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...
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.
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
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?
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.
*
*
*
*
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. )
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
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)
From Unqoute (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5952/unquote.html)
"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.
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
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
"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.
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
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
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)
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
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."
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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
I know, why don't we have a spelling contest!?!
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.
P.S.: There's even more in Chris K's "Off topic discussion, but interesting nonetheless" (http://www.badmovies.org/bbs/read.php?f=2&i=34613&t=34613) thread, lester. Enjoy.
To everybody: Oh, you want to help the Iraqis, do you? Here's (https://www.workingforchange.com/action_center.cfm?itemid=14690) your chance to prove it.
https://www.workingforchange.com/action_center.cfm?itemid=14690
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! (http://lovenstein.org/reply/)
"Jeez, I'm a 92!"
--Dan Quayle
Tom Tomorrow (http://www.thismodernworld.com) 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:
Quote"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.
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
I like how both sides claim to be for the iraqi people.
Pete B6K wrote:
> 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.
Uhm, if the people didnt agree, there wouldn't be a war Pete. I do believe that Parliament was in favor of the war. Also, these loud MINORITY of people who protest (a couple thousand people does not make a country) are silenced by the majority of unsure people and pro war people.
> "in England it is considered cmpletely acceptable to hate
> pakistani people, and look down on the poor"
I agree that this is the worst sentence ever made on this board... sorry Lester
> 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.
Wow Pete, seems to me like you support the malicious corrupt Palestinian government and that therefore, you support terrorism. Hating Jews is the sin of being ignorant. Supporting Palestinian terrorists who want to drive out not only Israel but the Christians in Lebanon. Before you are so quick to judge, ask yourselves why no Arab nation has ever made a move to support the palestinians? If they wont support their own people, than why should you? Next time, think before you support Hamas, innocents die in every war. At least Israel is trying to take out militants, whats the point of bombing a university Pete??
(http://coldplay.artscience.net/vbb/attachment.php?postid=902208)
Now isn't that special!
Actually, I think a great many expatriate Iraqis are saying the equivalent of "What took you so long?". The same arguments re. civilian casualties could be applied to 1940's Germany -- please don't misconstrue that I'm somehow in favor of civilian casualties -- but still the Germans welcomed us as liberators. No doubt a great many Iraqis will too.
Even if there was a concerted US-sponsored policy to get gas and bio agents into Iraqi hands, it still wasn't polite of them to then go ahead and create the Al Anfil group, run by Saddam's cousins & in-laws, that is still ongoing and has to date killed over 60,000 Kurds with VX gas -- which doesn't seem to have been American supplied, as far as I read -- with an eye to using this same gas on Israel (Sources: March 22, 2002 issue of The New Yorker & Jonathan C. Randel of Human Rights Watch).
It was as much of a mistake to not occupy Baghdad in 1991 as it was for the League of Nations to not occupy Berlin in 1918. Both oversights have led to unpleasant consequences. One thing that nobody here is giving as a reason for this war is perhaps the best one of all: That the long-standing goal of the Baathist Party is a pan-Arabic superstate, with its capital in Baghdad. This is not a good thing for a number of reasons, not the least of which would be the avowed extirpation of Israel and any other Jew that could be found.
Am I convinced this war is the best route to take? No. But neither am I convinced that it's a bad idea. Some very bad ideas have been advanced, eg: The suggestion that by abdicating and going into exile, Saddam would somehow neutralize the threat of the Baathist Party. Germany under Rudolf Hess in 1940 would not have been a more mallable entity, neither is an Iraq with an active Baathist Party a desirable outcome for the present.
hahaha okay I take back what I said about the British racism and stuff. I really have no idea what I'm talking about. You got me.