless, and yet still see signs of prosperity all around. There are organization, imperfect but present, that even will try and help. But what if I lived somewhere where all was poverty save the elite. Where there was no organization to help me. No example of a better life. Where there was no issue of 'getting back on my feet' because everything was desolate.



Nothing.



I realize, that I don't really know what that means. Not really.



There are many different nations and communities represented on this board. I don't suggest my ignorance is universal.



But...I would say that I am not alone.



I believe, with every part of me, that there are things worth dieing for. Things, even, worth killing for. Even if that killing is utterly most heartbreakingly regrettable.



With all due respect to the Peace Protestors, your arguments of death in Iraq, have not moved me. Because death was already occurring. I keep reading and I keep getting different numbers on how many die every year in Iraq. But one thing that is consistent in all the numbers I read is that it's 1000's upon thousands. Killed. Tortured. Raped.



This is what I believe, out of what I have read. That death was occurring to any and all that dared oppose Sadaam. And yet no one seemed concerned about that death...until now. So this argument about death, yes it is horrible...but because the protests that speak of death just started and death in Iraq is hardly new....I say those statements are self serving. Basically, it's okay if people die and are tortured, as long as America, and Britain don't get their hands dirty.



Someone said that they hated the war because they didn't want people to die. And that yes, deaths occurred but we didn't have to be part of that.



I see that argument. But I think - their legacy, their future WAS death. Years of it. Because I do not believe that Sadaam Hussein was going to start changing his tactics on that level. Ever.



So if their legacy was death, and by killing and being killed we have a chance to grant the Iraqi's a chance at a different legacy....maybe that is worth something.



Those that argue that we don't have a good record at this, have every point in the world. I thank you for speaking. Please, keep doing so. Because, if there is a light at the end of this tunnel for me, it is the hope that this time we will handle things right. That we will fulfill our own promises.



Those that argue about 'regime change,' and our right to decide when and where this occurs - I see the fear and I understand that. It should be feared. Where are the lines? What dictates our assumed rights?



I don't have those answers. But the possibilities scare me as it scares many others.



Regarding the President, I am a republican and a conservative, but with all honesty I was not and am not 100% happy with his handling of this situation. Yes, have always had the ability to defy the UN. Every country has that ability. No one but we, though, have ever made it a point to say so. And yes, this is arrogance, and comes across as such. I don't disagree with Mr Bush's general points. That Sadaam has had 12 years to disarm, I believe is true. But there is such a thing as tact, and such a thing as not making decisions and expecting everyone to go along, because...hey, you're the US President.



We could have handled things much much better. Though, I am not sure the end result would have been No War.



Before this war started, I was somewhere in the undecided area. No argument was overly compelling to me. Yes, it had been 12 years. Yes, we had signed a resolution, and I believed that Sadaam was playing a lot of games with the inspectors. Yes, I believe that his government has ties to terrorism, though I am not sure those ties lead anywhere near 9/11.



But I still asked - why now? Why him? LOTS of countries have ties to terrorism. And our economy is not necessarily strong enough to pay for a war.



I believed then, and believe now, that the UN was failing at handling a crisis. Talk does not solve all things. And sanctions have never, ever worked. But the key to dealing with a bully is unity. So I believe that we also failed. We failed to make our case. We went in wanting war from the get go, and gave others the opportunity and justification to call us war mongers.



I don't believe that Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney wanted this war purely based on oil profits or election results. I disagree with anyone that compares Blair or Cheney to Hitler. I think the comparison is ridiculous. If ALL Hitler had done was wage his wars, he would have killed tens of thousands. THAT is not why we think of him as evil. That is not why he is hated. It is not that he waged wars. It was his purposeful attempt to extinguish the bright flame of a people because they were born different than what he deemed as 'perfect.' We hate and fear Hitler because we recognize in ourselves that it could have happened to any of us, depending on the madman in power.



I do not believe we are attempting to target the Iraqi people, nor destroy them. Nor make them extinct. Nor do I believe that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair intend that.



Americans are cynics, and so we tend to think the worst of our government. And not without reason. But my instinct is that I want to give our leaders the benefit of the doubt. So, with that, let me allow for the possibility that the President believed that disarming Iraq was the best way to assist in long term national security. The problem is it was never the only way.



And he acted like it was.



Having said that, I don't appreciate Mr Moore (at the Oscars) saying things like, 'We don't agree with this war.' Who the hell is we? Who is he assuming he speaks for there? If he had said, "I" he would have gained much more respect from me.



I never assume to speak for everyone, and I don't think anyone should. Though, the numbers do back me up. And I don't believe that the Gallup polls are so infinitely flawed. Cnn polls, sure. They have no...no scientific basis. But Gallup does. Are those polls off a bit? Certainly. Even Gallup admits this. But...even if they are off by 10 percent, even by 15...what that means to me is that this country is STILL not unified about how we view this war.



I am glad that there are those that protest wars. Wars SHOULD be protested, lest it become too easy to wage them. Lest we lose conscience, and develop only a taste for power.



But for now, I will not be one of you. Our troops are committed. And I am not convinced that are committed in an action that is unjust.



Also, I don't understand the protestors that destroy, that stone, that riot, that break the law. Complaining that there is too much death and destruction, and then putting yourself and others in harms way, as well as causing destruction doesn't make sense to me.



