I SUPPORT TYRANNY AND DEATH IN IRAQ

RE: the machine keeps going

>Whether you think a war is a good idea or not shouldn't depend

>in any way on the quality of rhetoric used by those who favor

>the war. You should be able to assess the pros and cons of

>the war and then ask yourself: "Are the risks and costs of

>the war outweighed by the risks and costs of not going to

>war?" How good or bad advoacates of the war are at arguing

>their position shouldn't affect this calculus.

You're kidding, right? Motivation is irrelevant? Dubya went to war with Iraq for a bunch of reasons: 1. Daddy 2. Oil 3.He was backed into a corner with the North Korea situation. The only way he could ignore a real threat with real WMD (as opposed to the fake threat of Iraq with no WMD) was to press forward in Iraq. The stated reasons were that Iraq had WMD (a lie); that Iraq posed a threat to the US (another lie); and that Iraq was providing aid and comfort to al Qaeda (lie #3). This war only became about the Iraqi people when someone in Dubya's administration realzied that freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam was a MUCH better PR spin on the war than any of the unbelieveable garbage brought forth to date.

>The only relevant question was and is: "Is leaving Saddam in

>power worse than a war to dislodge him?" Given what we are

>hearing about what Iraq was like, as well as the discoveries

>we are making, I genuinely can't fathom how a reasonable,

>honest person can still be so vehemently opposed to this war

>and wouldn't at least consider that a close call.

Had the war been waged for this reason, I could have agreed with you. This only became the reason because it was the only legitimate reason to wage this war since all of Bush's other reasons were lies.

>The United States has always made clear since it joined the UN

>that it is most assuredly NOT a replacement for US

>soveriegnty. It would be a profound dereliction of duty if a

>U.S. President refrained from taking action which he (and 80%

>of U.S. Citizens) believed was necessary action to defend our

>national interest -- just because Cameroon and Guniea didn't

>approve (or, for that matter, France or Russia).

Agreed. So where's the action against the real threat, North Korea? Or is Dubya saving that to be a little closer to election day?

>I'm curuios: do you seriously doubt that if Saddam has the

>chance to, say, cause a radiological bomb to be detonated in

>New York, or a smallpox virus to be unleased in Washington,

>D.C., that he would refrain from doing so?

Saddam has the chance AND the motivation to do so. Why didn't he do it? BECAUSE HE HAS NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

>As for the urgency of doing what we did - it isn't just the

>importance of getting rid of Saddam that justified this war.

>It was also the need to send a message to other countries that

>if they take steps to obtain civilization-destroying weapons,

>and their history and views suggest that they may be likely to

>use them in a way that harms our interests, there will be a

>heavy (i.e., intolerable) price to pay. That's called

>deterrence, and it only works if people know you're serious

>about punishing them if they act destructively.

No, the message sent is if you're a weak country with no means to defend itself, and you tried to assassinate my Daddy, then you better watch out, cuz I'll manufacture a reason to come get your ass.

>I really think that the gulf of opinion between the U.S. and

>other parts of the world has to do with the fact that

>non-U.S.-Citizens don't comprehend just how serious of a

>threat 9/11 proved we are facing. That was NOT a one-time car

>accident that, with hopes and wishes, will not occur again.

>The enemy is not just "Al-Quaeda." The enemy is all groups

>AND NATIONS which: (a) are accessing or trying to access

>destructive weaspons; and (b) have great hostility to the U.S.

>and the West. The focus is on the Middle East, though not

>exclusively. And the enemy will be broadly defined and 100%

>proof will not be required in order to take action.

What it shows is that you have fallen for the Bush propoganda machine hook line and sinker. Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and never did. The world supported our efforts in Afghanistan because there was a direct and real tie to the events of 9/11. The reason the world doesn't support our efforts in Iraq is because there is no tie to 9/11. This has and continues to be about Daddy, oil, failure to deal with North Korea and a smokescreen to distract people from the fact that we still haven't found Osama.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/luckovich/2003/images/02092003mike.gif

RE: the machine keeps going

>

>>What do pink triangles have to do with anything?

>

>

>Well the topic is forcing people who think differently to wear

>a badge so everyone will know who they are... parallel?

I think that is simply a metaphor, albeit a clumsy one, for asking people who oppose this war to confront the logical implications of their position: that a vicious dictator would remain in power and that millions would continue to suffer for it. It's not unreasonable to insist that people who oppose the war be honest enough to say, "Yes, I'd rather see that happen than that we go ahead with this war." That is the position you are taking, right?

