It's official: War

[Evan3]

Fearless, you are absolutely right. Superpowers of the world are always the people who set the rules and without them, this world would be a much more unbalanced state. Sure, We dont do everything right, but no one has, and at least America hasnt really colonized anywhere, forcing them to be third world nations for the rest of their lives. Until a better option comes along (and that option is not the U.N.) the onus falls on America to do the world's dirty work

[raj]

Well put..

I've heard it put that liberals want personal freedom, but economic control, whereas conservatives want personal control, but economic freedom (of course, these areas overlap).  Personally, I want personal & economic freedom.

And thanks for the unquote cite.  It seems this is like the sausage quote, "you should not watch sausages or legislation being made."

[Funk, E.]

The way I see it the two Political parties exist to address two different states of the nation.

During times of peace and properity the "liberals" are in control to ensue a certian fairness in the distribution of the prosperity.

During times of economic hardship the "conservatives" are brought in to make the tough and unpopular decissions to straighten things out.

They both have their place. They both have their strong and weak points. Personally I think anyone who identifies wholly as one or the other is more frightening than the party platform itself. On some issues I'm very liberal on other extremely conservative, but I've thought long and hard on each issue.

As for war... No sir, I don't like it! but if we're going to do this I hope it's with a minimal loss of life.

[Fearless Freep]

Until a better option comes along (and that option is not the U.N.) the onus falls on America to do the world's dirty work

....

As for war... No sir, I don't like it! but if we're going to do this I hope it's with a minimal loss of life.

One way to look at this war is that it's the result of the U.S. abdicating it's personal interests as a super power for the sake of the common consensus.  In that once the U.S. kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, we turned over control and enforcement of the situation to the U.N. and it's mandates and political varities.  The UN has so far completely failed to enforce its mandates which has left Iraq pretty free to continue it's weapon's programs.

I talked with a friend of mine about the war and I admitted that I wasn't really sure how the focus moved from Al Queda to Iraq and he relayed to me he had  been camping with a friend who happened to work for the FBI, and that their biggest worry was Iraq would supply Al Queda and the like with weapons that could make September 11 look like nothing.  So the lack of the UN in stopping Iraq's weapon's development ends up being a US problem.

Admittedly that particular story is anecdotal, but it offers an explanation about why our focus is on Iraq and not N.Korea, for example.  

If the U.S. had finished Iraqi leadership off the first time, or if the UN had made good on it's mandates, we would not worried about Iraq arming terrorists.

Now, as to the thought about this being a war for oil, I find that far-fetched in the extreme, but even so...my reaction would be "so what?"  In a nation of our population and energy usage, oil is of exteme strategic and economic important.  A nation could have strong, and legitimate,  self-interest in ensuring oil access and that requirement could be severe enough to enage in war.  In this case, I don't think that's the issue.  We don't get much oil from Iraq and occupying foreign nations to ensure resources isn't really our style.  But in general, a war for oil is not neccessarily a wholly unthinkable proposition.   The other side is that war in the middle east drives up local prices, putting more money into certain people's pockets.  Again, this is unlikely as there are simpler and less politically and economically costly ways to raise prices.  The result may be price-gouging at the local level, but it's unlikely that that is the motivation.

Just some random thoughts...

[lester1/2jr]

I literally meant that the conservitives seem smarter today and the liberals seemed smarter then.   In terms of the media.  There was no Fox News in the eighties, etc.

Squishy- you don't actually believe that s**t do you?

I dn't get people who say "let the iraqi people decide for themselves"  they can't.  They live in a dictatorship.  I wonder if alt of this has to d with racism.  Like who cares about the iraqis because they're nt white.  How many of these protesters even know one non white person.  They're all racist and anti-semites, so they dn't want to be bthered with the middle east.  Germany and France are totally anti semetic and in England it is considered cmpletely acceptable to hate pakistani people, and look down on the poor

[Chris K.]

lester1/2jr wrote:
>
> I don't get people who say "let the Iraqi people decide for
> themselves" they can't.  They live in a dictatorship.  I
> wonder if all of this has to do with racism.  Like who cares
> about the Iraqis because they're not white.  How many of these
> protesters even know one non white person.  They're all
> racist and Anti-Semites, so they don't want to be bothered with
> the Middle East.  Germany and France are totally anti semetic
> and in England it is considered completely acceptable to hate
> Pakistani people, and look down on the poor.

Well lester1/2jr, Germany and France are not TOTALLY Anti-Semites; their are obviously quite a few, but to say all are just doesn't cut it. But then, Anti-Semites are pretty much everywhere in every country. Here in the United States their is still a high degree of Anti-Semites as well. As for England and it being acceptable to hate Pakistani people in that region, it's really not that different here at all either.

As for the claim that the protesters don't know one non-white person, I do recall seeing on some of the news reports on TV that their is footage of whites and non-whites, all together, protesting the war.

[Chadzilla]

My feelings on it are lukewarm, but I felt it was inevitable.  Hussein is no diplomat, he respects nothing but power.  Bush is no diplomat either (in a posting elsewhere I compared his diplomacy to the scene in The Addams Family where Wednesday, after getting scolded for improperly demanding something, snaps Now, instead of saying the expected Please), so I figured this was basically going to happen.  I take a small degree of comfort in the thought that the Iraq military was already trying to surrender a week or so ago, so morale does not appear to be very high.  Are the motives questionable, of course.  They always are, when it comes to politics and governance there is no clear cut right or wrong, no matter what the political side says about the other.  Each side will always have credible reasons for doing what it is doing.  Searching for the middle ground, well that is what we call diplomacy, and that is something, as I stated earlier, neither Bush nore Hussein have in generous amounts.  Those in disfavor of Moral Relativism could never be a politician.

