The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[Diebrock]

Jimmi wrote:

Quote:

---

Diebrock, I have heard/read that the war in Iraq has so far cost the lives of 12.000 Iraqi military personel and 8.000 Iraqi civilians (that number is supposedly from 7,500 to 9,500). You wouldn't happen to have/know anywhere I can get some information on those numbers?

---

It's very difficult to get any confirmed numbers of Iraqi casualties. One of the sites I know about is the Iraq Body Count. They are based in Britain and count the media and military reported civilian deaths. Since that doesn't include the deaths resulting from unexplodet bombs, lack of medicine (or general hospital equipment that got carted off while the invaders guarded the oil ministry and the oil wells), contaminated water, victims of crime and so on, the actual numbers will obviously be higher.

As for the the military casualties, I have only read in various articles that it's higher than 10.000. Nothing more concrete than that.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

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

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

However, I hate what Dubya has done as President of my country. I believe his policies, both foreign and domestic, have been disastrous, for Americans and the rest of the world, for us and our children and grandchildren.

---

I am very much in agreement with this statement. While it pains me to admit that, in a few of my not-so-nice moments, I'm not very kind in my comments about Dubya (Diana unfortunately gets to hear the worst of my rantings), I don't wish death or severe misfortune on anyone. And I don't need to be a Christian to think that way (not to imply that you said this, of course....it's kind of something that Diana and I have been wrangling over for years as she is a devout Christian....we're quite an odd pair...me a total atheist and her a very God-centered person...go figure )



DMW is quite accurate in her history....there is something that I also wish to add to her notations. Pope Pius X was also seen as having a "relationship" with Nazi Germany and getting on quite well with Hitler. Now that particular subject has been up for many types of interpretation; however, if indeed that were true, very few European nations would even remotely think of going against the Pope. His word held a great deal of political weight in those turbulent times.

Quote:

---

If Europe had responded when Hitler Annexed Austria maybe Hitler could have been stopped.Hitler's war machine was designed to fight an offensive war.If they would have attacked when he broke the first part of the armistice millions might not have died.

---

To be honest, there was a lot of anti-semitism going on in the US at the time, both in Congress and amongst some of the upper class families that were part of an ad hoc ruling class. Thus, there wasn't much support for getting involved in dealing with Hitler. Plus, the US really didn't consider him much of a threat to their own homeland security. Only Pearl Harbor was enough to get us involved in December of 1941. Sure the Atlantic Charter that FDR and Churchill drafted in August of 1941 was done to outline their determination to deal with the war and condemning Nazism but all the US did was agree to lend money and materiel to Britian initially. The US never wanted to get involved.



However, and this is key, the racial conflicts that WWII brought up at home only strengthened Presidential resolve to clamp down on racial hysteria (i.e. media hyping Japanese, Germans and Italians as evil....kind of like a 1940's Axis of Evil). Granted the subsequent rioting and demonstrations that resulted brought even more turmoil to an already tense world situation but it help to speed up the process of getting equal rights for minorities. Unlike Bush, FDR did far more to deal with racial hysteria as a result of the war.

Quote:

---

I am for diplomacy as long as it is from a position of strength and we are dealing with people who are trustworthy.

---

IMHO, diplomacy works best not where military strength is involved, but where cooler heads prevail to work out an amicable agreement without all the boisterous posturing of schoolyard bullies. There was no diplomacy involved in dealing with Iraq. It was more like "Do what we tell you to or else." Nothing good can come from that.

Quote:

---

And, just in general, it's the hypocrisy of the US pretending to be righteous in everything it does abroad, pretending to be outraged that someone, somewhere, would be so evil as to train terrorists when the US has been doing that very thing for decades.

---

Indeed. I can't tell you how much I've been ranting about this lately. The dog is tired of hearing me go on about it *chuckle*

Quote:

---

If you want to pick a good comparison country and ruler from the World War 2 era, try the dictator Miklos Horthy of Hungary. It's a much more accurate comparison, both in terms of the threat represented and any crimes committed.

---

Do you think Stalin was also a threat? I found a very interesting little site on "friendly dictators"...dictators whom the US called friends that committed atrocities that make you cringe: Friendly Dictators.

Quote:

---

Re: Kosovo: I would never argue that Clinton's bombing campaign "brought peace." However, there was a genocide-in-progress, and I can't really object (very much) to the U.S. taking its usual "method of intervention" (i.e. w/ guns and bombs) to stop it.