>Sorry, I guess genocide was the incorrect term to use. I did

>not mean to offend.

You know quite well that no one in the Bush administration wanted to or tried to execute a plan to exterminate Iraqis or any other ethnic or racial group. In fact, you know that the war planners went to great lengths to minimize the number of Iraqi casualties. You know that because the easiest way to conquer the country without risking the lives of our own people would have been a bombing campaign that would have leveled all towns and cities of any size in Iraq. That having been done, our troops could simply have marched in with little or no one to oppose them. Instead of doing that, we took the risk that elements of the Iraqi military would be able to evade a much more limited bombing campaign and survive to attack our troops, and that is exactly what happened. Scores of American troops were killed or wounded so that we could make good on our promise to destroy the regime but not the Iraqi nation. Does that sacrifice count for nothing with you?

More success - now with N. Korea

>Agreed. So where's the action against the real threat, North

>Korea? Or is Dubya saving that to be a little closer to

>election day?

You keep yapping on and on about North Korea as though the fact that we haven't declared war on that country somehow signifies that we are being weak.

The exact opposite is true. The Clinton Adminstration essentially bowed to North Korea's blackmail demands in order to get them to agree to something which, almost from day one, they began violating.

The Bush Adminstration knew that weakness with North Korea - like weakness with all rogue dictators - only leads to worse abuses. That's called "appeasement" and history has been a pretty harsh judge of that tactic. Although it's easier and politically less costly (the only reasons Clinton ever needed for anything), all it ever does is delays and then exacerbate problems.

The U.S.'s tough stance with North Korea - helped, no doubt, by them watching what we did in Iraq, is already making huge headway. As yesterday's NY Times reported:

____________________________________________

N.Korea Shifts on Nuclear Talks, U.S. Interested

By REUTERS

Filed at 5:20 a.m. ET

SEOUL/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - North Korea shifted significantly toward U.S. calls for multilateral talks on its suspected nuclear arms plans and Washington voiced interest, saying it would follow up through diplomatic channels.

The North Korean comments on Saturday could mark a breakthrough in the nuclear standoff just days after U.S.-led forces removed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power in a war the South Korean president said had ``petrified'' the North.

``If the U.S. is ready to make a bold switchover in its Korea policy for a settlement of the nuclear issue, the DPRK will not stick to any particular dialogue format,'' the North's KCNA news agency quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying.

Until now, North Korea -- its official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) -- has insisted on bilateral talks.

Washington, which lumps communist North Korea in an ``axis of evil'' with Iraq and Iran for seeking weapons of mass destruction, wants talks that also include regional players South Korea, Japan, Russia and China.

``We noted the statement with interest,'' State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said on Saturday, adding: ``We expect to follow up through appropriate diplomatic channels.''

The United States and North Korea do not have formal diplomatic relations, but exchange messages through diplomatic channels in New York. The United States can also work through intermediaries such as Russia and China.

The North's spokesman did not specify what would constitute a ``bold switchover'' but the impoverished, energy-starved North has demanded security guarantees and aid in the past.

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun reiterated on Sunday that he would make every effort to solve North Korea's nuclear crisis in a peaceful manner.

``I am confident we can resolve the nuclear issue peacefully through dialogue and diplomatic channels,'' he told an anniversary ceremony for establishing Korea's interim government in China during Japanese colonial rule in the early 1900s.

_______________________________________________

Keep calling Bush stupid and saying how he's motivated by Daddy. It only elevates him further and lowers you. That tactic has been a resounding failure for the last 10 years as he piles up one success after the next. Don't you think it's time to abandon it and get something new?

RE: the machine keeps going

Matty,

You are never going to be able to have a real discussion with the dogmatists on either side of this issue. It can be fun, but you can’t have a reasonable debate with unreasonable people. They are convinced they know the unknowable and see everything through the prism of that certainty. HDB and BON are polar opposites on this issue but two peas-in-a-pod when it comes to dogmatic thinking. (I like debating Woodlawn. He is tough and can be relentless, but at least his thinking is nuanced and his arguments logical and non-dogmatic.)

>yes he would still be in power... I'm not disputing that,But

>with the sanctions placed on that country over the last 10

>years, his power has been increasingly limited.

I don’t believe that’s really true. The everyday citizens were certainly paying a price, but I believe that the regime was finding it increasingly easy to find companies and countries willing to break those “silly old trade restrictions” that had been around for so long.

>and again I'm not sure what the

>logistics are, shouldn't he be tried in a world court or

>something along those lines, for war crimes, or crimes against

>humanity then?

