Jump to content

Anti-War FAQ


Menchise
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

Menchise, darling, there is no way I'm going to read through that FAQ; it's extremely long and rather bland.

My sentiments exactly. I started reading the first item, got about half way through that before I realized I had stopped paying attention to what I was reading. So, I skipped to the next item on the FAQ and the same thing happened... I then gave up on it.

If I had to rank this FAQ against other possible things I could be spending my time reading based on fun factor it falls in somewhere between the instructions for VCR programming printed in a foreign language and a stop sign.

[ 11-08-2002, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: Litvyak ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Menchise:

quote:

The problem that anti-war people face all the time is the assumption from pro-war people that we're for inaction. It's annoying to say the least, especially when it's just one of a dozen other assumptions about the anti-war left.

I hate war. I hate death and destruction (except in games, of course -- I love analyzing the enemy in detail, even though it's not real.) However...

If given a strict choice between learning to speak Arabic or firing a couple of well-placed nukes to end it, guess which one I'm gonna choose? What you're not considering is the danger of not going to war to end needless bloodshed and international terrorism. If you're so hot in this 'anti-war' position, which of the warring countries do you want to be your Master? Inaction is a choice -- the choice to be ruled by others, not of your choosing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

menchise please... try your little political view games on 3 year olds... they might be fooled, or impressed.

if you read carefully what i had written, a blind man could have understood it. what i said was i read some of it. i had read a-9. it was full of nonsense period. ill explain slowly so you understand why i think its obvious.

what we did in southern america and vietnam should not even be mentioned in the same breath as what the soviet union did during the cold war, or the other facts i have mentioned. our form of "imperialism" doesnt even hold a candle to what those other countries have done... we get the crap end of the stick because we're the biggest on the block, where there are other countries who wipe out entire civilizations before breakfast. spain happens to ring a bell as does central africa. there is no comparison period.

no one will forget american "imperialism" simply due to the fact that the left keeps beating the dead horse. its always what america does. god forbid some culture gets wiped out in africa, but no we cant forget what the yanks have done. and that form of imperialism has been taking place loooong before america ever became coloniozed, but we will still get the blame for it... as usual. and i suppose you will want another map drawn to explain this???

everyone wants to hash on us, but the fact remains that they are too damn lazy to do research and actually look for facts supporting their claims... such as you and your author have done.

there...understand??? or do you need a grownup to hold your hand and explain it again?

so go ahead, chase your tail and enjoy yourself.

[ 11-08-2002, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Grayfox ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

and i seriously doubt you do you do know what it means to be an american... i seriously do

Yeah, cause good American's don't question anything...when they see the Stars and Bars waving they cease thinking....turn on Fox and settle in for the ride. Sorry chief not me.

quote:

be sure to write when your over in iraq...


Sure...

Anyway....now that the elections are over Bush can take the moderate road to war (unless something better comes along)...in fact I wouldnÔÇÖt be surprised if the admin falls into screwing around with working this issue...and then working that issue for...oh...say two years....and then...some dire threat or new military action will manifest and the scare con threat level will go from indigo to rio red.....

Like I said, your talking to people deeply entrenched in their beliefs....and if they were to start questioning any of the rhetoric it would be un-American because even patriotism has been incorporated.but now there should be no excuses.the right leads the way!

[ 11-08-2002, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lotharr,

I can't believe that you actually believe what you are saying.

I would laugh it if it weren't so sad.

this pacifist crap is just too funny.

But, if a nuke goes off in New York city, you will be one of the first ones screaming about how we didn't do anything.

You like to react, well, we're done reacting and being on the defensive because we might hurt your feelings. We are now on the offense and will remain there.

They killed 3000 of our citizens, Iraq helps and finances terrorism. If the Pali's or Al Quaeda get a nuke, they WILL use it. Where would they get that nuke? Iraq, that's where.

And if they use the nuke, once again, you will be one of the first ones screaming "Why didn't we do something about it".

Sorry children, the grownups are in charge, and we will defend ourselves, even if it means going on the offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, let's look at this a little closer shall we?

quote:

The End of An Era - The bankruptcy of the anti-Americanists

| November 8, 2002 | Victor David Hanson

We are witnessing a fascinating period in American history ÔÇö not the resurgence, as proclaimed, but the decline of an entire culture of dissident leftists. The last year has revealed all their old shibboleths for what they were: lies and half-truths. Examine, for example, some of the positions voiced at recent demonstrations ÔÇö and decide whether there was any morality or consistency to them other than anti-Americanism?

"No blood for oil" implies that the United States is attacking Iraq to ensure a low price for petroleum ÔÇö a plot purportedly to allow SUV-driving soccer moms to buzz around at the world's expense. But such a platitude is full of logistical inconsistencies rarely discussed. The argument instead can be made that a fascistic Iraq currently pumps far less than its natural capacity or its national interests would otherwise demand ÔÇö perhaps as much as a million-barrel shortfall. And such an artificially created dearth helps the price-gouging Russians and the Gulf States by reducing world supplies at the expense of billions well outside the borders of the United States.

A consensual government in Iraq would not distort the market, but would restore its output to be in line with what the people of Iraq would desire. If anything, other oil producers prefer the present contrived and induced shortages. And liberation would allow oil revenue to be shared by the people, not diverted to the palaces, anthrax labs, or Swiss bank accounts of a tribal elite. So a more apt protest slogan should be "No fascism for rigged oil prices" or "Oil for the people who really own it."

The dream of 1960s radicals was supposedly that someday the United States might use its vast cultural influence and military power to be on the "right side of history." That meant ÔÇö instead of Pavlovian opposition to idealistic socialists and occasional Communists in preference for odious figures like Pinochet, Somoza, or Franco ÔÇö we would try to topple just those regimes and implant democracies in their place. Few then lectured that the Nicaraguans should be left to handle their own dictators or that we had no right to tell the Spanish what to do with Franco. Instead, support for revolutionary movements was voiced and action demanded.

Well, with the end of the Cold War, those days of hope have at last arrived. Noriega, Milosevic, and Mullah Omar not only were fascistic and bloodthirsty, but they are also all gone thanks to the United States military. Rather than seeing protestors chanting to ignore Saddam Hussein, I would have expected that the refrain would be "Solidarity with the brave Iraqi people in their brave struggles against a fascist mass murderer."

The mantras of the 1960s and 1970s were "coalition governments" and "free elections." The United States was supposed to predicate its support on representation of all spectra of views under democratic auspices, i.e., anything other that what had emerged for a time in Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Brazil, Greece, or Argentina. Such right-wing autocracies were corrupt, authoritarian, and murderous. In other words, like the present Palestinian Authority, they brooked no opposition, lynched or shot dissidents with or without show trials, and embezzled foreign aid. Yet today a democratic Israel ÔÇö with a vociferous press, an antiwar movement, a plentitude of parties, regular elections, and a civilian-controlled military ÔÇö is as demonized as Mr. Arafat is praised by Western intellectuals. Do we see protest signs that say "Support the democratic peoples of Israel in their struggle against sexist, homophobic, and fundamentalist reactionaries"?

If I could summarize the antiwar movement's traditional view of the military, it ran something like this: Anyone who came of age during the draft and combat abroad had a constitutional duty not to serve the imperialist war aims of the United States, especially in Vietnam. The military were slandered as innately fascistic and its officers not to be trusted ÔÇö veterans who were said to have the blood of innocent civilians on their hands. Only the brake of civilians ÔÇö intellectual and principled ÔÇö could save us from a dangerous militarism. Or so it went on the campuses.

Now, however, those in their mid and late 50s in government who did not go to Vietnam are slurred as "chicken hawks" in the manner that those same accusers once tarred veterans as "baby killers." That the top brass is wary of going into Iraq is suddenly proof that such military experts, not their civilian overseers, should be heeded as wise and reasonable. Are there petitions, then, that suggest that serving in the ground war in Vietnam between 1965 and 1972 was an act of patriotism, coupled with proclamations that military minds are in general more responsible to gauge the morality of war? If so, the protesters in D.C. should have placards proclaiming, "Listen to our brave generals and rally behind our Vietnam vets." And since dissidents also apparently think that in this war it is safer to be in the fleet than in the path of terrorist bombers, their placards should read: "Chicken-hawks: Leave your sanctuary in the Pentagon and safe high-rises of New York and get into harm's way on a submarine."

After the murderous aftermath of 1975 in Southeast Asia ÔÇö boat people, summary executions, the piled skulls of the killing fields, reeducation camps, over a million refugees in the United States ÔÇö the antiwar Left claimed that its efforts were aimed only at stopping the United States from fighting in Asia and that it had been led astray by the phony rhetoric of the Viet Cong. Thus the myth arose that radical dissidents were more pacifist than anti-American. Suspicions that many favored the eventual Communist victory as part of a general hatred of things America were discounted as absurd, if not libelous. But their stance against the present war with fascists has finally caught up to them, and revealed a large number for what they really are: deductive anti-Americanists. There are various conventional explanations for this week's election results; but unmentioned has been the Democrats' failure to condemn loudly and publicly the ravings of the lunatic Left.

