It's official: War

[JohnL]

I'm surprised that nobody here has started a topic devoted to the fact that the US took the first shots at Iraq last night. I learned of this fact when my local WB station felt the need to cut off the last 5 minutes of the show Angel to put on a special report. I don't mean to sound like one of those people for whom a TV show is more important than the fact that their country is at war, but would my life have been any different if they'd waited another 5 minutes until the news started? Not that there was really anything to report other than that the US took some pot-shots at Iraq. For the next two hours I watched various live video feeds from Bhagdad that showed absolutely nothing happening while the reporters repeated the same facts over and over. Then there was a comedic portion where they showed Hussein appearing on Iraqi TV to say how his country will be victorious over the evil agressors. It was almost as funny as the Yahoo news story which quoted an Iraqi official as saying that Hussein would be out in front fighting and leading his troops to victory. I guess they must mean in spirit since his ass is going to hiding in a secret bunker 100 feet underground...

[lester1/2jr]

To me, it's just a continuation of the last war.  Kind of funny that we made them destroy all thse weapns and then declared war on them.  Quite a strategy.  

I heard on NPR that the french president was in some scandal a while back, so being against the war is his way of getting supprt back.

It's weird, when I was growing up the republican/ conservitives were the stupid ones.  Now, it's the liberals.  Just my opinion.

[Fearless Freep]

It's weird, when I was growing up the republican/ conservitives were the stupid ones. Now, it's the liberals. Just my opinion.

There was an old quote I heard that went something like:

"If you are twenty and you are not a socialist, you have no heart.  If you are thirty and still a socialist, you have no brain"

I've heard it attributed to Otto Von Bismark, but can't verify it

[Brian Ringler]

I heard a fairly lame joke at work but I'll mention it anyway.  When the troop are flying into iraq with the bombs, do you think they have a copy of Outkast's Bombs Over Bhagdad playing on the stereo?

[The Burgomaster]

JohnL wrote: ". . . would my life have been any different if they'd waited another 5 minutes until the news started?"

The question is, would your life have been any different if you had watched the last 5 minutes of ANGEL, which will appear in endless reruns and probably be released on DVD?

Any TV station that continues regular programming during one of the most important news stories of the decade is irresponsible.

*
*
*
*

[raj]

I've seen it attributed to Winston Churchill, but slightly different:
If you are young and not liberal you have no heart, and if you are old and not conservative you have no brain.
You might try Bartlett's that way.  (If I've got time later, I'll look it up. )

[Fearless Freep]

I've seen it attributed to Winston Churchill, but slightly different:
If you are young and not liberal you have no heart, and if you are old and not conservative you have no brain.

That's actually the way I remember it but to be honest due to the age (of the quote) invovled I wasn't quite sure if 'liberal' and 'conservative' were the right terms

[raj]

Yeah, I'm not too sure on liberal and conservative myself.  "Liberal" in the 19th century meant something much different from today, it was more akin to today's libertarianism (in the US).  That's why in places like Australia the Liberal Party is more like the US's conservatives/Republicans (though mostly without a lot of the Religious Right element)

[Fearless Freep]

From Unqoute

"An orphan quote [unattributed quote in search of a home] sometimes
attributed to Georges Clemenceau is:

   Any man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart.
   Any man who is still a socialist at age 40 has no head.

The most likely reason is that Bennet Cerf once reported Clemenceau's
response to a visitor's alarm about his son being a communist:

   If he had not become a Communist at 22, I would have disowned him.
   If he is still a Communist at 30, I will do it then
.
George Seldes later quoted Lloyd George as having said:

   A young man who isn't a socialist hasn't got a heart;
   an old man who is a socialist hasn't got a head.

The earliest known version of this observation is attributed to
mid-nineteenth century historian and statesman François Guizot:

   Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart;
   to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.

Variations on this theme were later attributed to Disraeli, Shaw,
Churchill, and Bertrand Russell.

[Pete B6K]

I'm interested in hearing what people feel the terms 'liberal' or 'left-wing' mean to them.  Because I've head people say things like 'damn liberals', using it in a negative context, whereas the words to me carry connotations of peace, acceptance, open-mindedness, changing with the times and equality.  And right-wing or conservative usually brings connotations of bigotry, racism, homophobia, sexism, inequality, class gaps, narrow-mindedness, 'stuck in the old days' feelings.

Pete

[Fearless Freep]

I'm interested in hearing what people feel the terms 'liberal' or 'left-wing' mean to them.

It depends on wether you are talking socially or politically.  The two often get confused but there is a difference.

And where the difference between the two sides (of liberal vs conservative) most comes into being what role the government should have in the community in establishing and enforcing the various ideals.