---

I agree....we also were trying to hold up our end in supporting our NATO allies. We had nothing else to really gain, material-wise, from our intervention in Kosovo other than it was necessary to remove Milosevic before he destroyed his nation down to its very foundation. There was no oil to be exploited, Serbia had no resources we desperately needed. There were just people who needed help. Yale History Professor Lee Blackwood sums up his observations of American involvement in the Kosovo Conflict in an article for the Yale Herald:



If the NATO offensive is intensified, Blackwood noted that further American involvement may not be necessary, since Kosovo is primarily a European problem, but that it could be a factor in ending the crisis. "The NATO forces are mostly British, Italian, and French, and only about 4,000 Americans are involved," he said. "The United States doesn't have to play a greater role. But the record demonstrates that NATO is incapable of acting decisively without American leadership because of the technological superiority of American military and the inability of major European states to arrive at a

consensus."(Yale Professor Analyzes NATO's Role in Kosovo Crisis)

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[willowrulz4ever]

I saw soimething tonight that really bothers me.I was helping sort can food tonight for a homeless shelter after church.I got home and watched a program I taped on FNC about hunger in the US.There was this guy from the Heritage foundation saying hunger was not a problem in this country. .He said the only people who were hungry were those who were toolazy to work.That is BS.My cousin supports her daughter's three kids cuase their mom comitted suicide.She works three jobs and for the last 3 or 4 days before payday she goes without so her gradkids can have enough.I was told since I was 12 that the heritage foundation has all the right ideas.I went to their website for the first time. .My God is this what I have been supporting.The guy siad if grown adults can't make enough that is their problem.I believed in compassionate conservatism,that conservative beliefs were the best way to help the poor.These people do not give a damn about the poor.If you are poor it is your fault,shut up and suffer.That is not what I am about.



They think people like me should be in jail not rehab.I was reading this and i was horrified. was an undiagnosed Bipolar for years.I turned to uppers when I was in the depressive so I would not kill myself.I guess if I had a heart attack I should be put in jail as well.



Man,I was expecting to see this program and be more certain that liberals were niavely hurting the poor and we were helping them.Maybe I am the one who is niave.I feel so damn stupid.What else am I wrong about?



Is my pastor wrong?He says that conservative beliefs are what Jesus was about?But it is not just the HF,I went to 6 conservative websites.These people think I am a joke.I am wasting my time going to the homeless shelter.These men need a kick in the butt not a handout.I was on the street for 2 weeks before rehab.i took jobs like claening stables for 20-30$ a day plus what I could get for carrying groceries at shopping centers..I had to spend that on a flea bag hotel,if not for soup kitchens I do not kinow what I would have done.



I am not lazy.but I was hungry.I only found work 5 days.I had to deal with withdrawl,hunger and homelessness at the same time.And these wankers say I am just a freeloader who deserved to be homeless.



Ronnie

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

Man,I was expecting to see this program and be more certain that liberals were niavely hurting the poor and we were helping them.Maybe I am the one who is niave.I feel so damn stupid.What else am I wrong about?



Is my pastor wrong?He says that conservative beliefs are what Jesus was about?

---

Like the Prodigal Son, you have "come to yourself" (Luke 15:17): the beginning of wisdom, my friend. Take a bow!



GG You wanna know what Jesus was about? Don't trust *any* pastor (much less me )---Read the Gospels yourself! Micah 6:8 is also good: "Do justice, and love kindness, and walk humbly w/ your God." Out



Shutting up about religion on this thread already, Kieli, promise!

[Kieli]

, Batman! I'm not against anyone having religious beliefs, GG There are enough decent Christians to balance out my heretical stance, I suppose *chuckle* In this particular case, I happen to agree with your quote (surprisingly enough, I do actually know the Bible....and the Quran....and a few choice other religious texts...just for curiousity's sake ).

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[The Partisan]

Tuesday primaries came and went, more or less as expected. Kerry looks poised to take 5 of the 7 states tonight, with Edwards taking S. Carolina, and as of this posting, Oklahoma's too close to call (between Clark, Edwards, Kerry).



With such a strong showing, I think Kerry's pretty much a lock for the nomination. Expect Lieberman, Sharpton, and Kucinich to drop soon...maybe Clark, too, depending how Oklahoma winds up.



Dean seems to be trying some kind of a rope-a-dope tactic and holding his powder until Feb. 17th and Washington, but I think, by now, the hemorraghing is too great, and his goose is cooked.



Edwards will be making a respectable showing, and demonstrating that he's a strong candidate as a VP potential to Kerry (though I still believe Kerry, if he wins, will pick someone outside this field of candidates) and in general bolstering his political career. His message is being read as optimistic and uplifting, which is fielding fairly well.

[Kieli]

Think Kerry might pick Hillary as a running mate? It's just a really wild thought. Who better to choose if he's planning on picking an outside candidate? I think it would behoove him to choose a VP candidate that is not among the also-rans for the Presidency. A fresh face and a new perspective might give the Democratic side some new life.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[The Partisan]

That's a really interesting proposition, but I doubt it'll happen...Kerry'll probably want someone who will play better down south (Someone like an Edwards, but my hunch is it won't be him, specifically). Get a list of southern democrats and start throwing darts at a board.

[willowrulz4ever]

Picking Hillary for a running mate is the worst thing that Kerry or Edwards could do.Nothing would mobilize the Conservative base like the thought of Hilary one heartbeat from the presidency.Believe me I know.Let us see they call her Hitlary,Godzillary, there is a joke that they should have impeached president clinton and her husband too.Coservatives despise Hillary.Nothing will get them to turn out for Bush like the thought of Hillary as Vice President.