The post-9/11 animus from a Norman Mailer (the Twin Towers were like ugly buck teeth), Noam Chomsky (America planned to kill "millions" in Afghanistan), or Michael Moore (there were few Bush voters at the World Trade Center) ÔÇö followed by gleeful predictions by others of U.S. failure against the Taliban ÔÇö is now come to logical fruition over the toppling of the odious Saddam Hussein. And what one has to conclude from the present venom is that anti-Americanism is neither logical nor empirical. Indeed, it is a fundamentalist secular religion, not a reasoned stance, one entirely inconsistent and unpredictable in its choice of friends and foes ÔÇö except for one constant: Whatever America does, it hates.

We are learning that resistance never really entailed opposition to fascism at all, much less the need for intervention to support democracy, but was simply a strange desire to vent displeasure with our own culture. That so many of these ideological teenagers mad at their opulent and indulgent parents are affluent suburbanites suggests the deleterious effects of leisure and wealth; that so many enjoy the appurtenances of nice cars, houses, and travel denotes abject hypocrisy; that so many mindlessly repeat cant and fad reflects the power of belonging to a clique that promises status by being more "sophisticated" and "subtle" than ordinary Americans; that so many demand utopian perfection reminds us that their god Reason is an unforgiving totem; that so many are shrill and angry suggests that they seek global causes to assuage personal unhappiness and anger at a system that has not met their own high demands upon it.

So we have at last arrived at Cloudcuckooland: A hierarchal United States military is more tolerant of liberals in its ranks than liberal universities are of their critics on campus. Republicans support dangerous interventions abroad to remove dictators and free oppressed peoples, as leftist dissidents agitate for hands-off mass murderers and medieval theocrats. A democratic Israel is slandered as imperialistic and fascistic while an authoritarian Palestinian regime is given a pass for theft, murder, and torture. And liberals, women, and homosexuals are saved in Afghanistan thanks to the work of Air Force pilots and special forces, as reactionary fundamentalists and thugs seek to hold onto their autocracy in part by finding solace with anti-American leftists. Who would have ever thought that democratic Iraqis would seek our military's help, while agents of Saddam Hussein would line up to find solidarity with those now marching?

Face it: Slobodan Milosevic, Mullah Omar, Yasser Arafat, and Saddam Hussein ÔÇö not the ghosts of the thousands of their innocent dead ÔÇö all prefer Ramsey Clark to George Bush. We are seeing nothing less than quite literally the end of an era ÔÇö witnessed by the intellectual suicide of an entire generation, who in their last gasps are proving they have been not very moral people all along.


Nothing more needs to be said.

Game, Set, Match.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that gets me about these discussions, there are those who discuss what we should do about a problem, and there are those who whine and complain about why we shouldn't do that while offering no solutions of their own.

They have solutions, but do not verbalize them for fear of painting themselves out to be what they themselves deny/minimize.

Solution: Spread our money from the greedy countries to those "less fortunate" countries.

Solution: Understand why they do not appreciate us, and give in totally to their demands and expect nothing in return.

Solution: Our militaries should be regulated to traffic tickets and halftime shows at football games... oh, and to "protect" the civilian population from themselves.

Solution: Everyone who makes more than someone else is obviously doing so because they are exploiting others and not because they went to school or work harder, so take their income and give it to those who were obviously being exploited and not drinking their life away or dropping out of school.

It's propaganda, and the line never changes. Repeat it enough and hopefully people will chant right along. It worked for Hitler I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed $iLk, it is called liberalism, they are out of ideas, because their ideas DON'T work.

Since their hunger for power is neverending, since they are out of ideas, because ALL of their ideas have been tried and have failed, then they will do their best to put down REAL ideas that ACTUALLY work, by whining and pouting.

They can't bring up their own ideas from the ashheap, because the American people have FINALLY caught on that we are now WORSE off then before their ideas were tried.

Trash ideas and whine a lot.

Yo, Liberals, want some cheese with that whine?

By the way, the Democrats just screeched so hard to the left it is insane, they just elected a LIBERAL from San francisco of all places as the Minority leader in the house.

The Democrats just comitted political suicide, and I just LOVE it!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Commentary, Bill Moyers,

Way back in the 1950's when I first tasted politics and journalism, Republicans briefly controlled the White House and Congress. With the exception of Joseph McCarthy and his vicious ilk, they were a reasonable lot, presided over by that giant war hero, Dwight Eisenhower, who was conservative by temperament and moderate in the use of power.

That brand of Republican is gone. And for the first time in the memory of anyone alive, the entire federal government ÔÇö the Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary ÔÇö is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate.

That mandate includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives.

It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich.

It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable.

And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine. Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you liked the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming.

And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture. These folks don't even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God. Why else would the new House Majority Leader say that the Almighty is using him to promote 'a Biblical worldview' in American politics?

So it is a heady time in Washington ÔÇö a heady time for piety, profits, and military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money.

Don't forget the money. It came pouring into this election, to both parties, from corporate America and others who expect the payback. Republicans out raised democrats by $184 million dollars. And came up with the big prize ÔÇö monopoly control of the American government, and the power of the state to turn their ideology into the law of the land. Quite a bargain at any price.

That's it for this week.

For NOW, I'm Bill Moyers


$ilk admit it, this country has declared empire for all the wrong reasons (if there ever is a good one)....that doesn't make me proud as an American...

The founding of this country was in direct opposition to these kinds of wars and actions.

And Jag...you should just know better....Constitutional Republican...what is that a sick joke?

Anyway, I wont bash all conservatives because I know that most have honor and integrity.and ultimately, believe in people, liberty, and freedom.and when the betrayal of a people for the profit of those without concern to country becomes clear..I believe the people will act with the integrity and fortitude that has defined this country for the majority of our history..

[ 11-08-2002, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Yes darling, I know, but if I'm going to read propaganda it might as well be propaganda that I agree with.

To only read one side is to be ignorant.

quote:

I'm not entirely sure I see the relevance here, it seams to me that the opinion of the populace being liberated is of secondary importance.

If the opinion of the populace is that they're not being liberated, then it's far from secondary. That's the relevance.

quote:

So? America's roll is to look out for the interests of America's population, and if this means allying with a dictatorship, then I simply don't see a problem with that. Besides, there are only a dozen or so countries that political scientists consider true democracies (or maybe it's a half dozen, I forget), so it's not like we have a lot of options.

If the US government's role is to look out for the interests of America's population, then it wouldn't hide so much of what it does from the population, especially when that information indicates significant danger to the population. You might say that they do that because "the people are morons" or some such lame excuse, but remember that government officials come from the population, and it's a basic requirement that representative governments are accountable to the people they represent.

The US government doesn't mention to the people that it allies with oppressive regimes because that would raise the question of whether that's a cause of terrorism against American citizens. When Americans are killed as a result, the government spreads the claim that it's because the terrorists are "freedom-haters" or "religious extremists", omitting the fact that the US government contributes to a lack of freedom in the region. In the end, the American people become the human shields of the economic elite, who directly benefit from the oppression.

quote:

Ha, like the people have any self determination as far as the government goes anyway, that's rich darling.

You said it yourself, the role of the government is to work in the interests of its people. A puppet government works in the interests of another government, often in a brutal manner against its own people. Guess what happens to the level of terrorism. Guess what the US government says about it. Guess whose interests are not being upheld.

quote:

Well, I see nothing wrong with benefiting the economic elite, just as I'm sure a lot of poor people have no problem with policies that benefit the poor.

Nice copout. The problem is that by benefiting the economic elite in this way, the rest of the American population is put at risk. This truly indicates whose interests the US government really work for.

quote:

As for this American hooliganism (great word choice by the way) striking off more terrorism, I rather think that strong and decisive action against countries harboring terrorists (like Afghanistan) will reduce the terrorist problem rather then enhance it.

The problem is that decisive military action has been counter-productive to reducing terrorism.

Here is a quote from FAQ B2:

"For example, when the Bush administration proclaimed war in Afghanistan as its prime approach to protecting Americans, anti-war critics argued that this approach would be of little value and might even drive more people to terrorism. And sure enough, the New York Times reported on June 16, 2002, based on conversations with senior government officials: "Classified investigations of the Qaeda threat now under way at the FBI and CIA have concluded that the war in Afghanistan failed to diminish the threat to the United States, the officials said. Instead, the war may have complicated counterterrorism efforts by dispersing potential attackers across a wider geographic area." Where careful police work can be effective against al Qaeda- type threats, as it has been in Germany, Spain, and elsewhere, bombing has had negligible positive benefit, as might be expected given that the terrorists did most of their planning not in Kabul or Kandahar but in Hamburg, Germany, and Paterson, New Jersey.