I am a bit boggled by the intensity of Anti-American/British sentiment. Sincerely. Maybe it's fear. That whole, 'regime change' idea. Maybe it is, as some have suggested, past foreign policy. Maybe that was a kettle waiting to boil. May it was Mr. Bush's 'go war go' attitude. But the sentiments seem very deep and not recent. Maybe it's the Palestine question. And if it is, is there a way for us to win? If we help, if we don't, if we stay out of it...how do we win in that situation? No matter what we do, don't we, in fact get hated by someone?



I wonder if some of it is our prosperity. Do we really seem so arrogant? And if so, how? Why?



I see us as generous, and well meaning. But not perfect, and not without gross abuses of power. During the cold war, we did much to protect what we considered our self interests. But so did Russia. And the world was a much different place then.



I'm not sure of all the answers. I love my country and the anger against America pains and confuses me. It makes me weary. We were, I remember, the first and only country to use the A-bomb. But we did not dance in the streets because of how many we had killed. And it was horrible, I'm not sure I would have agreed with it even in war, but at least...it was war. Publicially declared and equally publicially waged. Still, it was the US alone, that ever dared use this weapon.



We helped Japan rebuild. But was this enough? What is it that we are paying for in the court of public opinion, and how...can we heal the rifts?



I wonder what will happen if Iraq...most of Iraq does not see us a liberators. Do we say to ourselves then, that they simply have not tasted freedom? Or is that, the final proof that this was wrong? If people choose a tyrant, then do we have the right to remove him? Yet, by giving them the choice...by doing that much...isn't that, in and of itself a victory?



I believe that we do damage by our own wealth, without realizing it, and perhaps without meaning to. Oil has made madmen rise, and something akin to an aristocracy take a strangle hold on many countries in the middle east. We know this, and still import and import...and do so by turning a blind eye. We have to stop this, I feel. Because to continue it, without fully embracing every attempt to switch fuel is to be party to many of the horrific conditions, we now claim to be fighting.



I wish war meant that no one had to die. And if someone did have to die, then if it was soldiers only, I could comfort myself with the idea that these men knew what might be asked of them, and they gave. But this is not war. War does not and has never only hurt soldiers. Never only destroyed tanks, and guns, and silos. It always hurts the innocent, always destroys the good. It is why war is terrible.



Yet, I believe, that sometimes it is a valid choice. Even with how terrible it is. I believe that the Iraqi people will be better off because of this war. If we keep our promises. I hope we will.



What I have written here, is long and covers a hundred topics. It is what is in my heart and nothing more complex than that.

Edited by: mariacomet at: 3/30/03 3:12:19 pm

[Gatito Grande]

Thank you, mariacomet for such a thoughtful and heartfelt post. You say a great many things with which I disagree (or at least strongly question), but I'm totally at one w/ you in terms of not having all the answers.



GG You deserve responses just as well thought out Out



OK. Forgive me for being shallow, but I have to say this (I intend no disrespect). I'm having trouble understanding (my bad) how a Kitten could be "conservative and Republican." I know about Log Cabin, and the libertarian strain among some Republicans. It's just that, the overwhelming percentage of "conservative Republicans" (what I would think would be the defining center of "conservative Republicanism") would consider the raison d'etre of our board---Willow and Tara, Lovin' Proud---unnatural if not sinful. I'm sincerely asking, mariacomet, how do you reconcile your love of WT, and the homophobic sentiment (expressed or not) of the political movement with which you identify?

[bzengo]

Gatito,



While I can certainly see why you would say that, I don't know that I'd go that far.



As an ex-solider (three years in the late 1970's as a medic with the 101st Airborne Division, one of the three divisions currently in the vanguard of the attack), I certainly understand the soldier's point of view. Basically, kill them all and let God sort them out.



If you can't tell the difference between a civilian and a solider, then you must treat everyone as a soldier. Which means civilians wind up dead. Or you do. From the soldier’s point of view, better them then me, and that's the way they have to think.



You can't blame the soldiers for this - they're just trying to survive. That people are dying is is a failure of the civilians, the Chickenhawk's - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, who ducked out of Vietnam, and started this war. And with any luck, they'll be tried for war crimes eventually.



And also, you can't blame the Iraq soldiers either. Their tactics are excellent. Don't be fooled by White House media reports calling Iraq tactics "terrorist." They are not. These are guerrilla tactics, designed to negate the US's superior technological advantage.



The Iraq's are sucking the US forces into their jungles - the cities, where urban warfare casualty rates typically run at 30%. Is the US really willing to see 3 out of 10 of its attacking solders dead? Iraq is betting, no.



It is hard, brutally hard to take a city. Remember the Warshaw ghetto. Remember the battle for Stalingrad. Baghdad is not going to fall easily.



The US can either a) kill a LOT of civilians and US troops taking the city room by room, street by street, b) bomb Baghdad into rubble killing everyone, c) starve a lot of civilians in a protracted siege, d) sit outside Baghdad and start up the Inspections again, or e) go home.



And fair warning... You think its brutal now? The rules of engagement will only get more wide open. The death toll is only starting to climb.



Edited to add:



Mariacomet,



Thank you for your thoughtful post.



The one comment I would make on what you are saying is this - Sadaam Hussein is our monster.



He was supported by the United States since the 1980's. Colin Powell was the US General on the ground in the late 80's who helped cover up Iraq's gassing of the Kurds, blaming it on Iran.



We provided Iraq with its Anthrax stocks.



We provided Iraq with its advanced weapons, and supported it as it built the chemical plants that it converted to biological and chemical weapon facilities.



We supported Sadaam as he supressed the Kurds, slaughtered anyone who opposed him, and used rape and murder against his own people. The US government did all these things, and supported all these things. The administrations of Ronald Regan and George Bush (41) did these things. They did them because the US wanted Iraq as a counterweight to Iran, who was our big enemy at the time, following the hostage-taking that happened during the Carter administration in the late 1970's.