If i were the Winner I would pick a dem who was a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.I really believe that Lieberman allowed Gore to get the vote of moderate republicans who see Bush as too extreme.Max Cleland would be a great choice.He is a vet,has a voting record that is middle of the road with slight conservative tendencies when it comes to fiscal stuff.One of the most important things a politician can do in conservative eyes when it comes to legislation is ask,how are we going to pay for this.Max does that.That is why i voted for him in 02. The hardcore are going to vote for Bush regardless,but a Leiberman or Cleland might give the dem candidate some moderate republican "party hoppers'.There are those in the Republican Party who are just as dissatisfied with Bush as any liberal.



This is going to be a close election the moderates and undecided are going to make the difference.



Ronnie

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

Picking Hillary for a running mate is the worst thing that Kerry or Edwards could do.Nothing would mobilize the Conservative base like the thought of Hilary one heartbeat from the presidency.Believe me I know.Let us see they call her Hitlary,Godzillary, there is a joke that they should have impeached president clinton and her husband too.Coservatives despise Hillary.Nothing will get them to turn out for Bush like the thought of Hillary as Vice President.

---

Personally, I think you give the Conservatives far too much credit. They're more concerned about gay marriage and amending the Constitution to restrict the rights of yet another group of people to even worry about Hillary. Sure they may call her names behind her back (what voter doesn't have some pet name for the candidate they despise? ), but that doesn't mean they'll start frothing at the mouth if she gets picked for VP. Name calling is not definitive proof on how they stand on her, one way or the other.



I disagree with picking Lieberman, however. He's made some choices that I don't particularly agree with and I think his stances seem to shift back and forth like a frog on a hot rock.

Quote:

---

This is going to be a close election the moderates and undecided are going to make the difference.

---

This I will agree with. This is going to be one of those nail-biter elections, not only because of the reasons you stated in your quote but I think there is going to be a lot of allegiance shifting due to people's changing views on the war, the economy and, of course, gay rights. Democrats might become Republicans or Independents, Republicans may do the same or become even more conservative than they have been in the past. This might make for some good political observing on the part of us history buffs.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Gatito Grande]

I've posted about Hillary before: I tend to agree w/ Ronnie on this one, the hate for Hillary is visceral (and, needless to say, utterly irrational). It's like the Right has projected onto her *everything* they fear/loathe (and while their extremity on issues has a narrow base, they may be able to generate a cultural hysteria that appeals on that subrational level to a lot of otherwise swing voters).



Regardless, I don't think a Senator from New York (even Hillary) is what Kerry needs to balance the ticket (and while I'm still not wild about Kerry, I agree he's the near-presumptive nominee). Edwards is certainly a possibility---if his and Kerry's relationship is amicable.



But I have to give the inside track (if he agrees) to Bill Richardson. His addition to the ticket locks up California (which, after last fall's debacle, needs locking up) and New Mex (natch'), helps in Arizona (and Florida?) and, I would argue, even puts Texas in play (probably wouldn't win it, but even to put it in play siphons off some of the Bush MegaMillions). Even some of the intermountain states (esp. Colorado) might be tipped---if ever so slightly---by a Southwestern/Mountain governor (they have Latino populations too).



GG Mind you, I'm not crazy about the guy---more conservative than I'd like. But the time is ripe for a Latino on the ticket (where did he get that name again? ), and Richardson certainly has the requisite experience and props for the job. Out



Still pondering my vote on Sunday. Kerry used to say "Don't just send a message, send a President." Thing is, if the President (nominee) has essentially already been sent, why not send a message? So, still leaning Dean (What can I say? I just like the guy, OK? )

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

It's like the Right has projected onto her *everything* they fear/loathe (and while their extremity on issues has a narrow base, they may be able to generate a cultural hysteria that appeals on that subrational level to a lot of otherwise swing voters).

---

I firmly disagree with this but that's maybe because I'm apparently giving the rabid Right too much credit



Colorado and NM have gotten increasingly conservative as of late, despite (or maybe due to) their large latino populations, especially if religion comes into play. I noticed that while living in Texas and viewing the political climate in Colorado and our New Mexico neighbour. Some of it was kinda scary sometimes, I have to say, especially in places like Santa Fe which, until fairly recently, has been notoriously liberal.



I do agree that Kerry was never my choice as a candidate. Oddly, I was leaning toward Clark. Haven't figured out why yet, but I'm sure it will come to me.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[willowrulz4ever]

I know the rabid right.They believe if Hillary becomes president that gays will gain the right to Marry,she will open th borders,invite the UN to take control of the US, make the Republican party illegal,reinstate affirmative action,order medicare to pay for abortion on demand,confiscate fire arms from private citizens, strip Born again Christians of the right to vote,increase the cost of move tickets..etc.I am not making this up,except for the part about movie tickets.Just about every conservative I know holds one of these beliefs.Mine was that she would confiscate all firearms in private hands.NRA Junior member since I was 9.Full member since I was 18.