"Far from being bizarre, therefore, the anti-war view was in fact similar to that of hardheaded mainstream realist international relations specialists. Thus Stephen Walt has noted "Military power is not necessary to wiping out Al Qaeda. It's a crude instrument, and it almost always has effects you can't anticipate. We're seeing that now. We didn't get Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden. We're killing civilians. We're killing friendly forces. This is ultimately a battle for the hearts and minds of people around the world. When your village just got leveled by an American mistake, the conclusions you draw will be rather different from what we'd want them to be." (Quoted in Nicolas Lemann, New Yorker, 9/16/02.)"

quote:

And before I do something like assume you're advocating inaction, what do you suggest America does?

Support the demand for weapons inspections rather than curtailing it; tighten the military sanctions, which includes keeping its own allied smugglers in check (e.g. Turkey); lift the economic sanctions; provide food, medicine, and arms where possible to popular resistance groups; provide international aid for rebuilding the country once Saddam is overthrown.

quote:

So remind me, will you, what exactly is wrong with imperialism?

I'm not going to go off on a tangent here, except to say that U.S. imperialism has lead to the rise of anti-U.S. terrorism. Do you see anything wrong with that?

quote:

If given a strict choice between learning to speak Arabic or firing a couple of well-placed nukes to end it, guess which one I'm gonna choose? What you're not considering is the danger of not going to war to end needless bloodshed and international terrorism. If you're so hot in this 'anti-war' position, which of the warring countries do you want to be your Master? Inaction is a choice -- the choice to be ruled by others, not of your choosing.

You've just proven my point about false dilemmas by repeating one yourself. This is what Bush's propaganda has done to people.

quote:

what we did in southern america and vietnam should not even be mentioned in the same breath as what the soviet union did during the cold war, or the other facts i have mentioned. our form of "imperialism" doesnt even hold a candle to what those other countries have done... we get the crap end of the stick because we're the biggest on the block, where there are other countries who wipe out entire civilizations before breakfast. spain happens to ring a bell as does central africa. there is no comparison period.

Could I borrow your crayons for a minute? Thank you.

The year is 2002. Soviet imperialism is gone, and Spanish imperialism is gone. U.S. imperialism is still around and it's horrendous. You can compare the relative effects of all three as much as you want, but it's still horrendous. I suggest you take a closer look at the effects of U.S. imperialism. A comprehensive book on the subject is 'Rogue State' by William H. Blum.

quote:

no one will forget american "imperialism" simply due to the fact that the left keeps beating the dead horse.

It's not a dead horse, because it's still happening. You're the one who's been flogging a dead horse by bringing up the Spanish Empire.

quote:

its always what america does.

It's this claim that FAQ A9 addresses. Maybe you should read it again.

quote:

everyone wants to hash on us, but the fact remains that they are too damn lazy to do research and actually look for facts supporting their claims... such as you and your author have done.

It's an FAQ, Grayfox. If the authors had to quote every source, the document would be ten times its current size. Despite this, they do provide some evidence of the horrors of U.S. imperialism and clarify their arguments in light of it.

FAQ B9, B10, B11, B16, C1, C13, C14, C15

quote:

this pacifist crap is just too funny...You like to react, well, we're done reacting and being on the defensive because we might hurt your feelings. We are now on the offense and will remain there.

FAQ A1

quote:

But, if a nuke goes off in New York city, you will be one of the first ones screaming about how we didn't do anything.

They killed 3000 of our citizens, Iraq helps and finances terrorism. If the Pali's or Al Quaeda get a nuke, they WILL use it. Where would they get that nuke? Iraq, that's where.

FAQ C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9

[ 11-08-2002, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

To only read one side is to be ignorant.

True, though in I take both sides with a grain of salt. Besides, I do read quite a bit of the leftist propaganda you post, I simply didn't feel like reading that entire bloody FAQ.

quote:

If the opinion of the populace is that they're not being liberated, then it's far from secondary. That's the relevance.

But the point isn't to liberate the country, that's a side advantage that, while nice, is not all that important. Rather the point is to protect American interests in that country (in the case of Iraq that mean oil and not getting nuked). Secondary objectives are exactly that, secondary.

quote:

If the US government's role is to look out for the interests of America's population, then it wouldn't hide so much of what it does from the population, especially when that information indicates significant danger to the population. You might say that they do that because "the people are morons" or some such lame excuse, but remember that government officials come from the population, and it's a basic requirement that representative governments are accountable to the people they represent.

You can't possible be referring to that unproven rumor about Bush having evidence can you? That aside, there are always times that informing the population of something because of national security, or because, yes, the people are morons.

quote:

You said it yourself, the role of the government is to work in the interests of its people. A puppet government works in the interests of another government, often in a brutal manner against its own people. Guess what happens to the level of terrorism. Guess what the US government says about it. Guess whose interests are not being upheld.

Yes darling, but the truth of the matter is that there is a conflict between what is good for our population and what is good for there population. I could say that might makes right, or that the good of the many outweigh the good of the one or the few (we have a larger population after all), but that's not going to convince you of anything. As for the level of terrorism, I'll address that in a bit.

quote:

The problem is that by benefiting the economic elite in this way, the rest of the American population is put at risk. This truly indicates whose interests the US government really work for.

First of all, it's pretty hard to just benefit the economic elites, after all what is good for the economy in general is good for everyone. This aside, however, giving in even slightly to any form of terrorism is completely counterproductive because it will encourage more terrorism on the basis that it's an effective strategy to deal with us. However, there is another issue, we are a powerful country and smaller countries (and some members of there populace) are jealous of that power. It's like if I were to go somewhere wearing my mink there is a chance I could be mugged, that kind of thing happens, but I'll be damned if that means I'm going to wear rags.

quote:

The problem is that decisive military action has been counter-productive to reducing terrorism.

I doubt that can be demonstrated conclusively either way (whatever the propaganda might say), and at least with military action cannot be seen as giving into terrorism.

quote:

Support the demand for weapons inspections rather than curtailing it; tighten the military sanctions, which includes keeping its own allied smugglers in check (e.g. Turkey); lift the economic sanctions; provide food, medicine, and arms where possible to popular resistance groups; provide international aid for rebuilding the country once Saddam is overthrown.

Seams like a rather indirect way of solving the problem, not to mention a rather ineffectual one. Besides, what's the point of supporting a resistance group when it's a hell of a lot easier (and much more assured) to simply go in there ourselves. While all of this may work, it seams like going to a lot of trouble simply to avoid a war.

quote:

I'm not going to go off on a tangent here, except to say that U.S. imperialism has lead to the rise of anti-U.S. terrorism. Do you see anything wrong with that?

Like I said before, the fact that we're powerful may have lead to terrorism, but that's no excuse to surrender that power because of terrorists. That simply would be to close to giving in. Rather, we need to be strong so that no terrorist in his right mind (well, ok, the ones not in there right mind as well) would avoid attacking the US, and so that supporting ant-US terrorism is tantamount to suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

"No blood for oil" implies that the United States is attacking Iraq to ensure a low price for petroleum ÔÇö a plot purportedly to allow SUV- driving soccer moms to buzz around at the world's expense.

Hanson's interpretation of "no blood for oil" is wrong. It's not about keeping the price down. It's about who controls the supply. Currently, American oil companies have a relative share of the Iraqi oil trade with other states (e.g. Russia, France, and so on) under the OFP. A US-led invasion would change all of that. American oil companies would get a bigger share of the oligopoly. More control over the supply of oil from Iraq means more profit for those companies, and less dependence on the Saudi Arabian Oil Company.

quote:

The argument instead can be made that a fascistic Iraq currently pumps far less than its natural capacity or its national interests would otherwise demand ÔÇö perhaps as much as a million-barrel shortfall. And such an artificially created dearth helps the price-gouging Russians and the Gulf States by reducing world supplies at the expense of billions well outside the borders of the United States.

It's funny how Hanson blames Iraq, Russia and the Gulf States for an artificial dearth created and benefited by the United States and Britain: the lesser oil production in Iraq is due to economic sanctions which would not exist without US and British veto power on the Security Council, because the other permanent members (including Russia) oppose it. The economic sanctions block Iraqi imports of oil field equipment defined as "dual use", and close oil pipelines to countries such as Syria. Meanwhile, Iraqi oil is smuggled to Turkey every day under the noses of the USAF. Turkey is a US ally.

quote:

The dream of 1960s radicals was supposedly that someday the United States might use its vast cultural influence and military power to be on the "right side of history." That meant ÔÇö instead of Pavlovian opposition to idealistic socialists and occasional Communists in preference for odious figures like Pinochet, Somoza, or Franco ÔÇö we would try to topple just those regimes and implant democracies in their place. Few then lectured that the Nicaraguans should be left to handle their own dictators or that we had no right to tell the Spanish what to do with Franco. Instead, support for revolutionary movements was voiced and action demanded.