This man was supported as official US policy all the way up until several months before he attacked Kuwait.



Since the 1991 war, over 1,000,000 Iraq's, most of them women and children, have died from lack of food and medicine, due to UN sanctions, insisted on by the United States.



Yes - I agree with you; he's a monster. But he's our monster.



I'm suggesting that there are many places in the world, where horror and poverty, where rape and murder are the name of the game. Iraq is just one of those places.



That isn't why we are there. We're there, I say, due to domestic political concerns of a non-elected president in a depressed economy, and the opportunity to take over the world's second largest oil supply. If Iraq didn't have oil, we wouldn't be there.



I deeply appreciate both your spirit as a Kitten on the other threads on the board, and your willings to expose your concerns and your doubts and your heart so deeply in the thread.



Respectfully,

bzengo


Robert A. Heinlein The Earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep all your eggs.

Prof. Gerard K. O'Neill Is the surface of the Earth really the right place for an expanding technological civilization?

Edited by: bzengo at: 3/30/03 4:26:27 pm

[mariacomet]

Gatito Grande

Quote:

---

OK. Forgive me for being shallow, but I have to say this (I intend no disrespect). I'm having trouble understanding (my bad) how a Kitten could be "conservative and Republican." I know about Log Cabin, and the libertarian strain among some Republicans. It's just that, the overwhelming percentage of "conservative Republicans" (what I would think would be the defining center of "conservative Republicanism" would consider the raison d'etre of our board---Willow and Tara, Lovin' Proud---unnatural if not sinful. I'm sincerely asking, mariacomet, how do you reconcile your love of WT, and the homophobic sentiment (expressed or not) of the political movement with which you identify?

---

No offense taken, it's damm good question. I'm gonna admit again - to not having all the answers, k? I'm about four years old in terms of the gay community and a good part of that I spent in the closet.



Having said that, there are many different types of republicans. Some believe gay marriage = evil. I believe that if the word, 'marriage' is the problem, then come up with another word that grants exactly the same rights as marriage and let anyone of consenting age do it. The only arguement to deny the rights of marriage is a to bring God into it, which is....in my view a CLEAR violation of seperation of church and state mandates.



Sorry. Off soap box.



The thing is that is ONE issue that I strongly disagree with many (not all) republican leaders on. There are MANY issues that define my belief system. The size and scope of government involvement, the responsibility of the individual, how social programs should be run, limitations of the law, and dictates of our justice system should be, how far first amendment rights go, etc etc etc



The thing is that just as my sexuality does not totally define me as a person, it also does not define all of my political beliefs. Overall, my belief system is conservative and republican. That does NOT mean that I agree with everything the republican party or conservatives agree with.



I think perhaps people react to a sterotypical image of a right wing, conservative, religious republican. The ones that shout and never listen. The ones that assume they are right and they know what everyone wants/needs (sounds a little like Joss, doesn't it?) Those people do exist. I regret deeply, their presense.



A comparison, if you will...



As a christian, which I am, I cannot tell you how filled with pain I am at what we as christians have allowed ourselves to be represented by. That we have contributed to hate as a group, is repugnant, but also...sadly is true. And we should know better. But, as yet, as a group, we haven't acted like we do. I believe, that we forget some of the deepest truths of our own religion because it is easier to dismiss than to embrace. Easier to judge than to accept. Most christians believe that there is such a thing as sin, and that's fine. But what they do to sinners, what they allow to happen to those they deem sinners...how they set people apart from one another is heartbreaking. I wish it wasn't so. I hope one day that changes.



But I don't think the answer to that is becoming a buddist.



Why? Not because I think Buddists are wrong. But because, i still believe in the core of what led me to, and continues to keep me grounded in my chosen religion. I believe it's a good way to live, and I believe that many of the values are correct in terms of myself and society. Many KKK members call themselves christians and I am aware of it. But I promise you, they do not represent who I am and what i believe, or my view of the world in general. Nor am I likely to agree with other christians on 30% or so of what they believe. But 70% is still quite a bit.



SO that's my logic...



A funny side note. My girlfriend, who is jewish, recently re-came out to her family.



"Mom, I'm dating a woman."



No reaction.



"Mom, she's not jewish."



No reaction.



"Mom, she's a republician."



Mom: "WHAT?!"



bzengo First let me echo what you said about respect.



You are an ex-soldier. Which means that all my talk about loving my country is rheotric, whereas, you...you and those like you have been willing to make the real sacrafices. Thank you for that.



You said:

Quote:

---

Sadaam Hussein is our monster.

---

I agree. I agree that we made the man. Or at least...really helped. I believe that it was a different time, and that we believed he was the less of two evils. But yes, none the less...we helped arm him.



I believe that PART of reason we imposed sanctions was because of his many crimes against his own people.



So when economic sanctions really didn't work. I agree there, too. THEN what?



My question is two things:

What do we do when we create a monster?



What is our responisbility?

Quote:

---

I'm suggesting that there are many places in the world, where horror and poverty, where rape and murder are the name of the game. Iraq is just one of those places.



That isn't why we are there. We're there, I say, due to domestic political concerns of a non-elected president in a depressed economy, and the opportunity to take over the world's second largest oil supply. If Iraq didn't have oil, we wouldn't be there.

---

I agree with you again. There are MANY other places that have horrible governments, and have terrorists groups. Iraq is one in many.



Why are we there? Is it oil?