They are scared to death she will run in 08.Hillary is a feminist,a liberal,pro-choice,anti-gun(at least in their view) and *shudder* a woman who does not take back seat to her husband.Believe me until Sunday I was more than prepared to leave this country and renounce my US citizenship if she was ever elected president.



I believe there are those on the left who hate Bush.I know there are those on the Right who hate both the Clinton's but Hillary mores than Bill.Some believe he just carried out her orders.



Ronnie

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

I know the rabid right. Just about every conservative I know holds one of these beliefs.

---

Every conservative you know does not constitute the Religious Right or even every conservative in America. So there is that slight chance that this is an overgeneralization

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[willowrulz4ever]

I subscribe(ed) to several conservative mags and news letters.Clinton(particulary Hillary)hate is alive and well.







There are conservatives who could care less whether she runs.they are in the minority.The RR's main issues are stopping gay marriage,strengthing marriage as a union between one male and one female,stopping the ACLU(also known as the Anti Christian Liberals Union)stopping what they veiw as filth on TV,defending the 2nd Amendment and passing a constitutional ammendment to ban abortin and make perfrming an abortion 1st degree murder with special circumstances(ie Death penalty offense.).Hillary is veiwed as the crusader for gay marriage,abortion,the ACLU every thing they loathe.



Trust me regardless of who runs they will be out in force but Hillary would get the why bother voting crowd into the boothes.



Of course it might serve to energize the liberal base.I dn't think it will happen though.



Ronnie

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

I subscribe(ed) to several conservative mags and news letters.Clinton(particulary Hillary)hate is alive and well.

---

Subscribing to a few "conservative" magazines, either in the past or the future, does not mean that you know with absolute certainty what the majority of conservatives feel about Hillary. That's like saying the New York Times reports with absolute certainty all of the facts and all of the opinions of everyone in New York City. That argument does not hold up.

Quote:

---

Hillary is veiwed as the crusader for gay marriage,abortion,the ACLU every thing they loathe.

---

I hope you mean only the conservatives that you have actually spoken to or read their specific opinions on the matter. Hillary has been rather silent on gay marriage for the most part, so crusader for gays, she ain't. At least not recently. You might want to read HERE for a bit more information about her stances, HERE about what she's done for gay rights (which isn't very much) and HERE for her legislative record and stance on the issues in general. So I think that the conservatives as a whole might not be paying much attention to her. It's just those few conservatives that have the loudest voice that can be heard that make people assume that all conservatives spew invective about her. In fact, she is really the least of their worries. I also doubt all conservatives hold her responsible for the crap that's on TV, abortion rights (although she does indeed support a woman's right to choose).



Just a few things to think about before assuming that all conservatives do indeed feel the way you suggest. I'd want to see more definitive proof before I'd believe that. That's like saying all liberals are totally and rabidly against Bush. That's not entirely true but I can only know that from my perspective and my observations from the liberals I know. Thus, not all liberals feel this way...probably not even most. The only way to know for sure is to actually ask every single liberal in the country and I doubt that will ever happen.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[willowrulz4ever]

It does not matter what Hillary stands for.What matters is what it is feared she stands for.I am beginning to understand that conservatism is very much about fear.We will have to see what will happen if she runs,until then it is an academic debate only.It will not suprise me if she runs in 08 0r as VP in 04 if you don't see record turnout on bothsides.



Ronnie

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

It does not matter what Hillary stands for.What matters is what it is feared she stands for.

---

You never answered my question...how is it that you know all conservatives think and feel this way? Do you know it to an absolute certainty that this is the very reason why they are opposed to Hillary and not for some other reason?

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[willowrulz4ever]

You are right.

I may be projecting the fears that were ingendered into me onto all conservatives.I admit I am still fighting against attitudes that i have been taught all my lfe.Keep challenging my thinking.I want to change but it is not easy.I still find myself getting mad when people mention abolishing the Bush tax cut.I know it should be abolished after what I found out but I still got mad.Please if I fall back to conservative ways,call me on it.19 years of conditioning does not go away overnight.



If I start talking about bedwetting,or spaghetti spines just remind me.



PS Do ya'll think there is such thing as a jus war?



Ronnie

Edited by: willowrulz4ever at: 2/5/04 9:02 pm

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

PS Do ya'll think there is such thing as a jus war?

---

I think you are talking about a war that a country made a decision to start and not the war of defense that happens as a consequence in the country being invaded, right?



No. There are only times when war may be the lesser of two evils. That doesn't make it just. For example to stop a genocide in progress. And even then it is not just, because to stop the murder of a group of people other innocent people will be murdered. It's the old question of "Would you kill 10 innocents to save 100 others?" If you do nothing 100 die. But if you do sacrifice those 10 and the other 100 live you will still have murdered 10 innocent people. That can't be just. Of course in war the numbers on both sides are always speculation before and after the fact.



War is always a huge failure for all the countries involved and often those not involved too.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

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

[Warduke]

Found this...

Quote:

---

AP Poll Notes Decline in Support for Bush



By WILL LESTER



WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush's public support dropped sharply over the past month, especially among older voters, political independents and people in the Midwest, an Associated Press poll found.