As a sorta of brutish example, both political conservatives and polotical liberals believe that equality among races is a good thing.  Political liberals tend to believe that if it's worth doing than it should be done, even if it requires laws and enforcement to accomplish.  Political conservatives tend to view that while ideals may be important, they must come from the people and cannot fairly be enforced from outside.  Thus a liberal would be more in favor of 'hate crime' legislation because equality is worth doing something about and a conservative would not because such motivations must develop from the person and cannot really be enforced.  Thus the conservative sees the liberal supporting such legislation and thinks "Big Brother is coming to tells us how to think" and the liberal sees the conservative opposing such legislation and thinks "the conservative is rascist because he's opposed to laws against racism"

The liberal thinks social causes are important and supports money to programs for social causes.  The conservative thinks social causes are important and supports making it more attractive for people to get involved.  So to the conservative, the liberal looks like he wants 'big government spending" and to the liberal, the conservative looks "heartless and uncaring for not funding social programs"

Social liberalism and social conservatism are a bit different and mostly come into play in what ideals are important

But for the most part, political liberals and conservatives mostly differ in how social responsibilities should be accomplished, not really in what the accomplishment should be

[Squishy]

"Rumsfeld said he had heard similar reports of the Saddam regime setting fire to oil wells. "Needless to say, it is a crime for that regime to be destroying the riches of the Iraqi people," he said."
--AP

Even when this is all over, remember: Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein procure many of the weapons of mass destruction that this war is supposedly about. AFTER Saddam Hussein used similar weapons on his own people. He stood there and shook Saddam's hand. Our good buddy.

Do you trust the man who gave Saddam biological warfare weapons in the first place? Anyway, it's nice to see he has his eyes on the prize.

We're going after Saddam because (choose one):
(1) he has weapons of mass destruction and supports terrorism.
(2) he invaded Kuwait.
(3) he suppresses the Iraqi people and imprisons or kills anyone in his way.
(4) the oilmen who make up almost all of the Bush administration want more oil under their direct control, which would also please the administration's assorted power-hungry madmen who believe the US should eventually rule the world like an iron-fisted dictator, as per God's own wishes. Plus we get to test new ordinance on their troops--and test our own troops against the enemy's new ordinance.
(5) um, er, it would seem unpatriotic not to hop on the bandwagon, and, uh, I'm as completely gutless as any chickenhawk.

You might pick any or all of the first three--but the politicians involved (in private, of course) know that the last two are the only valid selections. After all, many of them are complicit in the first three themselves. Who gave a damn about the Kurds--until they could be used as justification? Who really, honestly cares if the Iraqi people are "free" or not? What of the other oppressive dictatorships around the world? Who gave Saddam biological warfare agents in the first place?

More importantly, Americans--when our vets returned complaining of what would come to be called Gulf War Syndrome, who went to the press claiming that they were "faking" the symptoms? Who refused them treatment? (Hint: the same ones who still insist depleted uranium is a "safe" weapon, with no proven link to GWS.)

We helped place the Shah of Iran in power because he hated the same people we hated. Iran overthrew him because he was an oppressive, bloody dictator, and ran into the coils of "The Ayatollah." We promptly turned to Saddam, arming him with biological agents (and additional chemical agents), in the hope he would use them on Iranians. Saddam decided to "annex" Kuwait, and we--specifically Bush The Elder--looked the other way...right up until the tanks actually rolled in.

...and here we are today.

It's like some perverse parody of "The House That Jack Built." We meddle; it blows up in our faces. Our solution; meddle some more--but try something else, building a greater mess. Keep actively creating enemies around the world--then wondering aloud why they hate us. Repeat until armageddon or world domination, whichever comes first.

How patriotic is that?

"I can't hear you! I have a flag wrapped around my head! Ha ha!"
--Pro-war demonstrator I saw in San Francisco, taunting anti-war protesters. He actually did, held in place with duct tape. VERY respectful of the Stars and Stripes.

[Fearless Freep]

But for the most part, political liberals and conservatives mostly differ in how social responsibilities should be accomplished, not really in what the accomplishment should be

I should add that in the desire to accomplish goals, both sides can at time stoop to depths that are not really in keeping with the ideals the tend to espouse

[Fearless Freep]

We meddle; it blows up in our faces. Our solution; meddle some more--but try something else, building a greater mess. Keep actively creating enemies around the world--then wondering aloud why they hate us. Repeat until armageddon or world domination, whichever comes first.

That's not a particularly recent or particularly Amercan phenomenom.  Up until recently in world history, the US has been fairly isolationists.  We really didn't start getting meddlesome until we became a 'super power', which didn't really happen until around WWII.  Unfortunately, with that position comes a heightened interest in and relience upon global events as well as the power to influence said events.

Superpowers can and meddle and do meddle because sometimes they have to meddle, but it's been going on for centuries if not longer and it's awefully hard to do well.  History is full of examples where today's ally of convenience becomes tomorrow's headache

[Evan3]

Liberal - N -  A party with no sane leadership (see: Hilary Clinton, Tom Daschle). A bunch of brutal baby killers (see: partial birth abortion) Bound to antiquated ways and bad ideas (see: Affirmative Action -especially when black people are no longer the largest American minority, and it only benefits the rich anyways) also the defenders of bloated beurocracy and party of most dangerous threat to democracy ever (see: FDR) also called Democrats

Conservative - N- A party which loves to restrict freedom of speech (see: Parental Advisory Sticker, not allowing gay marriage), has some deeply entrenched racist members which it Must eliminate (see: Trent Lott) That seems to have a stranglehold on today's news (see: O'Reilly Factor) and claims to want to help the economy, but in reality spends as much useless money as Liberals (see: Bush's awful economic plan) also called Republicans

Looks like the Liberals have more strikes to me. Just for the record, I am a Conservative, but not a Republican, and Jewish (yes, conservative Jews DO exist)