I have two answers, one is...I would say you are right about our country being deeply concerned about oil. Because we are dependent upon it. But I don't think that alone led to war. There was of course, the Oil for food program...and we have other countries that we get oil from. But we could always use another one. And maybe one that will sell it cheap.



We need to knock that off, but there it is.



I'm not convinced though that it's solely or mainly oil that has prompted this war. Oil, I feel, is a 'fortunate' by product. My cynicial side would say that G. Bush is, instead, desperate to prove he is fighting a solid war against terrorism. He legitmately believed reports that Iraq might be getting close to nuclear weapons. He also believed that Sadaam is a threat to national security. Conviently enough, we had already gotten the UN to put a resoultion against the guy, and we were even able to pass another one. Surely no one would care if we went in and took the guy out? It isn't like he's Mr. Congeniality. Right? Right? Guys?



I think he seriously miscalculated. And failed. FAILED to leave any doors open for ANY other soultion other than war.



I don't think there is one BIG, Sole reason why we are there. I expressed reservations before we went, and I still have those. But we are there...



And I think we can take out the monster. I believe too, that the monster would have hurt us, and still will if he can. I believe that the monster hated and hates us. I believe, more than that, that he would kill us. As many as he could.



I guess, like everyone, I want our troops to come back home soon and be treated like heroes, which I believe they are.



I want the Iraqi people to be hurt as little as possible by the people that have chosen, without being asked, to liberate them.



I have many hopes about what we will do after we have won. But I have as many doubts.

Edited by: mariacomet at: 3/30/03 5:26:30 pm

[darkmagicwillow]

---

I wonder what will happen if Iraq...most of Iraq does not see us a liberators. Do we say to ourselves then, that they simply have not tasted freedom?

---

The UK and the US are unfortunately the worst two nations to be seen as liberators of Iraq, as they're the two colonial powers that dominated the country in modern times. The UK occupied Iraq after WWI, then passed the country off into the US sphere of influence after WWII. Others have pointed out how the US supported Hussein and abandoned the Kurdish and Shiite revolutions against Hussein after the Gulf War. A real coalition force could have been a tremendous benefit, as it would have had much more credibility with the Iraqis and the Arab world in general. Instead, Arabs and Iranians are entering Iraq in large numbers to help fight the US and UK.



Let me echo Gatito Grande's sentiments that despite disagreeing with most of your post, I appreciate how well you expressed your thoughts and how you came to them.

--

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

[Kieli]

Very well written post. I disagree with several points mostly because I think you put too much stock in some of the things you've read (might I inquire which journalistic writings you have been reading? I'm curious to know if they are non-partisan enough as to be accurate).

Quote:

---

I thought about that. To have nothing. In this country, one can be homeless, and yet still see signs of prosperity all around. There are organization, imperfect but present, that even will try and help. But what if I lived somewhere where all was poverty save the elite. Where there was no organization to help me. No example of a better life. Where there was no issue of 'getting back on my feet' because everything was desolate.

---

As I read your quote here I have to wonder why you are not arguing just as vehemently for us to be involved with Africa or Bosnia or South America or Central America or even Cuba for that matter; any and all other places that have the exact same problems as Iraq does? Want to know why? It's because they have nothing else to offer the US. Iraq has OIL and that commodity is obviously worth going in and deposing the man we put into power in order to keep that black gold flowing. There is no patriotic reason, although I'm sure terrorism is more of a valid reason than any to consider Iraq a threat if there were proof. The US was given the task of bearing the burden of proof and has failed miserably. That fact you cannot even argue is false. Just read your own periodicals and the statements by Colin Powell and Dubya. Their cases were so weak and paper thin that the UN required they find something more concrete. The US did not do so.

Quote:

---

I believe, with every part of me, that there are things worth dying (edited to correct the spelling error) for. Things, even, worth killing for. Even if that killing is utterly most heartbreakingly regrettable.

---

And tell me, what in Iraq is worth killing and dying for? Had the enemy tribes of Iraq asked point blank for our help, that might be the case. Since they did not, we had no right to go in and interfere without PROOF. Like any good legal case that is to be tried, proof must be acquired. Although reasonable doubt may be brought up, it should not be the sole reason to try and convict.

Quote:

---

With all due respect to the Peace Protestors, your arguments of death in Iraq, have not moved me. Because death was already occurring. I keep reading and I keep getting different numbers on how many die every year in Iraq. But one thing that is consistent in all the numbers I read is that it's 1000's upon thousands. Killed. Tortured. Raped.

---

No disrespect but you're overstating the obvious. These things happen in MANY other countries yet we do not even bother to help the people in those countries. Look at Chechnya, look at Honduras, look at those hundreds of thousands killed, tortured, raped and starved to death in Somalia and other warring African nations where the innocent victims are civilians (men, women and children) who pay the price. We refuse to heed their calls, so what makes Iraq so special?

Quote:

---

This is what I believe, out of what I have read. This is what I believe, out of what I have read. That death was occurring to any and all that dared oppose Sadaam. And yet no one seemed concerned about that death...until now. So this argument about death, yes it is horrible...but because the protests that speak of death just started and death in Iraq is hardly new....I say those statements are self serving. Basically, it's okay if people die and are tortured, as long as America, and Britain don't get their hands dirty.

---

And what exactly have you read? Can we see your quoted proof of these statements? And your argument is just as self serving if you ignore the fact that the US and Britian have ignored other countries that are just as bad, if not worse off, than Iraq. The US gets its hands dirty only when it serves its own ends.