And for the first time, more voters in this poll's two years of tracking the question said they would definitely vote against Bush than said they would definitely vote for him.



Bush's approval rating stood at 47 percent in the AP-Ipsos poll taken in early February, down from 56 percent approval just a month ago. Half, or 50 percent, said they disapproved in the latest poll.



The poll findings marked a difficult month for Bush, as public attention focused on the Democratic presidential primary and the Democrats' daily bashing of the incumbent. The survey came at a time when the public is nervous about the economy and the chief adviser to the administration on Iraqi weapons, David Kay, said last month "we were almost all wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.



Bush's 47 percent approval rating is the same as his father's at this stage in his presidency 12 years ago before he lost to Bill Clinton.



Just under four in 10, 37 percent, said they would definitely vote to re-elect Bush as president, while 43 percent said they would definitely vote for someone else, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Another 18 percent said they would consider voting for someone else.



Other recent polls have shown Democratic front-runner John Kerry with an advantage over Bush in a head-to-head matchup.



A month ago, voters were more inclined to say they would re-elect Bush rather than definitely vote against him by a 41-33 margin.



"Right now, it's a one-sided campaign," said presidential scholar Charles Jones. "The out party is running their nominating process. It's hard for the incumbent to inject himself into the Democrats' campaign."



Bush will make an appearance on NBC-TV's "Meet the Press" program Sunday to talk about his agenda on the campaign against terror and the economy. Bush is likely to step up his campaign against the Democrats once they settle on a nominee.



"We have, from the beginning, recognized that this will be a marathon," said Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman. "We always anticipated a tough hard-fought contest."



Mehlman said an incumbent president is often at his most difficult point right before it is clear who the opponent will be. "When people focus more on the choice, numbers historically have changed," Mehlman said. Bush's approach of lower taxes, less lawsuits and less regulation will resonate with voters, he said.



The public perception of Bush and of the nation's economy slumped in the early February poll. Just over four in 10 said the country is headed in the right direction, while just over half said the country was on the wrong track. People were about evenly split on this question in early January.



The AP poll says people were more pessimistic about the economy, with consumer confidence dragged down by increased nervousness about the economy's current and future conditions.



Public approval of Bush's handling of the economy dipped to 44 percent, down from 53 percent in early January.



The public's mood took a positive turn after the capture of Saddam Hussein in mid December, and the outlook about the economy is now settling back to levels in November. The drop in Bush's political standing was more dramatic.



Democrats are now as intensely opposed to Bush as Republicans are intensely supporting him. By a 2-1 margin, political independents were more likely to say they would definitely vote against him than definitely support him.



"I think he's run the country into the ground economically, and he comes out with these crazy ideas like going to Mars and going to the moon," said Richard Bidlack, a 78-year-old retiree from Boonton, N.J., who says he voted for Bush in 2000. "I'm so upset at Bush, I'll vote for a chimpanzee before I vote for him."



Exit polls in the Democratic primaries have suggested considerable voter anger at Bush, among both Democrats and independents.



Bush still has the support of many Republicans, including 30-year-old Alicia Bleacher of Lancaster, Pa., a stay-at-home mother.



"We live in difficult times," she said. "He's doing the best he can. After 9-11, he took action immediately, we needed a president who would be decisive."



Bush saw a drop in support among most demographic and regional groups, but those were most pronounced among voters with a high school education or less, voters over age 65, political independents and voters in the Midwest.



Democratic strategist Jim Duffy said Democrats have gained ground because "now there is one focal point. It looks like John Kerry's going to be the opponent."



The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults was taken Feb. 2-4 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

---

---

Firebird: One Browser To Rule Them All.

Edited by: Warduke at: 2/6/04 8:54 am

[The Partisan]

Interesting article, but historically speaking, I'd be very surprised if that wasn't the case right now. Kerry's been able to attack Bush on pretty much any front he chooses, and the President hasn't reacted in any significant way. This is par for the course.



Once the nomination's settled, and the Bush re-elect machine starts moving, we'll have a more realistic view of the shape of the election.



I wouldn't pay much attention to polling data until both parties are running their campaign. Just ask former Presidents Mondale, Dukakis and Dole how much stock to put in this kind of early-in-the-year polling data.



Edit: EZ-Codes not so EZ after all.

Edited by: The Partisan at: 2/6/04 1:29 pm

[willowrulz4ever]

Quote:

---

I think you are talking about a war that a country made a decision to start and not the war of defense that happens as a consequence in the country being invaded, right?

---

Exactly.I think if a country is invaded it has a right to defend itself. I like your definition,the lesser of 2 evils.Though I don't veiw death in war as murder unless innocent civillians are directly targeted.However,it does not matter what your defintion is,whether they are killed or murdered they are still dead.Maybe that is becuase my dad was a solider and as an radio operator he relayed attack orders on so called VC hotspots to the artillery.A lot of innocents were killed.I don't like thinking of my dad as a murderer.