Well, with the end of the Cold War, those days of hope have at last arrived. Noriega, Milosevic, and Mullah Omar not only were fascistic and bloodthirsty, but they are also all gone thanks to the United States military.

Manuel Noriega was captured not because he was fascistic and bloodthirsty (the US supported him throughout this period), but because he stopped following orders from the US government.

Milosevic was overthrown by a popular rebellion within Serbia, not by the US military.

Mullah Omar and the rest of the Taliban came to power with the blessings of the US government, despite its brutal oppression of the Afghans. It was only when the Taliban stopped obeying the US government that it was opposed. This is a common pattern among former US allies, and yet it's still being followed.

quote:

Rather than seeing protestors chanting to ignore Saddam Hussein, I would have expected that the refrain would be "Solidarity with the brave Iraqi people in their brave struggles against a fascist mass murderer."

The protestors are not chanting to ignore Saddam Hussein. In fact, Hanson's recommended refrain is exactly what the anti-war left is demanding (solidarity with the Iraqi people). What's preventing the Iraqis from winning their struggle against Saddam is the economic sanctions, which make the people completely dependent on Saddam for food and medicine.

Also, the fact that Saddam's worst acts of mass murder were defended and even facilitated by the US government throughout the 1980s indicates that the US government has no solidarity with the Iraqi people, and should be the last group to try to "liberate" them, especially when it still supports economic sanctions that have resulted in ten times the death that resulted from Saddam's mass murder spree. The lack of solidarity is also clarified by one of the US government's recommended replacements for Saddam (General Khazraji), who was indicted to a Danish court for his alleged participation in the Halabja massacre (where the Kurds were gassed).

quote:

Yet today a democratic Israel ÔÇö with a vociferous press, an antiwar movement, a plentitude of parties, regular elections, and a civilian-controlled military ÔÇö is as demonized as Mr. Arafat is praised by Western intellectuals. Do we see protest signs that say "Support the democratic peoples of Israel in their struggle against sexist, homophobic, and fundamentalist reactionaries"?

Israel's democracy is based on a policy of displacing the Palestinians from their homes and keeping them across the border to maintain a Jewish majority in the voting population, hence it's a racist fraud.

The left is not against the people of Israel, but against the Israeli government for its brutal oppression of the Palestinians which drove them to commit terrorism in the first place (I am merely explaining it, not justifying it). It's also the only country in the Middle East that is proven to have nuclear weapons.

quote:

If I could summarize the antiwar movement's traditional view of the military, it ran something like this: Anyone who came of age during the draft and combat abroad had a constitutional duty not to serve the imperialist war aims of the United States, especially in Vietnam. The military were slandered as innately fascistic and its officers not to be trusted ÔÇö veterans who were said to have the blood of innocent civilians on their hands. Only the brake of civilians ÔÇö intellectual and principled ÔÇö could save us from a dangerous militarism. Or so it went on the campuses.

Now, however, those in their mid and late 50s in government who did not go to Vietnam are slurred as "chicken hawks" in the manner that those same accusers once tarred veterans as "baby killers." That the top brass is wary of going into Iraq is suddenly proof that such military experts, not their civilian overseers, should be heeded as wise and reasonable. Are there petitions, then, that suggest that serving in the ground war in Vietnam between 1965 and 1972 was an act of patriotism, coupled with proclamations that military minds are in general more responsible to gauge the morality of war? If so, the protesters in D.C. should have placards proclaiming, "Listen to our brave generals and rally behind our Vietnam vets." And since dissidents also apparently think that in this war it is safer to be in the fleet than in the path of terrorist bombers, their placards should read: "Chicken-hawks: Leave your sanctuary in the Pentagon and safe high-rises of New York and get into harm's way on a submarine."

Hanson tries to make anti-war leftists seem hypocritical by misrepresenting whom they oppose. The fact is the anti-war left opposes pro-war elements. It does not discriminate between the military and the civilian government in this regard.

quote:

After the murderous aftermath of 1975 in Southeast Asia ÔÇö boat people, summary executions, the piled skulls of the killing fields, reeducation camps, over a million refugees in the United States ÔÇö the antiwar Left claimed that its efforts were aimed only at stopping the United States from fighting in Asia and that it had been led astray by the phony rhetoric of the Viet Cong. Thus the myth arose that radical dissidents were more pacifist than anti-American. Suspicions that many favored the eventual Communist victory as part of a general hatred of things America were discounted as absurd, if not libelous. But their stance against the present war with fascists has finally caught up to them, and revealed a large number for what they really are: deductive anti-Americanists.

That is both untrue and insulting. The anti-war movement during Vietnam was motivated by a variety of factors.

First, the US government took drastic measures to ensure that Vietnam was not unified by popular consent. The Geneva Accords of 1954 stipulated that Vietnam would be reunited after elections in 1956. Fearing that Ho Chi Minh would be the likely victor of these elections (his forces were instrumental in achieving Vietnamese independence from the French), the United States supported the installation of an authoritarian regime in the south under Diem (which became increasingly oppressive as more people actively opposed it) to curtail the electoral process. Diem was overthrown in 1963 by a US-approved military coup when it became clear that he had lost all credibility. The new government (under president Thieu) was no better.

Secondly, the US military was using horrendous tactics in the war, including near-indiscriminate mass destruction of civilian areas. The number of Vietnamese civilian deaths is estimated at 2 million.

Thirdly, the US government instituted a draft when the volunteer pool dried up, despite indications that the war could not be won.

The rhetoric of the NLF (the term Viet Cong was invented by Diem) was not a factor in opposing the war.

quote:

The post-9/11 animus from a Norman Mailer (the Twin Towers were like ugly buck teeth), Noam Chomsky (America planned to kill "millions" in Afghanistan), or Michael Moore (there were few Bush voters at the World Trade Center) ÔÇö followed by gleeful predictions by others of U.S. failure against the Taliban ÔÇö is now come to logical fruition over the toppling of the odious Saddam Hussein. And what one has to conclude from the present venom is that anti-Americanism is neither logical nor empirical. Indeed, it is a fundamentalist secular religion, not a reasoned stance, one entirely inconsistent and unpredictable in its choice of friends and foes ÔÇö except for one constant: Whatever America does, it hates.

This conclusion is based on Hanson's ridiculous interpretations of anti-war positions regarding oil, Saddam, Israel, and Vietnam.

The following quotes consist of Hanson's laughable pseudo-psychological analysis of leftists. He assembles every stereotype into one strawman argument, portraying all leftists as raving lunatics.

quote:

We are learning that resistance never really entailed opposition to fascism at all, much less the need for intervention to support democracy, but was simply a strange desire to vent displeasure with our own culture.

The anti-war left identifies and criticizes specific elements within a nation that directly benefit from a war. This is not a venting of displeasure with "our own culture", whatever that means.

quote:

That so many of these ideological teenagers mad at their opulent and indulgent parents are affluent suburbanites suggests the deleterious effects of leisure and wealth;

Hanson's inconsistent argument is contradicted by the fact that many of the richest people in America are pro-war.

quote:

that so many enjoy the appurtenances of nice cars, houses, and travel denotes abject hypocrisy;

The anti-war left does not condemn wealthy people for having wealth. It criticises institutions that produce conditions in which disproportionate wealth is allocated, hence producing an economic elite that has material incentives for supporting war. Therefore, Hanson's argument that middle class anti-war leftists are hypocritical has no substance, especially since most if not all of them would not be beneficiaries of the war.

quote:

that so many mindlessly repeat cant and fad reflects the power of belonging to a clique that promises status by being more "sophisticated" and "subtle" than ordinary Americans; that so many demand utopian perfection reminds us that their god Reason is an unforgiving totem; that so many are shrill and angry suggests that they seek global causes to assuage personal unhappiness and anger at a system that has not met their own high demands upon it.

This quote is best described as incoherent babble, as Hanson paints an imaginary picture of leftists as bratty lemmings seeking utopia.

It is natural to express anger in the face of injustice. The fact that leftists express anger does not make them irrational, unless they don't provide arguments to explain that anger. Leftists provide arguments all the time, and Hanson still calls them irrational, not because they're angry, but because he disagrees with them.

The rest of the article restates the same arguments as before.

quote:

The only thing that gets me about these discussions, there are those who discuss what we should do about a problem, and there are those who whine and complain about why we shouldn't do that while offering no solutions of their own.