Quote:

---

I see that argument. But I think - their legacy, their future WAS death. Years of it. Because I do not believe that Sadaam Hussein was going to start changing his tactics on that level. Ever.

---

Unless you're a qualified political analyst or are gifted with second sight, you or I can never know this to be true. Unless you have unshakeable concrete proof, you cannot even posit this as fact.

Quote:

---

I don't believe that Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney wanted this war purely based on oil profits or election results. I disagree with anyone that compares Blair or Cheney to Hitler. I think the comparison is ridiculous. If ALL Hitler had done was wage his wars, he would have killed tens of thousands. THAT is not why we think of him as evil. That is not why he is hated. It is not that he waged wars. It was his purposeful attempt to extinguish the bright flame of a people because they were born different than what he deemed as 'perfect.' We hate and fear Hitler because we recognize in ourselves that it could have happened to any of us, depending on the madman in power.

---

I think your reply on this one is more emotional and not logical. IF you knew the history and were able to examine the parallels LOGICALLY, you will see that the comparison of Bush to Hitler is justified. You, like many others, are mistaking my comparison of Bush the President to Hitler for Bush the Man. The two comparisons are distinctly different. Bush the Man is far and away different from Hitler the Man. Bush the President, however, is following down the same awful road to Hell paved with good intentions. If you REALLY want to know and understand the parallel, I can show you in great and thorough logical detail. THAT is what is required to understand the comparison and not overly emotional sentiment for our Republican President.

Quote:

---

So, with that, let me allow for the possibility that the President believed that disarming Iraq was the best way to assist in long term national security.

---

Hitler thought that world domination and exterminating the Jews was the best way to assist in long term national German security too. And your point is?

Quote:

---

Having said that, I don't appreciate Mr Moore (at the Oscars) saying things like, 'We don't agree with this war.' Who the hell is we? Who is he assuming he speaks for there?

---

I think Mr. Moore felt justified in using the collective "we" in speaking for all dissenters of the war and not necessarily for all Americans. True, he could have phrased it differently. But I'm sure that he knew he was not speaking for all Americans.

Quote:

---

Though, the numbers do back me up. And I don't believe that the Gallup polls are so infinitely flawed. Cnn polls, sure. They have no...no scientific basis. But Gallup does. Are those polls off a bit? Certainly. Even Gallup admits this.

---

ALL polls that are announced by the mass media are flawed because most often than not they fail to educate the masses about poll sampling size, margin of error and other variables that affect their polls. That is FAR more than 15%. And thus, the numbers don't really back you up. In all honesty, we may never really know what the numbers say or mean at all until you know those other facts. You can not make a judgment call or posit something as fact until you are absolutely sure that it is fact. The mass media know that most people won't even stop to consider this and that's why they've been able to get away with swaying public opinion using obvious logical fallacies.

Quote:

---

Also, I don't understand the protestors that destroy, that stone, that riot, that break the law. Complaining that there is too much death and destruction, and then putting yourself and others in harms way, as well as causing destruction doesn't make sense to me.

---

Umm, most of the protests have been peaceful and non-violent. At least the American ones have. If you are speaking of overseas protests, it would behoove you to make that distinction lest ALL of us dissenters and protestors think you are lumping us all in one unruly ball.

Quote:

---

I am a bit boggled by the intensity of Anti-American/British sentiment. Sincerely. Maybe it's fear. That whole, 'regime change' idea. Maybe it is, as some have suggested, past foreign policy. Maybe that was a kettle waiting to boil. May it was Mr. Bush's 'go war go' attitude. But the sentiments seem very deep and not recent. Maybe it's the Palestine question. And if it is, is there a way for us to win? If we help, if we don't, if we stay out of it...how do we win in that situation? No matter what we do, don't we, in fact get hated by someone?



I wonder if some of it is our prosperity. Do we really seem so arrogant? And if so, how? Why?

---

If you have EVER been overseas to visit another country and have watched your fellow American tourists in action with their arrogance and condescension, you wouldn't need to ask the question. You would already know. It's even in the news how Americans constantly restate our superiority as a "superpower", like we don't have to follow the same rules as the rest of the world. Case in point, Bush and cronies have protested vehemently that Iraq is violating the Geneva Convention. Why should they if the US blatantly violates the dictates of the UN? This is not "do as I say not as I do", folks. We live in this world and if everyone else has to abide by the rules, so should we, no matter how much it hurts. Sanctimony doesn't sit well with other countries and it should not.

Quote:

---

I see us as generous, and well meaning. But not perfect, and not without gross abuses of power. During the cold war, we did much to protect what we considered our self interests. But so did Russia. And the world was a much different place then.

---

Just the Cold War? How long has it been since you've picked up a history text or watched the news? The US has been doing it since WWI. How could you have missed that?

Quote:

---

We helped Japan rebuild. But was this enough? What is it that we are paying for in the court of public opinion, and how...can we heal the rifts?

---

A little humility from the US could've gone a long way. We helped sway the court of public opinion many times over with our lackadaisical attitudes and indifference to the rest of the world, so totally convinced we were of our own moral superiority. So Iraq can't have nukes and N. Korea can't have nukes but we can? Who says? And what makes them less fit than us?

Quote:

---

Yet, I believe, that sometimes it is a valid choice. Even with how terrible it is. I believe that the Iraqi people will be better off because of this war. If we keep our promises. I hope we will.

---

Oh you mean like we kept our promises to the Afghans, while their people still suffer in poverty and starvation and their government that we promised to help rebuild is still a shambles and threatens to topple with every passing second? No disrespect intended, but to think the US will honour its promises is naive at best.