I guess that is why I hated war protesters.I veiwed them as attacking men like my dad.Maybe they were protesting men like my dad having to kill without good cuase.I only know one peace activist.What motivates them.Hate of the military,hate of war,disloyalty to our country.I really don't know.I have only been exposed to the pro war side with any consitancy.Is it true all war protesters were happy for 9-11.They felt we got what we deserved.I don't think that is true,But I would like some comfirmation.



I am not trying to start a fight.I honestly don't know what motivates war protesters.I was taught war is preferable to showing weakness,Weakness+death.i suspect it is hate of the misery it cuases. Never asked before,always believed it was they hated this country and her military and they were happy when our people died.



Call it murder,killing,colateral damage,whatever it is still death.I think you are right.It may be nessecary but never just.



When it is unnessecary it is unforgivable.





Ronnie

Edited by: Warduke at: 2/7/04 8:49 pm

[justin]

Quote:

---

I guess that is why I hated war protesters.I veiwed them as attacking men like my dad.

---

I don't view your dad as being a murderer, any more than I view my grandfather, who fought during world war II, as being one.

Quote:

---

I only know one peace activist.What motivates them.Hate of the military

---

I don't hate the military. What I do hate is the fact that there needs to be a military. I hate the fact that we send people out into situations where they have to choose between killing and being killed.

Quote:

---

disloyalty to our country

---

I feel absolutely no loyalty to my country. I am, as Marx once said, a citizen of nowhere. That is completely unconnected to my dislike of war though.



So why do I hate war? Basically I hate the death. Worse it's unnecessary death. As has been said war is a sign that the countrys have failed to work things out through other means.



There is no such thing as a just war. Even if it is a case of country invading another. While the country that has been invaded has a right to defend itself, and their part in the war can be said to be just, the war itself isn't. Since it was caused by one country invading another which is inherently injust.



to paraphrase a line from the book The Stand, "life is cheap, war makes it cheaper"

Quote:

---

Is it true all war protesters were happy for 9-11.They felt we got what we deserved.

---

Think back to just after 9/11. pretty much the whole world reacted with shock and anger to what was one of the worst acts of war the world has ever seen.



Remember also the headlines saying, "We are all american." Many of those people who were showing solidarity with America then are now people who oppose the war.



The only people who got any gratification from it are those who think that it is acceptable to kill to get what you want. People who think that if someone is your enemy then they aren't human.



This is the opposite of what motivates war protesters. They protest war precisely because they don't see killing as being an acceptable means to any end.



Anyway whatever I might feel about America and it's recent actions, those people who died in the world trade center aren't America, they were just people and there's no way they deserved what happened to them.



What happened on 9/11 was very wrong, but so was the invasion of Iraq.

Postel's Prescription: Be generous in what you accept, rigorous in what you emit.

[dekalog]

Errol Morris is a brilliant documentary filmmaker who has a new film out where he interviews American former Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara. I got to see a preview screening and it is a very interesting look into how a person who is just doing his job - following the orders of his bosses etc. The film deals about 20 years of American history through his eyes, and has much to say about war, politics and humanity.



Here is his website: www.errolmorris.com/



I really recommend it - it really speaks to what you are talking about here.

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

Though I don't veiw death in war as murder unless innocent civillians are directly targeted.

---

The moment you bomb cities you target the people living, working, walking there directly. To say that you don't intent to doesn't change that.

Quote:

---

I guess that is why I hated war protesters.I veiwed them as attacking men like my dad.

---

While my first thoughts and sympathies are always with the victims (the Iraqi civilians and soldiers, in this case, who didn't have a choice), there are now over 500 US soldiers who would still be alive today if the war protestors had gotten their way. How about that?

Quote:

---

Hate of the military,

---

Dislike is more like it because it inevitably brings destruction and pain if it goes outside its borders.

Also, I'm not really fond (insert heavy sarcasm) of the Wehrmacht but I love/d my great-grandfather and my grandfathers and I never felt that anyone was attacking them when they said that the Wehrmacht did horrible things and that we should never send our soldiers outside our borders again. In fact I'm pretty sure they are the first to say no to war.

There are a whole lot of US veterans who are against this war. Must be self-hating soldiers.

Quote:

---

hate of war,

---

Oh you betcha! Bombed out houses, dead relatives on the front, dead relatives at home, starvation, lack of firewood, being buried under rubble for hours, wounds caused by phosphor-bombs that haven't really healed fifty years after it happened, diseases affecting you your whole life, being forced out of your home because it's suddenly in another country, rape, fear that you come home and your home is gone, fear when the air alarm sounds, fear when the bombs fall, getting seperated from your family and never knowing what happened to them.

And that's only some of the horrors experienced by my family. Add to that the fact that they were of the country responsible for it in the first place and maybe you can see how they might have developed a sliiight reluctance towards war.

I personally know nothing of war. But the fear, the terror of another war was transfered from my grandparents to my parents and from both generations unto me.

Quote:

---

disloyalty to our country.