$iLk, before solutions can be suggested, one needs to argue what the real nature of the problem is. That's what's happening now. It's redundant to suggest solutions if there is widespread disagreement about what the problem is.

quote:

Understand why they do not appreciate us, and give in totally to their demands and expect nothing in return.

That is an oversimplistic and misleading interpretation of a proposed solution. To deliberately avoid an understanding of why one would commit such terror is foolish, especially when it's being caused by the policies of one's own government. To gain an understanding is not to justify the action either (FAQ B3). Addressing those grievances also doesn't require that one give in to all demands, since the available evidence indicates that Al Qaeda is lead by a group pursuing its own agenda while simultaneously coopting genuine grievances to gain more recruits (FAQ B4). Addressing the genuine grievances would undermine the terrorist leaders' ability to recruit unsuspecting followers. The result would be a substantial reduction of terrorism and a blow against radical Islamic fundamentalism.

The rest of your "suggestions" are stereotypes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

True, though in I take both sides with a grain of salt. Besides, I do read quite a bit of the leftist propaganda you post, I simply didn't feel like reading that entire bloody FAQ.

In that case, I may not feel like reading your entire bloody post.

quote:

But the point isn't to liberate the country, that's a side advantage that, while nice, is not all that important. Rather the point is to protect American interests in that country (in the case of Iraq that mean oil and not getting nuked). Secondary objectives are exactly that, secondary.

As I've already stated, an invasion of Iraq would be counter-productive to the objective of keeping American civilians safe from terrorism, which is also secondary in US government policy.

quote:

You can't possible be referring to that unproven rumor about Bush having evidence can you?

You misinterpreted my post. I was referring to information about what the US government is doing "in the interests of its people".

quote:

That aside, there are always times that informing the population of something because of national security, or because, yes, the people are morons.

How convenient that the government decides when those times will be. It's a flagrant bypass of accountability. Assuming that the people are morons is also a lame excuse for bypassing accountability.

quote:

Yes darling, but the truth of the matter is that there is a conflict between what is good for our population and what is good for there population.

Once again, you misinterpret my post (I admit that I'm a bit vague sometimes). The interests of both populations would be curtailed. The people in the puppet regime lose freedom and representation, which understandably pisses them off and drives some to terrorism. The people of the United States become the prime targets of the terrorism while gaining very little from the oppression (most of the benefits go to the economic elite).

quote:

First of all, it's pretty hard to just benefit the economic elites, after all what is good for the economy in general is good for everyone.

Most of the benefits go to the economic elites (they're the ones that get the most out of revenues).

quote:

This aside, however, giving in even slightly to any form of terrorism is completely counterproductive because it will encourage more terrorism on the basis that it's an effective strategy to deal with us.

I've already covered this in my response to $iLk's post.

quote:

However, there is another issue, we are a powerful country and smaller countries (and some members of there populace) are jealous of that power. It's like if I were to go somewhere wearing my mink there is a chance I could be mugged, that kind of thing happens, but I'll be damned if that means I'm going to wear rags.

Begging the question of jealousy, eh? The problem is you have provided no convincing argument that rank and file terrorists (as opposed to terrorist leaders) are motivated by jealousy of power, whereas there are more compelling arguments that many of their grievances are genuine. Therefore, jealousy is not really an issue here.

quote:

I doubt that can be demonstrated conclusively either way (whatever the propaganda might say)

That propaganda is supported by a statement by a non-leftist international relations specialist, which certainly indicates that there is something to this. Unless you can provide me with an equally compelling contrary source, I'd say that while it cannot be conclusively demonstrated, it can be indicated with very high probability.

quote:

and at least with military action cannot be seen as giving into terrorism.

I'm sure the 20,000 dead Afghan civilians appreciate dying for the sake of America looking like a thug.

quote:

Seams like a rather indirect way of solving the problem, not to mention a rather ineffectual one.

Popular resistance succeeded against Suharto and Milosevic, and they were much more powerful than Saddam is now (he barely holds two thirds of Iraq's territory).

quote:

Besides, what's the point of supporting a resistance group when it's a hell of a lot easier (and much more assured) to simply go in there ourselves.

FAQ A2, A4, C12, C15

quote:

Like I said before, the fact that we're powerful may have lead to terrorism, but that's no excuse to surrender that power because of terrorists.

The terrorism was not caused by having power, but by abusing that power, hence it is not a requirement to surrender power in order to stop terrorism, unless the abuse is never stopped.

quote:

Rather, we need to be strong so that no terrorist in his right mind (well, ok, the ones not in there right mind as well) would avoid attacking the US, and so that supporting ant-US terrorism is tantamount to suicide.

How much stronger would the US need to be?! It's already the most powerful nation militarily and economically in the history of the world, and yet the terrorist attacks have only become more bold and more sophisticated. Strength is useless when fighting terrorism, and using the strength for brutal intentions only encourages more terrorism and an escalation in the magnitude of the attacks.

[ 11-09-2002, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

How much stronger would the US need to be?! It's already the most powerful nation militarily and economically in the history of the world, and yet the terrorist attacks have only become more bold and more sophisticated. Strength is useless when fighting terrorism, and using the strength for brutal intentions only encourages more terrorism and an escalation in the magnitude of the attacks.


ThatÔÇÖs the question. Americans will not have another Vietnam yet they do not want to loose their standard of living.

We want freedom and liberty but yet to maintain current systems of "economic growth" it would appear that we have to oppress, subvert, and kill (or look the other way)....but we aren't in this alone....the leading wealthy countries understand this reality as well....that is why there is a G-8 summit etc.

The evidence is starting to build that the ÔÇ£free marketÔÇØ is nothing but a BS form of economic imperialism. The evidence is also mounting that the idea of a forever expanding economy is a myth that could prove to be ultimately fatal to the planet.

Enter the fact that access to high office in this country is strictly regimented by media coverage and money...and our representative democracy starts to loose its just sparkle.

Further compound this mess by: eliminating these issues, idea's, and problems from American mainstream media and substitute with the broken record of...."evil doers", "terrorists", and the killer squirrels (yes that was on CNN the other day)....or stories about slim shady's mothers grief over his new movie. and the breakdown starts to become clear.

It is unrealistic to believe that we can ever reach a "safe" world through military buildup, exuberant CIA funding, and foreign war after foreign war (especially when your soldiers come back sick as hell and you ignore or marginalize them)...it is pure folly to think a culture that wants nothing but to live in luxury is going to overcome another where all too many are born into misery, tempered by religious faith, and honed to offer the ultimate sacrifice without flinching while inflicting the maximum amount of damage....

Now the truly ludicrous part of the whole operation is forcing the poorer parts of this country to fund these adventures in arrogance....

As our educational systems continue to erode, medical costs skyrocket, and the gap between rich, working class, working poor, and the just plain destitute increase, people are going (if they arenÔÇÖt already) to wonder about how they live and who is telling them to live that way....

But like Tony Snow said on FOX today (while discussing the Iraq situation)....."it should be fun to see what happens".....of course his guest immediately corrected him with a questioning look and said "actually this situation is extremely dangerous"....Tony, realizing the madness of what he just said immediately tried to back track and fumbled for the words...any words...to explain what the hell he was talking about. Unfortunately for Tony, when your brain comes off autopilot it can be hard to instantly correct....they ended the interview promptly and cut to commercial...it was a truly golden moment for the FOX news family

Anyway people it should be "fun"....

[ 11-09-2002, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

That mandate includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives.


The infamous Roe Vs. Wade argument. And if you'll notice, though Bush and many Republicans are "Pro Life", they are not interfering with the law as is.

As for the pregnant women giving up control over their own lives argument, that's another debate.

Women have all the power over that decision when they make the choice to either spread em or keep em shut.

quote:

It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich.


What is the distintion between "working people" and "rich people"? You assume that all who are rich are just rich for no apparent reason.

BTW, working people earn paychecks, they use those checks to pay for services, those services are provided by those who chose to risk their money to provide them.

That's called the economy, it's how it works. No one is stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

quote:

It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable.


So from what I understand the Republicans have simply left federal law and regulations the same as they were under Clinton in regards to the environment.

Arsenic levels which were of issue last year, the Federal regulation is several times lower than that which is remotely dangerous. Bush caught heat for not driving them lower.

The Kyoto treaty was about as useful as Toilet Paper. The nations who signed it did so as a socialist ME TOO attitude.

Ever tried taking a look at the amount of land set aside in the US as Federally protected land? Some 30% of our land mass of North America is protected from development.

quote:

And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine. Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you liked the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming.


A court that enforced state law in the 2000 election? I pray that we do have a court which supports the ideas enumerated in the Constitution.

quote:

And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture. These folks don't even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God. Why else would the new House Majority Leader say that the Almighty is using him to promote 'a Biblical worldview' in American politics?