I don't say these things to demean you, mariacomet. I hope we've all helped each other analyze things in greater detail and scrutinize our own opinions and beliefs. This has to be done logically or we do no one a service. There is also still a great deal we don't know and may never know. But I for one would rather look at this clearly. I may be against the war, true, but that makes it that much more important for me to assess its causes and effects more clearly.



ETA: I always thought that "gay conservative Republican" was an oxymoron like "black conservative Republican". Somehow neither of the two make any sense to me.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 3/30/03 6:02:52 pm

[mariacomet]

darkmagicwillow

Quote:

---

The UK and the US are unfortunately the worst two nations to be seen as liberators of Iraq, as they're the two colonial powers that dominated the country in modern times.

---

I'm not sure I see the USA as colonial, but I agree with the heart of our post, in that....we have had NO luck in the libreration business. None. Zero. In fact, we tend to leave things in shambles.



In fact, we seemed to never learn what most children know...that we should clean up our messes.

I hope, with all my heart, that this time is different.

Quote:

---

Others have pointed out how the US supported Hussein and abandoned the Kurdish and Shiite revolutions against Hussein after the Gulf War.

---

Again, you have my total and complete agreement.



Kieli



Let me say that I know how well read you are, and that I doubt I have read as much as you have. I try and read and then form opinions. But I think, all things considers, I have gone out of my way to be informed.



It kinda seemed like what you were saying is that I would think differently if I had read more on the topic. As I noted, I try very hard to be well read so I'm not sure how to take that.



None the less, most of what I read, comes from the media... bbc,cnn, foxnews, abc.... and then I try and hit sites like iraqidaily, and yahoo has a pretty solid variety. (nytimes, ipsnews.net, etc)

Quote:

---

As I read your quote here I have to wonder why you are not arguing just as vehemently for us to be involved with Africa or Bosnia or South America or Central America or even Cuba for that matter;

---

I would love for us to do something about those countries. But I, like you, don't think we will. In my post, I expressed this - my doubt about why we needed to go to Iraq and why it had to be NOW.



if we were in Cuba, NOW, I would have the same hopes that I do for Iraqi. I did not agree with the war beforehand, i was uncertain. I had reservations. But i did not disagree either. I thought the timing was off, that there were other options, and I questioned that iraq was our biggest threat in this day and age.

Quote:

---

Their cases were so weak and paper thin that the UN required they find something more concrete.

---

I don't agree. I think we had concrete reasons,certainly concrete enough for another resoultion to be passed. It was in a case for war where we failed to be convincing, not concrete. And I believe that part of this was due to Mr. Bush's 'I will if I want to' approach.



If you look back to what I posted, I think you and I agree on a lot of our concerns, though not on all of our conclusions.

Quote:

---

Just the Cold War? How long has it been since you've picked up a history text or watched the news? The US has been doing it since WWI. How could you have missed that?

---

Okay, there a lot of thing that you had to say that were very much like this one. With as much thought as I put into what I had to say, I am a little insulted. There was, unless I am strongly misreading you, a lot of insinuation that I have no idea what I am talking about. I don't think that gives me any credit and I don't feel like telling what I think to someone that assumes because I don't agree that I am illogical, reacting emotionally, or not as well read as they are.



I never make that assumption and I expect the same courtesy in return. I will discuss points of view till the cows come home, but not with someone who refuses to accept that my points of view have even the possibility of being valid and well-thought out.



Everyone has a valid view on this war. I totally understand why people aren't celebrating in the streets because we are in Iraq. I hope that we are all able to respect one another without invalidating eachother.

Edited by: mariacomet at: 3/30/03 6:32:20 pm

[Kieli]

MC: I don't consider opinions to be concrete enough to say for a FACT that your POV is correct. I'm sorry if you feel that I'm saying that you don't know what you're talking about. What I am saying is, I want to know the basis for your opinions. I would like some hardcore facts that you can quote that led you to the conclusions that you have. I can understand your argument better than way and it won't seem as emotional or reactionary. I would really like to know how much of the history that you've studied and read with a critical eye that leads you to believe that the comparison between Hitler and Bush is totally unfounded (other than your personal feelings on the matter). Like I said before, people tend to take well thought out arguments seriously but logically laid arguments even more so.



I'm not disrespecting your opinion. I just have my doubts about how logical it truly is. If you had read the thirteen or some odd pages of this thread, you will see that I said the same thing to a couple of others. It is more crucial that we look at this situation lucidly, now more than ever. So many lives are at stake and the US reputation is set to be completely destroyed. We've been threatening allies none so subtly, we've marched into a country to make war without the consent of the UN, we've pretty much thumbed our nose at the world. That can so NOT be taken lightly.



I would like to think that all of our journalistics sites are reporting unbiased, hard cold facts but the truth of the matter is, I think they've all been whipped into line as is evidenced by one reporter who was suspended from his job because he wanted to go and report actual FACTS on the protests going on in San Francisco www.sfbg.com/37/26/news_arrests.html Logical fallacies are so much a part of mass media nowadays, no one even stops to think that they (mass media) might indeed be wrong. A list of fallacies, their definitions and how they show up in our everyday usage (gncurtis.home.texas.net/)

Quote:

---

I don't agree. I think we had concrete reasons,certainly concrete enough for another resoultion to be passed. It was in a case for war where we failed to be convincing, not concrete. And I believe that part of this was due to Mr. Bush's 'I will if I want to' approach.