---

You make that sound like a bad thing. You can live a wonderful fulfilled live without this loyalty and nationalism bullshit. I like my country and I'm content living here. In fact I would never leave because this is home and it's simply a big part of me. And I would defend it if any other country would try to exploit or force their values on us through war. But that doesn't mean it gets my loyalty no matter what. Per your definition, the Germans opposing the war and the Nazis in both words and deeds were disloyal to their country. Well, they're heroes to me. And I hope that if a similar situation should ever arise again I won't stand on the side of the 'my country right or wrong' loyalist but on the side of those who oppose my country's wrongdoings.

I think you should ask yourself what your country is or to what exactly people are disloyal. Is it the government, your constitution, the American people, American ideals and values? And is that set in stone or can it not be possible that your country may do something that everyone who loves it should protest against because that action takes away from what America is supposedly all about?

Quote:

---

Is it true all war protesters were happy for 9-11.They felt we got what we deserved

---

Is it true all Americans are arrogant with delusions of grandeur? What's with the generalization, huh? It's offensive, as my generalization is as well (I appologise). And it's really besides the point.



Even if America deserved it, the people who died in the planes, the WTC and the pentagon didn't. Their family and friends didn't. And it's about those people. Just like it is about the people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Were you happy for the kid who lost his entire family plus his two arms? I'm sure you felt Saddam deserved it.



I have to admit that I have to roll my eyes when the naive question of 'why do they hate us' is voiced. And I know a lot of Americans who have the same reaction. To understand terrorism you have to understand the historical and political background and context. And then you'll see that the attacks didn't happen in a vacuum and that the terrorists didn't chose America just for the hell of it or because they hate your freedom. Now, if I start to explain the different politics and actions taken by America half a world away that in the end led to a group of people crashing planes into American buildings you might think I'm trying to justify 911 or that I think that you deserved it. But what I'm really just doing is showing that it was in consequence of other factors. And consequences aren't always right and deserved. But it is important to know what led to the attacks so that the grievences of the people driven to commit terror acts can be addressed and a repeat can be avoided. Because war against terror (an intangable entity) won't work.

Quote:

---

I was taught war is preferable to showing weakness

---

That's a bully argument. And wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. What you're saying is that to show how big and mighty the US is it has to attack a few countries now and again. That's pretty pitiful, especially if you look at the weak countries being targetted. It's like those husbands that have to beat their wives to show who is the boss. Can't try to talk it out and let the woman get away with anything that might undermine the position of absolute power in this relationship.

I can see Soviet-Russia or Nazi-Germany acting like this or Iraq under Saddam. I wouldn't even bother to argue against that. But I guess I expected better from the US who always cite moral duties to spread freedom, peace and democracy. War being preferable to showing weakness comes very close to 'oderint, dum metuant', does it not? With the hatred coming in handy for terrorists.

And as an aside, that was probably what Saddam thought by pretending to have WMDs: Rather than show weakness, risk a war.



I was taught to always try and compromise, find peaceful solutions, not to resort to violence and to honour human life. And that sounds so Jesus-friendly I feel like pointing out that I'm an atheist.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

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: Diebrock at: 2/8/04 12:33 pm

[willowrulz4ever]

Please remember I am not attacking anyone.I am now beginning to believe I have been fed a load of crap all my life.



In my house you did not question the goverment in general and the military in particular.They put food on the table,a roof over your head.Dad lived by this code:A soliders lot is not to ask why,but to follow orders and if you can't eat it or kill it salute it.His loyalty to his Country is unquestioning.Mine was expected to be likewse.The first time I ever dared raise questions aot the military."Dad was Vietnam and unjust war?"I got put through a screen door.After that I just stopped questioning.I remember when I failed the physical to go into the Navy.I let my family down.The Martin Military tradition stretches back to the Civil War.I was the first Martin Male not to serve. I was told if I spent more time out playing sports like a man and nt reading my stupid sci-fi boo,I woud not have let the family down.



If I offended you diebrock that was not my intention.I am trully trying to understand both sides.If i come to that,I can decide what makes sense to me.From your post it seemed like you were angry that i even asked these questions.



My dad has not spoken to me since I said I was no longer sure if the Iraq invasion was nessecary.



Politics are as big a part of my life as my spirituality.I have these huge doubts.By asking questions on this board I am trying to figure out what makes sense to me. I am trying to challenge my assumptions.



As for nationalism.I am a patriot.I am loyal to my country.What I am realizing is sometimes dissent is the most loyal thing you can do.If you believe something is not good for your country,falling into line becuase the majority supports it is not loyalty.



actually I thinking of running for Pres.My campaign sogan would be "A troubled person for Troubled times.



Ronnie

[Gatito Grande]

Ronnie, if you want to see the difference between you and your father, it's that you are here talking about America w/ some people who aren't American---I bet your father never has.



I've always been an "internationalist": it just never made sense to me, this whole "USA #1!" business. Why wouldn't/shouldn't everyone think that about their own nation? And if so, why would we think that our claims to "#1" was any truer than anyone elses? Having said this, I am so glad for the internet: absent the money necessary to travel, it's made it possible to check the things we're told here in the U.S., against what people are hearing elsewhere (there's frequently a huge discrepancy, and experience has taught me that what we Americans are told, is often the less true of possible versions).