And so government officials have no right to believe in a higher power as is their right under the 1st Ammendment? Do tell.

Separation of Church and state does *NOT* mean that only Atheists are qualified to govern.

The rest of his article is the same rubbish, I only responded to the first points because I am bored.

quote:

$ilk admit it, this country has declared empire for all the wrong reasons (if there ever is a good one)....that doesn't make me proud as an American...

The founding of this country was in direct opposition to these kinds of wars and actions.


If you'll read my interpretations of the 'War on Iraq, you will see that I am not following the marching band to war. I didn't think Bush made a good case for the invasion of Iraq.

But if we have to go, I only say that we should do it right this time. Iraq is in breach of UN resolutions, it should be the UN who deals with him as they see fit. And if they wish to whine and plead, I hope that they get a good return from Sadaam in 'Kuwait Invasion Number TWO'

quote:

And Jag...you should just know better....Constitutional Republican...what is that a sick joke?


Jag has a different ideology, and while I don't agree wholeheartedly with his Iraqi position, at least he's honest. A Constitutional Republican I can understand as being totally different from a good deal of 'regular' Republicans in the White House.

I do think it's better than trying to wrap a socialist agenda in the American Flag, Apple Pie, and the Girl next door as some liberals attempt to do.

quote:

Anyway, I wont bash all conservatives because I know that most have honor and integrity.and ultimately, believe in people, liberty, and freedom.and when the betrayal of a people for the profit of those without concern to country becomes clear..I believe the people will act with the integrity and fortitude that has defined this country for the majority of our history..


I salute you for that part of your post, because at least you haven't jumped on the group mentality of Bash them all because they are all the same.

I'm not a Republican, I'm more conservative than a Libertarian - but don't know what to call me.

Constitutionalist I guess.

quote:

$iLk, before solutions can be suggested, one needs to argue what the real nature of the problem is. That's what's happening now. It's redundant to suggest solutions if there is widespread disagreement about what the problem is.


My concern is, you are looking in all the wrong places for the purpose.

I'll agree to an extent that people's economic/social/political conditions around the world have an influence on their actions.

My concern is that you seek to alleviate these conditions over time.

While our leaders could be thinking about 'Why no one likes us?' 'Why everyone wants to kill us?', Terrorists could be slamming planes into buildings, blowing up stuff, etc.

Here's my take on it - I don't care why they did it.

If I know who did it, I would strike back and decimate them to the point where they would be unlikely to mount so well an attack the next time.

If they wanted more, and the next time seized hostages, shot up a school, whatever - Terrorism right back into their face. Drop bombs on their homes, destroy their will to fight.

Violence surely isn't the answer. Not for us - for them.

If their country is in the pits, they need to think of something better to do themselves before pissing off the big dog.

Like getting a job, or improving their own country.

Would you enlighten us on how slamming airliners into the World Trade Center helped boost their way of life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$iLk,

Excellent points, I am a constitutionalist. But at this point in time, President Bush is the best thing we've got, Ashcroft actually believes in the constitution, and so does Bush, they will of course stretch it for all it's worth, only because they have promised the same things the dems did, prescription drugs, etc etc ad nauseum.

BUT, I do love privatising Social Security, best thing that they could do to it.

They are going to protect our 2nd amendment rights, and they will appoint Judges who ACTUALLY REAAD the constitution, instead of trying to change it's meaning like the liberal judges have done. IT IS NOT a living breathing document, and Bush and Ashcroft know it, and so will the judges they appoint. IS means IS, and keep and bear arms, means to keep and bear arms.

There are 2 reasons that I support the war on Iraq.

1: Saddam has ignored ALL UN resolutions, he interfered with Instpectors and IS developing weapons of mass destruction. His MAIN goal has always been the complete control of the middle east, himself in charge of course, and the total destruction of Israel. WE CANNOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN, PERIOD!!

2: He supports terrorists, you may not think so, But I KNOW SO, from personal experience. That is ALL I can or will say about that.

Saddam supports and finances terrorism ALL around the world, along with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, to just name a few, but he is the one that helps them the most, he is also the one that has allowed Al Quaeda operatives to test and practice with Chemical and biological weapons WITHIN Iraq itself. They have also practiced hijacking and blowing up airliners within Iraq as well.

6-10 high ranking Al Quaeda members are within Baghdad as I type, put up in the best hotels, and being trained by Iraqi intelligence on where, when and whom to strike.

Saddam's government is what allows terrorists to do a lot of what they do, he finances them, he gives them weapons, and he IS going to give them a WMD in the near future. Count on it.

The Palestinian suicide bombers are financed DIRECTLY from Saddam Housien, he writes them checks for $25,000 each time one of them blows themselves up.

He has gained himself quite a bit of time, what does he have in store? You do NOT want to know, but if we do not get rid of his WMD's and KILL him outright, we are going to find out.

Now about this war on Terrorism. Because this only includes Saddam because he sees power for himself by helping, but it is truly about something else.

This war is not about economics, this war is not about food, this war is not about the palestinians.

This war is about Islam, if you are not Muslim, YOU ARE A TARGET, if you give them money, if you give them food, if you fall down on your knees and beg for mercy, THEY ARE GOING TO KILL YOU, unless you are Muslim.

This is a war between the western Judeo Christian countries and fundamentalist Muslims. The only way this is ever going to end is when they run out of fundamentalists, or we can put them out of commission. How do we do that? BY DESTROYING THEM and those that support them.

Iraq is first, after that, Iran will fall of it's own accord, The house of Saud will disintegrate, and then we will be getting somewhere.

Oh, and Menchise, FYI, Iraq is smuggling through Syria and Jordan, NOT Turkey. Get your facts straight. Anything that comes through Turkey is marked Jordan mfr, or Syrian, NOT Iraqi. Anything marked Iraqi, or traceable to Iraq, is confiscated if it hits Turkish Soil. I KNOW this to be true. Again, that is all I will say about that.

The war on Iraq is VERY important, because if we do NOT destroy his WMD's, they will get to the western countries through his terrorists. Yes, a nuke in New York, Anthrax in Washington DC, Smallpox in Seattle, London, Sydney, Paris, EVERY western countries major cities are targets.

What's the goal? Worldwide domination of Islam, and total destruction for any and ALL infidels, unless they are slaves of course.

Real Muslims do not worry me, as a matter of fact I have MANY Muslim freinds, but Fundamentalists, those are the ones that are dangerous, those are the ones that use religion as a reason and excuse to KILL innocent Men, women and children, and until they can be cut off at the knees, they will succeed, because they feel NO guilt about KILLING you, your children, your wives, parents, etc etc ad nauseum.

This is a fight for survival, and if you do not think so, then you are dreaming.

Again, Lotharr, Menchise, LISTEN UP, this is NOT about economics, THIS IS NOT about who did what to whom and for what reason, this is NOT about food, money, or anything else, this is about RELIGION!! That's it, that's all. That's the bottom line.

Ignore it at your peril.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Lotharr:

ThatÔÇÖs the question. Americans will not have another Vietnam yet they do not want to loose their standard of living.

We want freedom and liberty but yet to maintain current systems of "economic growth" it would appear that we have to oppress, subvert, and kill (or look the other way)....but we aren't in this alone....the leading wealthy countries understand this reality as well....that is why there is a G-8 summit etc.

The evidence is starting to build that the ÔÇ£free marketÔÇØ is nothing but a BS form of economic imperialism. The evidence is also mounting that the idea of a forever expanding economy is a myth that could prove to be ultimately fatal to the planet.

Free market means division of labour/specialization on global rather than on national scale. The problem is that 1st world countries force 3rd world countries to open their markets but use tariffs and subsidies to protect their farmers and other structurally weak industries from 3rd world competition. I guess we could save quite a lot of foreign aid if we granted 3rd world countries unrestricted access to our markets. Of course our farmers wouldn't really be that happy to say the least because even if 3rd world countries have lower productivity they also have lower labour costs (these are two sides of the same coin) and thus would be able to outcompete 1st world farmers.

The irony is that many people who complain about the unfair treatment and poor conditions in 3rd world countries also whine about companies relocating operations to said countries which gives these people jobs and income. It is impossible to please everybody but some people just cannot be pleased no matter what you do.

In the early 19th century Britain repealed the corn laws which were tariffs on grain imports to protect domestic farmers from competition. Since food accounted for a larger share of a worker's budget than it does today, falling food prices made British workers better off. That also meant that many farmers had to look for jobs in the industry since they could no longer compete against the cheaper grain imports. It seems that today's farmers (and steel workers) just can't be bothered to look for other jobs. And everybody has to buy their more expensive produce.

quote:

Enter the fact that access to high office in this country is strictly regimented by media coverage and money...and our representative democracy starts to loose its just sparkle.