[lester1/2jr]

Chris K-  yeah I was letting off a little steam there.   Not exactly the greatest post ever.  I seriously don't get the anti war movement though.  For real.

[Chris K.]

lester1/2jr wrote:
>
> Chris K-  yeah I was letting off a little steam there.   Not
> exactly the greatest post ever.  I seriously don't get the
> anti war movement though.  For real.

Well it's understandable. But I, too, don't really get the anti-war movement either. I mean, the war has just begun and at this time the protests do seem useless.

And besides, didn't we all see this war was going to happen anyway?

[Pete B6K]

"I dn't get people who say "let the iraqi people decide for themselves" they can't. They live in a dictatorship. I wonder if alt of this has to d with racism. Like who cares about the iraqis because they're nt white. How many of these protesters even know one non white person. They're all racist and anti-semites, so they dn't want to be bthered with the middle east. Germany and France are totally anti semetic and in England it is considered cmpletely acceptable to hate pakistani people, and look down on the poor"

It's been a while (actually it was about 2 days ago at 1am in the morning) since I've heard such a complete load of ignorant bollocks.  To call the anti-war protesters racist because they don't give a s**t about non-white Iraqis is the complete opposite to the truth.  It's those innocent Iraqi people who are going to DIE in this war, and we are protesting to save their lives.

"How many of these protesters even know one non white person"

Dumbest f**king sentence EVER

"I dn't get people who say "let the iraqi people decide for themselves" they can't. They live in a dictatorship"

And I don't remember Bush or Blair asking the people of their country whether they feel it right to go to war. Shows all the good 'democracy' does for us.

"in England it is considered cmpletely acceptable to hate pakistani people, and look down on the poor"

Where did you conjure that stinking bulls**t up from.  Racism is not at all acceptable in this country.  It happens, but does in some form everywhere, and shouldn't happen.

And as for the point of anti-semitism, this is also completely unacceptable. You may have mistaken hatred for the injustices perpetrated by the Israeli government
and army against the people of Palestine for anti-semitism. It's the same thing as me being anti-bush and hating a lot of what the American government does, but I have no negative feelings towards the people of America. I could make an exception for you though.

So you think the Iraqi people want to be bombed do you?? The anti-war march in London on February 15 was hugely multiracial, people from countries all over the world were represented, and a great deal from middle eastern countries, including Irai people and those from it's neighbouring countries. I have heard from many people who have left Iraq and still have family over there. These people don't want a war, they don't want their loved ones being murdered under the pretense that its the best thing for them.  As I said before, dead people can't celebrate freedom.

I apologise to everyone for my language and anger in this post, but I HATE racism in all forms, am anti-war, and strongly object to being called racist and anti-semitic.

"I seriously don't get the anti war movement though"

Duh.

Pete

[Deej]

I know, why don't we have a spelling contest!?!

[Squishy]

lester1/2jr:
"Squishy- you don't actually believe that **** do you?"

Um, which ****? The stuff that's documented fact (the Rumsfeld material, our love/hate relationship with Saddam and Iran, Gulf War Syndrome), or the stuff that's demonstratably in the nature of the people involved (motivations and psuedopatriotism)? It doesn't matter--yes. Yes, I do. (Feel free to confirm the documented-fact stuff yourself.) I'm confident the coming years will bear me out.

[Squishy]

P.S.: There's even more in Chris K's "Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless" thread, lester. Enjoy.

To everybody: Oh, you want to help the Iraqis, do you? Here's your chance to prove it.

https://www.workingforchange.com/action_center.cfm?itemid=14690

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

"Jeez, I'm a 92!"
--Dan Quayle

[Squishy]

Tom Tomorrow does it again. Now he's concerned about our war vets. Dirty little Commie! From his blog, which contains a link to the news article:

"They haven't explained how they're going to pay for this war...especially given that--unlike last time--there aren't a lot of other countries opening up their checkbooks. ("Coalition" seems to have been redefined as "countries which are not in active opposition," rather than "countries which are supplying manpower or funding.") But when you need some money to pay for war--and you've already promised your rich contributors a huge tax break--well, you can always squeeze disabled veterans a little tighter:

    "By a vote along party lines, the majority members of the House Budget Committee passed and reported for a vote by the House a budget resolution that would cut $844 million from veterans$B!G(B medical care next year and $9.7 billion over the next 10 years. In addition, the budget resolution would cut $15 billion from the disability compensation and other benefit programs over the next 10 years."

Support the troops, indeed."

I guess "An Army Of One" really means "F*** You, You're On Your Own"--as soon as you're of no further use. I wonder how THIS would make our troops in Iraq feel--if they were allowed to read it? How does it make their families feel? First, cuts to their dependents' education, now this.

[Pete B6K]

Chances are the cost of the war will be tagged onto Iraq's already astronomical debts.  They still owe hundreds of billions for the cost of the first Gulf War.  Let that logic sink in a minute.  We bomb them, then charge them for the cost of the bombs.

Pete