Tonight's 60 Minutes had a really outstanding example of this. The reporter, the excellent Christiane Amanpour, investigated a particular "incident" in Iraq. The (US) Army had a shot up a pick-up truck, claiming that it had people in it that had shot at them first. In so doing, the US had killed several "insurgents." The owner of the truck, claimed that his son and grandsons had been transporting chickens in it---no guns, no attack on the US. The son and one 9 year-old grandson were killed. The other grandson, 13, was missing. The US commanding officer at first denied that any children were involved, much less killed. But he then he "checked out the story."



Well, it turns out, there was a 9 year-old killed. There were no guns found, but lots of dead chickens. A relative of this family even worked as a translator for another division of the US Army, so they were unlikely to be any "insurgents" involved. Finally---to find some shred of happiness in this sorry story---the missing 13 year-old was found being treated in a US hospital in Baghdad. They (60 Minutes) showed the teary reunion of the mother and son, but they also showed the mother breaking down, when the boy asked where his father and younger brother were.



One incident, two stories: the official American version had already gone out, ala "we're making progress in Iraq, putting down the insurgents who shot at us." The only problem: the official US version was completely wrong, and the grieving Iraqi family's was the correct one.



I'm one of the kind of people you grew up hating, Ronnie. Well, I was too young to actively protest the Vietnam War (beyond being a 10 year-old who worked for McGovern for President, wearing a "Come Home America!" button ), but as soon as I understood there was a war, I thought it was wrong. I didn't hate US troops, but I never assumed they were in the right (that our cause was noble) either.* I think the suspicion I developed towards "the Official US Story" on things has served me well these many years---I worry about Americans who take the Official US story at face value. YMMV.



GG *One example of my suspicion: I have heard waaaaaay too many Vietnam War defenders (veterans and otherwise) claim that anti-war protestors shouted "Baby Killers!" at returning US troops. I have never heard of this happening, from or about any of the *many* anti-war protestors I've known through the years---the dominant attitude towards US troops was/is almost invariably pity. I'm not saying "Baby Killer!" incidents *never* happened, but for each one that did, I suspect it was re-told, amplified, and falsely personalized ("This happened to me" ) a thousand-fold. If you are (or were) angry about lack of patriotism among anti-war protestors, Ronnie, *I'm angry* about the smears against protestors' reputations: claiming we said/did things we never did. (Moreover, you still hear these kind of smears against contemporary anti-war protestors, too.) Out

[willowrulz4ever]

Quote:

---

I've always been an "internationalist": it just never made sense to me, this whole "USA #1!" business

---

I think there are war protesters and then there are extremists in war protesters clothing.I have heard too many stories from Vets about being spat upon and called babykiller.All of them were not lying I am sure.I am now sure most protesters pitied our men and wished them no harm.There was a minority that expressed their hate to the war in inappropriate ways.



That is like the antiglobalization protests. Although I thought all the protesters were niave. I understood even then that it was a small minoroty that started throwing rocks and stuff.



My supervisor just gave me an article about some of the interveiws Goering gave during the Nurnberg trials.He said the first step to a tolatarian state is to brand all dissent as unpatriotic ,then to declare all dissenter's traitors.I mean Goering should know.There was some talk during the invasion that the protesters were giving aid and comfort to the enemy.



That is scary.I thought soliders and sailors took an oath to defend the constitution as well as this country from all foes foreign and domestic.One of the things the Constitution garuntees is freedom of petition,assemby and speech.

Quote:

---

I've always been an "internationalist": it just never made sense to me, this whole "USA #1!" business

---

I never really considered it to be honest.I never really thought whether or not we were better.I just knew that this was my home and my loyalty should be to my home.One of my hero's is Robert E Lee.He was against slavery and sucession but he felt he had a duty to defend his home.



I am still loyal to my home,but am beginning to understand that loyalty does not mean blind obeidiance and support.Sometimes the most loyal thing you can do is stand against the policies of your countries goverment when you think they are wrong.



Now that I look back at it,what did the Gov think Germany would do.Given their history of course Germany was not going to back a first strike.I remember when I lived in Stuttgart,my German landlady would talk about WWII and the shame in her voice remains with me 17 years later.Her father was a member of the SS.He was killed in Warsaw.



And I am going back to eating French Fries.No more liberty fries for me.



Ronnie

Edited by: willowrulz4ever at: 2/9/04 8:56 am

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

You can live a wonderful fulfilled live without this loyalty and nationalism bullshit.

---

I cannot tell you how many times I've ranted about this. I cannot agree more. Oftentimes blind loyalty and excessive nationalism can overshadow what the true problems are within a country....once that happens, when one's eyes are finally opened, it's too late. The damage has been done and reversing it takes a herculean effort.

Quote:

---

I was taught to always try and compromise, find peaceful solutions, not to resort to violence and to honour human life. And that sounds so Jesus-friendly I feel like pointing out that I'm an atheist.

---

Darlin' you and I need to chat.....seriously...truly.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.