This problem is directly linked with what I said above. It is essential for farmers, the steel industry and others to have their guys in Congress to assure that everything stays exactly the way it is now. They have much to lose and thus spend large amounts of money for electoral campaigns. On the other hand the majority of people has only little to gain from cheaper imports and thus doesn't bother or even worse they fear open markets too. The corn law episode where workers actually demonstrated in favour of abolishing the tariffs is the way to go.

quote:

Further compound this mess by: eliminating these issues, idea's, and problems from American mainstream media and substitute with the broken record of...."evil doers", "terrorists", and the killer squirrels (yes that was on CNN the other day)....or stories about slim shady's mothers grief over his new movie. and the breakdown starts to become clear.

One could say Opiates for the masses.

quote:

It is unrealistic to believe that we can ever reach a "safe" world through military buildup, exuberant CIA funding, and foreign war after foreign war (especially when your soldiers come back sick as hell and you ignore or marginalize them)...it is pure folly to think a culture that wants nothing but to live in luxury is going to overcome another where all too many are born into misery, tempered by religious faith, and honed to offer the ultimate sacrifice without flinching while inflicting the maximum amount of damage....

It isn't safe but safer than without the military. If the respective agencies stay vigilant the risk of being bombed is much lower than if you have no significant protection, you can hardly argue about that.

If these fundies are so eager to die, Bush might as well spare them the hassle of "travelling" to the US, and kill them right were they are now. The result is the same minus several thousand dead American civilians. Of course there will be casualties but unlike civilians, the military is well trained and the equipped plus they are doing their job.

quote:

Now the truly ludicrous part of the whole operation is forcing the poorer parts of this country to fund these adventures in arrogance....

I assume that you're hinting at the regressive sales/consumption taxes here. Well, I agree. Having a given fraction of your income taxed away hurts a poor person more than a rich one. The whole keynesian deficit spending thingy wont do the trick in the long run (the irony, the irony ). Somebody will have to pick up the tag and since rich people have more to lose, they should be more willing to pay for their safety. Lowering the interest rates seems like a desperate measure too and you risk to slip into a deflation (also known as the liquidity trap, look at Japan if you don't believe it). Yes Mr. Greenspan I'm looking at you. The real estates market is just another bubble waiting to happen.

quote:

As our educational systems continue to erode, medical costs skyrocket, and the gap between rich, working class, working poor, and the just plain destitute increase, people are going (if they arenÔÇÖt already) to wonder about how they live and who is telling them to live that way....

Maybe a little bit of competition among the schools would increase quality and lower costs. Crushing monopolies usually hase these effects. The medical costs rise because people get older than they used to and also have unhealthy lifestyles. IIRC 40% of the Americans are considered overweight. Here in Switzerland the market of pharmaceuticals is highly colluded which increases the prices even more.

quote:

But like Tony Snow said on FOX today (while discussing the Iraq situation)....."it should be fun to see what happens".....of course his guest immediately corrected him with a questioning look and said "actually this situation is extremely dangerous"....Tony, realizing the madness of what he just said immediately tried to back track and fumbled for the words...any words...to explain what the hell he was talking about. Unfortunately for Tony, when your brain comes off autopilot it can be hard to instantly correct....they ended the interview promptly and cut to commercial...it was a truly golden moment for the FOX news family

Anyway people it should be "fun"....

That old Chinese curse should be well known by now but I'll say it anyway: "May you live in interesting times."

[ 11-11-2002, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Starfighter08 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank God we get some new blood up in here.....

quote:

The irony is that many people who complain about the unfair treatment and poor conditions in 3rd world countries also whine about companies relocating operations to said countries which gives these people jobs and income. It is impossible to please everybody but some people just cannot be pleased no matter what you do.


The ultimate irony may be that "capitalism" is only prolonging the inevitable by exporting reality...shielded by a monopolized "free press".

I am a first year student....and that doesn't make me privy to much but the occasional emotional outburst sheathed in "logic"....but...if one, anyone... cares to look, they can see that something is hiding under the white wash of "free market progress"...and it doesn't resemble anything like liberty.....

I am not impressed by Neocon ideas that flood the mass media via "objective" corporate funded "think tanks" of merchant princes who spew toxic ideologies under the happy face of a "free market"....no thanks....the burning frame of a wonderful future has pushed too many "anti-American" American thinkers to looking a bit deeper then FOX news would think is appropriate.

quote:

This problem is directly linked with what I said above

The idea of representation of the people by the people is moving farther and farther away from....."the people".....I suppose once upon a time that was ok....but today I think we could see a serious problem from those "undesirables" (props to DL) who want a say in government....they really should have just left it to the white land owners.....why cant people realize property is more important then ethicslike duh!?!?

quote:

One could say Opiates for the masses

One could also say seething hostility...150 million strong....I don't think they are all watching Friends reruns with the happy face......

quote:

It isn't safe but safer than without the military. If the respective agencies stay vigilant the risk of being bombed is much lower than if you have no significant protection, you can hardly argue about that.

Consent of the governed....on a global scale....I don't think God will bless ÔÇ£fortress America.ÔÇØ

quote:

I assume that you're hinting at the regressive sales/consumption taxes here. Well, I agree. Having a given fraction of your income taxed away hurts a poor person more than a rich one.

Yupthis is the best part of a whole screwed up ideology....it's tragic in consequence but revolutionary in effect.....stupidity and greed go hand in hand....what I can say. power corrupts....

quote:

Crushing monopolies usually hase these effects

Did you ever watch T2?

quote:

That old Chinese curse should be well known by now but I'll say it anyway: "May you live in interesting times

Why can't that be at the hands of scientific / human advancement rather then.. look dear, they some how managed to reinvent that shiny thing for the twenty fifth time WOW!!! Lets buy a new one!!!only realize the their credit is maxed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The idea of representation of the people by the people is moving farther and farther away from....."the people".....I suppose once upon a time that was ok....but today I think we could see a serious problem from those "undesirables" (props to DL) who want a say in government....they really should have just left it to the white land owners.....why can?t people realize property is more important then ethics?like duh!?!?

Well darling, what can I say, our country was never meant to be a true democracy, and if anything is the case we are moving towards mob rule rather then away from it (I mean, look what happened with the senate way back when, and there's always talk of dismantling the electoral college). As for voting, it is my opinion that someone should have a certain amount of money before they can vote, thus promoting a certain amount of responsibility (obviously people with money aren?t necessarily responsible, but if they're too irresponsible they wont have much money long anyway). Race and sex aren?t valid criteria, I'm not racists (though I do have some other prejudices) and I'm obviously not sexists, and as such realize perfectly well that neither makes any difference in responsibility or intellectual capability.

quote:

Consent of the governed....on a global scale....I don't think God will bless ?fortress America.?

Bah, god has nothing to do with it.

quote:

Yup?this is the best part of a whole screwed up ideology....it's tragic in consequence but revolutionary in effect.....stupidity and greed go hand in hand....what I can say?. power corrupts....

So I would guess that this means you're for progressive taxes? I admit that a certain level of that kind of nonsense is necessary, but excessive progressive taxing is fundamentally unfair as it requires some people to pay considerably more then others.

quote:

Did you ever watch T2?

Did you ever read David Weber's Honor Harrington series?

quote:

Why can't that be at the hands of scientific / human advancement rather then?..? look dear, they some how managed to reinvent that shiny thing for the twenty fifth time WOW!!! Lets buy a new one!!!??only realize the their credit is maxed out?.

Well, what can I say, if someone is willing to waste there money on every new little technological gizmo out there, they deserve what they get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Did you ever read David Weber's Honor Harrington series?

No, but tomorrow I'll have my library get it.

I'm not really interested in answering your other points because our beliefs are so fundamentally different it would be a waste of time....

I do think you should consider seeking employment with the WTO or some other noble institution like the Iraqi parliament....somewhere that is in tune with your fundamental beliefs in human nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Neal Boortz, his daily notes on this "working people to the rich" nonsense.

quote:

FROM WORKING PEOPLE TO THE RICH

In my reading assignments youÔÇÖll see a link to a commentary by PBS leftist Bill Moyers. HeÔÇÖs more than a little upset that the Republicans now have control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

In his hard-left commentary Moyers (funded, by the way, with taxpayer dollars) says that the Republicans are going to use ÔÇ£the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich.ÔÇØ

Does anyone know what the hell this left-winger is talking about? Three questions immediately come to mind. First, just who are the ÔÇ£working people?ÔÇØ Second, and who are ÔÇ£the rich?ÔÇØ Finally, how is this wealth transfer going to take place?