---

I disagree. The UN inspectors found no incriminating evidence and while Mr. Powell's "evidence" was not convincing it was also NOT concrete enough to be convincing. However, with respect to Mr. Powell, I'm sure that the evidence damning enough to Iraq to convince the UN of the war's necessity was classified information that could not be released.

Quote:

---

Okay, there a lot of thing that you had to say that were very much like this one. All pretty much insinuating that I have no idea what I am talking about. I don't think that gives me any credit and I don't feel like telling what I think to someone that assumes because I don't agree that I am illogical, reacting emotionally, or not as well read as they are.



I never make that assumption and I expect the same courtesy in return. I will discuss points of view till the cows come home, but not with someone who refuses to accept that my points of view have even the possibility of being valid and well-thought out.



I can't debate or discuss an issue when someone constantly says back to me that I have no clue.

---

That's your choice. However, usually the purpose of debate is to prove one's position. I always go into a debate assuming nothing. My observations were from your words. If you have provided more information other than "gut feeling", it might have persuaded me. You don't have to answer my posts anymore if you feel that I am offending you. I feel that you're reading into my words. Since when is asking someone to support their position more fully considered making the person think they're stupid?

Quote:

---

See what I mean? You keep seeming to imply my stance is illogical. I don't think it is.

---

I disagree. I think your stance is very emotional and heartfelt. But logical? I won't know until you lay it out for me. No one is invalidating your stance. However, to me it seems as if your stance is based solely on emotion. Is there any other support you can give to it so that I may better understand your position?



Edited because apparently EZCode is beyond my capabilities these days

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 3/30/03 6:59:55 pm

[bzengo]

mariacomet,



Will you trust me when I say I'm not out to attack you?

Quote:

---

You keep seeming to imply my stance is illogical. I don't think it is.

---

I don't think you're stance is illogical; I think the fundamental ground on which you are standing is misinformed.



I don't have any answer for that, except reading, and questioning your fundamental assumptions.



Here are some assumptions you might question, and some questions you might ask:



- Can I trust what the current administration is telling me?



- Who in the current administration and its political contributors are/will be making money from the current war, the destroyed Iraq infrastructure, and the post-war period? (Hint: Halliburton, the firm Dick Cheney was CEO of already has been given no-bid contracts. Look at the contributions by Exxon and Shell to the Bush campaign.)



- What is the relationship between 9/11 and Iraq? Why does Bush say there is a connection, when no connection has ever been shown? What motive does Bush have for fooling – by the last poll – half of the US population into thinking Iraq was responsible for 9/11?



- What does the US think Iraq has as weapons of mass destruction? What proof from the US intelligence services was provided of these WMD to the rest of the world? What was the reaction of the rest of the world to this "proof"? (Hint: The UN Inspectors called them “crude forgeries”)



Listen - you have an open heart, which wants to learn. In my view, you lack an informed base from which to understand what is actually going on. So learn. Do the reading, do the work.



It isn’t just that we disagree with you – many of us used to think the same way you do, just as there are people on this board who are GLBT who at a certain point in their life didn’t yet realize they were. I’m suggesting that if you spend time looking at the world through a certain set of reading, through a certain set of texts, you will see this war in a completely different way. And you’ll wonder afterwards, how you ever saw the war the way you do now.



Something bad is going on - no kidding. But you have to look past the pre-digested pap the American media feeds you, and learn to surf the textuality of the world's media, and think it through for yourself. Or not. Its completely up to you.



So, if you want, feel free to start at my blog site, which I just started, literally today: Bastard Zen The various links there will take you to some places which will stretch your thinking about this conflict.



No one here is out to make a fool of you.



Best,

bzengo


Robert A. Heinlein The Earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep all your eggs.

Prof. Gerard K. O'Neill Is the surface of the Earth really the right place for an expanding technological civilization?

Edited by: bzengo at: 3/30/03 7:14:37 pm

[jixer]

Hello Kittens-



Just a quick question for Kieli, who may have answered this already but if so I missed it-



Is your lady home yet? Not that I worry. Nope. Not me.



By the way, saw your picture on that thread-way cuuute couple





Jixer

[Kieli]

LMAO! I love ya, Jix, I really do Diana is thankfully home but now she wants to drag me off to Germany for two weeks! I told her she's absolutely mad traveling overseas at a time like this Thanks for the compliment



mariacomet: Ummm what Bzengo said, yeah yeah that's the ticket. You know me personally so you know I have the whole "blunt to the point of insanity" problem. I really am not trying to insult you.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

[bzengo]

Kieli - (((smooch)))

[mariacomet]

Kieli



The day you and I agree on politics I will put Ketchup on my

Han Solo limited edition action figure and eat it on a sandwich.



I love you anyway, and I think you know that. We're both very passionate, no?



bzengo - I had written a brillant post back to you, but Internet explorer crashed on me.



So let me try and sum up.



- I don't trust the government period. This administration or any other.



- I don't believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11 directly. I am aware that there is no proof that Iraq is tied to Al Queda. (probably mispelled) I believe that Iraq has/does

fund other terrorists groups that use the same tactics and have the same idealogy as Al Queda. And it's possible that some monies and supplies from these groups or the

Iraqi regime may have gone to Al Queda - in general.



There is some evidence that other countries have also given money to Al Queda. Saudi Arabia, for one. Though it's believed that was for 'protection.' Yet we are not

going to war against Saudi Arabia. I understand the lack of continuity. I have read about the forged documents the US took as conclusive proof. I sat through Mr. Powell's

presentation to the UN, as well as the Iraqi response.



I went to Mr. Moore's websight and read so I could hear his entire view. I also listened to an interview with Tim Robbins. I ALSO have read articles from the BBC and the Iraqi news. I have saught out sources for and against. I have searched for both impartial and biased sources. Conservative and liberal. I have not read everything, and do not pretend I have. But I have read more than many, though not as much as some.



I am not a sheep, and my view is developed by both reading and thinking. Certainly others know more than I do. You, with your background, are very likely one of those people. But

I submit to you that even if I had read everything you had ever read on Iraq or Bush, I would not necessarily come to the same conclusions.



- I am aware that Cheney holds investments in companies that will help re-build Iraq. I think this is wrong. I believe that no one in the circle of power involved in deciding a war should profit from that war. But I don't think he or Bush are sending us to war simply to make a few bucks. As for oil, I said it before and I'll say it again, I think oil is a 'fortunate' by product. I think Bush thought he would show the American people that he was fighting terror. I think he believed that war on Iraq was something he could either get agreement on or that no one would judge us for, if we ignored the UN. I also believe he had some valid points. About a hostile regime and about the UN backing it's own decrees. I think recent events is a symbol of failure both for the US and the UN. What we needed was unity and thoughtful leadership. I don't believe we got that. But I believe that Bush pushed things to a head much sooner than neccessary.



I Always questioned....why now? And why now in Iraq?



But war, I think, was the only way Sadaam would have ever disarmed.



- Iraq has many things they have not accounted for, including Anthrax. They have not let inspectors freely interview scientists. Without bugs, or the scientists being threatened. They would not allow spy planes from the US or any other country without 24 hours notice on the flight plan. They would destroy some weapons. But not all. And they kept making excuses, in my opinion.



Certainly Iraq is not what it once was - the 4th largest army in the world. But a lot of that is due to what we discovered during the Gulf War and after. The desire for these weapons and this kind of force has not, I believe, changed.



I believe I have done a lot of work. A lot of reading. A lot of thought. I look at what is given to me via the media with a critical eye. But I am always willing to read more. Because I, by no means, know everything.



I've gone to other Blog sites. Blog is not a term I had heard before the war in Iraq. Most of the sites I have gone to are Soldier blogs. Yours should provide a different view point. Which is not a bad thing.



I am grateful that there are those that protest the war. It is a questionable one. We, as a country, are taking actions that should be challenged and debated.



Because woe to us, if we talked 'regime change' and no one said a word. That would terrify me. As it is, I was and remain, concerned.

[BeatNikJackie7777]

Quote:

---

As I read your quote here I have to wonder why you are not arguing just as vehemently for us to be involved with Africa or Bosnia or South America or Central America or even Cuba for that matter;

---

A friend of mine asked me today why the US isnt involved in other countries with oppressive regimes if we're so interested in liberation. I'll never understand the argument against war and world-policing that argues for more wars and world-policing in order to prove our good intentions.



I have however, tried to think about the war by comparing Iraq to Cuba, because as an american born to cuban parents, I would be for US intervention in Cuba. My parents and grandparents know the great nation Cuba once was, and it would be great to see it thrive again (let's try to avoid arguing about the embargo if we can



As for this war, while we're all over the map in terms of our opinions, as is the nation, we have to face the facts. We may be anti-war as much as we want, but at this point this war must go on. We cant stop halfway. Even if the bush administration decides tommorrow that they dont want to wage this war anymore, they have to see it through. What are we going to tell the Iraqi people? We bombed the heck out of your country AND we're leaving Saddam there? Again?

Edited by: BeatNikJackie7777 at: 3/30/03 9:23:46 pm

[bzengo]

I would say, Cuba doesn't have anything we want, bad enough to send troops to die.



In Iraq, they have something we want.



We have US soldiers right now (or in the past six months), fighting and being killed in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Venezuela, and Iraq. All four have massive amounts of oil, or US backed oil pipelines.



How 'bout that?

bzengo


Robert A. Heinlein The Earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep all your eggs.

Prof. Gerard K. O'Neill Is the surface of the Earth really the right place for an expanding technological civilization?

[BeatNikJackie7777]

Last I read the US millitary was in Venezuela for flood relief in an article from the associated press, but I dont remember when that was.



Last I heard as well, US soldiers were in the Philippines working WITH the Philippines' government and millitary on anti-terror related activities. The Philippines is also a part of the coalition if i'm not mistaken.



I guess im just with the group here that thinks there are dozens of easier ways to get Iraqi oil than war. Well, maybe not dozens, but certainly a few So I think oil is an incentive, but certainly not the whole reason.

Edited by: BeatNikJackie7777 at: 3/30/03 9:50:22 pm

[dekalog]

pip - you might want to check out the new book by Susan Sontag "Regarding the Pain of Others" - it deals specifically about what you are talking about. We (as a society) have been fed a daily diet of images, and there does come a saturation point where you just don't feel anymore. She talks about a great many things and its a great book - and for the question you are posing for yourself I think it might give some insights.



bzengo - another interesting one is http://www.warblogging.com

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

We may be anti-war as much as we want, but at this point this war must go on.

---

While I reject this contention (U.S./Brit attacks continuing until Iraq is conquered, destroyed or both), it does raise a fair question: what, exactly would you like to see happen now?



I look forward to hearing from those far better informed (past and present) than I.



GG IMHO, whatever it is, it should be decided by the U.N. Out

[Pipsqueak]

Thanks for the suggestion, dekalog. That book certainly sounds interesting, and you're right, that's exactly what I'm going through. I'll definitely check it out!

Live each day as if it were your last; and one day, you'll be right.
| Pipsqueak's Music Videos |