HereÔÇÖs my guess. The ÔÇ£working peopleÔÇØ are, of course, those in the lower and middle-income levels. By differentiating them from ÔÇ£the richÔÇØ Moyers follows the classic class warfare line. Only people at the lower income levels actually ÔÇ£workÔÇØ for a living. The ÔÇ£richÔÇØ donÔÇÖt work. They acquire their wealth by other means and you are free to figure out just how. Moyers and his leftist fellow travelers would have you believe that the ÔÇ£richÔÇØ accumulate their wealth through forced income transfers from the ÔÇ£working people,ÔÇØ and through various forms of exploitation.

So, how does this wealth transfer work? Moyers is probably talking about President BushÔÇÖs tax cut. HeÔÇÖs probably upset that the bulk of the cuts go to the people who pay the bulk of the taxes. Leftists like Moyers really love to complain about tax cuts for the wealthy, but youÔÇÖll never find them recognizing that the wealthy pay almost ALL of the taxes? How, after all, do you have a meaningful tax cut if you donÔÇÖt include the people who actually pay the taxes?

There is absolutely no logical or factual basis to argue that a tax cut takes wealth away from working people to give to the rich. A tax cut simply allows a person to keep more of the money that they earn. Thats it, period. You earned the money. You get to keep it. The money is not transferred to you from anyone else. It was yours in the first place  and it remains yours. Not one penny of it came out of the pocket of a working person through government action.

Moyers commentary is nothing less than a class warfare piece designed to elicit sympathy for the under-achievers and hatred for those who actually power our economy with their investments in business and jobs.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The Quick And Dirty Leftist's Guide To Arguing Against The War On Terrorism

| John Hawkins

Some disreputable people have suggested that Right Wing News is for the 'war on terrorism' or that we're 'biased against liberals.' What scandalous accusations! The truth is that we here at Right Wing News view ourselves as a 'fair and balanced' publication -- just like 'Arab News' or 'The Guardian'! But talk is cheap! That's why we decided to write 'The Quick And Dirty Leftists Guide To Arguing Against The War On Terrorism' to prove RWN's good intentions. Here are the key arguments lefties across the planet can use against those warmongering, oil guzzling, baby-killers on the right who are gungho about the 'war on terrorism'!

Bush Should Have Stopped It
-- But Not That Way!: Instead of focusing on what we should do now, claim that Bush could have stopped 9/11 before it happened by aggressively going after the terrorists pre-911. Then reflexively oppose every suggestion the Bush administration comes up with to prevent another attack because it will create a "police state." This one drives right-wingers crazy!!

How Can We Invade Saddam When He Used To Be Our Friend?:
We must force these right-wing zealots to realize that relationships between nations are NEVER are allowed to change. Since we were friends with Saddam in the eighties, it was hypocritical of us to kick him out of Kuwait and keep him from annexing Saudi Arabia. Even if he hates us now, is acquiring nukes, and has ties to terrorists we still can't attack him -- for some reason or another. I think there is a UN rule against attacking former friends for any reason or something.

If We Preemptively Attack Iraq
-- Everyone Will Do It!: The United States could be setting a dangerous precedent here since no other nation has ever attacked another nation "preemptively." Wait a second, if that was true, shouldn't we always be at peace since no nation has ever attacked another nation except in self-defense? So that's Bush's evil plan, to spoil world peace!

Insist That We Give Inspections A Chance:
No one believes Saddam is going to actually allow unfettered inspections but we know from a decade of experience that he can literally run the inspectors around in circles for years. The more time Saddam wastes, the closer he gets to a nuclear bomb he can use to stop Bush's filthy war!

It's About The Ordinary People:
The most important reason you are against the war is because you care about the innocent people in Iraq. That's why you're so strongly against replacing the dictator who has starved, gassed, tortured, and oppressed so many of his own people -- you may not want to phrase it exactly like that, but you get the idea.

Keep Moving That Goalpost:
If the pro-war crowd starts beating you up too much because you won't support war under any circumstances, say that you are willing to use force.. A) As soon as Al-Queda is destroyed,
B)
the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is over C) Afghanistan is a strong and stable Democracy D) Against Iran E) Against Pakistan F) Against Iran G) If inspections fail (again) H) Once the whole world agrees with us...etc. It really doesn't matter what you come up with here because the purpose is to delay things endlessly. Even if your condition were met, you would simply change the conditions you'd need to meet your goal.

Never Admit That You Are Helping Terrorists And Dictators:
Act offended if anyone claims you are helping dictators and terrorists by opposing killing, capturing, or hindering them in any significant way. Sure that may be the actual RESULT of doing what you're suggesting, but INTENTIONS, not results, are what have to be considered.

Pretend To Be Offended When You're Accused Of Anti-Semitism:
Just because you call Palestinian terrorists "freedom fighters", condemn every Israeli attempt to defend itself from terrorist attacks, believe Jews control the US media and government, and think a land dispute is an adequate reason for blowing up women and children at a bus stop (as long as they're Jews), does not make you anti-semitic. No matter how obvious your anti-semitism is, it doesn't count unless you ADMIT that you're anti-semitic.

Remember Who The Real Enemies Are:
Obviously, George Bush and America are to blame for the 'war on terrorism.' You should certainly never blame nations like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or the 'Disputed Territories', etc, for actually sponsoring terrorist groups that have no real purpose other than to murder innocent people.

Show Me Osama's Corpse:
Even though we haven't heard from Osama Bin Laden since the United States bombed the area he was in into blood, sand, and rubble, you must insist that the 'war on terrorism' is a failure since we don't have him in hand. Sure we haven't heard a thing from him in nine and half months but he's probably just laying low! The best thing about this one is that since Osama was probably blown into a fine red mist at Tora Bora, the Bush administration will never be able to 'prove' that he's dead. This means you can't ever be proven 'wrong' when you claim that he's still alive.

Solutions? Uh....:
When pressed for solutions it's a good idea to mumble incoherently, or just say, "I don't know what we should do, but I know war isn't the answer!!!" If you're really pressed you can suggest that America should give more aid to the poor, that one never gets old.

Tell Those 'Chickenhawks' What For:
Demand that anyone who is pro-war sign up for the military because only people who are willing to risk their lives in combat have a right to advocate going to war. If they counter with "well if you believe that, then you should go to Iraq and throw yourself on one of Saddam's bunkers so you can be a 'human shield'" either quickly change the subject or say that you detest Saddam (despite the fact that you are firmly against any attempt at removing him from power).

There's No Reason To Bomb Saddam!:
Just because Hussein is a psychopathic dictator who gassed the Iranians and his own people, fought against the United States, tried to assassinate a US President, has massive stockpiles of WMD, is seeking nukes, and has ties to terrorists doesn't mean he's dangerous. In fact, we have no evidence that the global terrorist network is still a threat at all...except for 9/11 and all the other attacks across the world since then.

War For Oil!:
This war isn't really about terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, it's about oil like every big war America fought in during the last century! Well...except for WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and Korea... but the Gulf War was all about oil! Of course, Iraq only supplies 2.1% of America's oil and Afghanistan doesn't supply any...but "everyone" says it's about oil so it must be somehow or another!

We'll Destabilize the Middle-East:
It's common knowledge that the 'Arab Street' will immediately overthrow their leaders if Muslims are harmed anywhere across the world, no matter what the reason may be. Of course, we've gotten off lucky so far since the 'Arab Street' didn't erupt when Israel bombed an Iraqi nuke site, when Israel invaded Lebanon, when Israel 'invaded' the "disputed territories" about 500 times, when Reagan bombed Libya, when the US invaded Iraq, when the Serbs were slaughtering Bosnian Muslims, when the US invaded Afghanistan, when the US bombed through Ramadan, etc, etc. But this time the 'Arab Street' is
REALLY SERIOUS!!!

______________

Congratulations! You've now learned everything you'll need to know to smash those favoring AmeriKKKan imperialism and hegemony!


ROFLMAO!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jag I think we've heard that before....

Anyway $ilk...food for thought...

quote:

Terry Krepel / Conweb watch

If that passage is true, it appears thus far that Kyle Williams, the homeschooled13-year-old who writes a weekly column for WorldNetDaily, is being trained up to be yet another rhetoric-laden conservative columnist regurgitating what other conservatives have written. Check the couple dozen or so other conservative columnists at WND for comparison purposes

Both moves make sense. Boortz, an Atlanta-based conservative radio host, joins the stable of conservative radio hosts WND is trying to turn into columnists, and Aldrich gets to hang with similarly Clinton-obsessed cohorts at NewsMax. So, is anyone getting the better deal? Well, Aldrich has already descended into recycling; among Aldrich's posts is a post-Sept. 11 column he originally wrote for WND, in which he declares that "My job and the job of all conservatives now, is to keep liberals out of power as long as humanly possible." Surprisingly, the column actually acknowledges this, one of the very few times you'll see the word "WorldNetDaily" at NewsMax.


Are we really getting anywhere....no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...