I don’t recall hearing anyone say what will happen to Saddam if he is caught alive and not conveniently killed during the conflict. I suppose he could be brought before the World Court, but it would be rather meaningless until he is deposed and captured, don’t you think?

>I'm disputing the motivation of this war. If

>it's about tyranny and oppresion and weapons, then North Korea

>better be next... I doubt that it will be though.

This is one of the many things that I think HDB got right. (I say “think” because I will admit that I sure don’t have the answers.) We have some experience dealing with the whack job in Korea and have other things we can try. If we run out of options…you never know.

As many have pointed out, there are many terrible regimes in the world, but as an American, I have no desire to see this country become the world’s police force. I also have no problem admitting that I believe there should be a reasonable measure of self-interest before we take military action on this scale. There is a place for pure humanitarian efforts, but not when it comes to all out war.

>for many many years, and the suspition of weapons has always

>been there, so why now? And why the urgency? The UN was doing

>their job, yeah it takes a long time to look for the evidence,

>but again Sadam was there for a long time, so what's a few

>more months while the UN keeps looking for the evidence?

I don’t believe the UN really was doing their job. The inspections were not making any progress at all until the U.S. parked a very sizeable force on Saddam’s doorstep.

Regarding timing and urgency -- this point really crystallized for me when Woody first made it a while ago –- having amassed a force large enough to finally make Saddam cooperate, how long were we supposed to wait? He brought the devil to his doorstep and the burden was on him to quickly resolve the issue. I’m convinced that he would have played endless games and drug it out indefinitely, so why not now?

Basically, I’m a 60/40 guy. As I’ve said before, I believe this war is a necessary evil with many potential hazards yet to come. However, what pushed me towards supporting it was the simple lack of any other plan. Something had to be tried and no one was coming up with anything other than more waiting around.

RE: the machine keeps going

>You are never going to be able to have a real discussion with

>the dogmatists on either side of this issue. It can be fun,

>but you can’t have a reasonable debate with unreasonable

>people. They are convinced they know the unknowable and see

>everything through the prism of that certainty. HDB and BON

>are polar opposites on this issue but two peas-in-a-pod when

>it comes to dogmatic thinking.

>Basically, I’m a 60/40 guy.

I love when the wishy-washy celebrate their indecision and wear it as a badge of honor and sophistication.

"I see both sides - every side - I never commit to any side - I'm always 60% on this side, 40% on that side - nothing is evil or good - nothing is right or wrong - everything is gray . . .

That shows how sophsiticated and complex and deep-thinking I am . . . unlike all these mongrels who actually believe in something. How primitive and simplistic."

RE: the machine keeps going

>>It's funny you should bring up WW II.

>

>It's funny that when I did so, you missed the whole point.

That's OK 'cause you missed mine completely as well. ;-)

You can't compare this war to WW II!!

This was a pre-emptive war designed to remove a potential threat to US (and theoretically world) security. I'm sorry, but you can't compare Iraq in 2003 with Germany of 1939/41. Sadamm's agressions were either 12 years in the past or potentially in the future while Hitler's aggressions were occurring in the here-and-now. (or the there and then ;-) )

Before going to war with Germany, Britain and France tried every compromise (going as far as giving Hitler 1/3 of Czechoslovakia x( ) to reach a peaceful settlement. Most of the world's people didn't see anything like that kind of 'peace' effort before this war so it's not surprising that they refused to endorse this war.

>As much intense fear as the Canadian Army must have struck in

>the hearts of German Panzer units, that war wasn't going too

>well until the U.S. got involved.

Three comments:

1) The US Army would never have gotten to Europe without the Canadian Navy's protection (by late 1943/ early 1994 we were providing over 50% of the convoy protection in the North Atlantic)

2) The war didn't go to well for quite sometime after the US got involved as well. The biggest defeat the Germans suffered in 1942 was in Stalingrad and the biggest in 1943 was Kursk (since I am given to understand that many Americans fail to study world geography ;-) I will point out that those places are in Russia).

3) In fact, in both World Wars, the Germans regarded Canadian troops as among the very best quality of allied troops they encountered.

>And Roosevelt wanted to get involved far earlier - he was

>prevented from doing so by "anti-war" protestors who argued

>that "war was bad because people die in war"

Actually the 90% of Americans who opposed war in 1939 (including the entire Republican party, how things change!) had a variety of reasons for opposing joining the war. As for Roosevelt's 'wanting to get involved' it's true he did, but he certainly never took the direct action against the wishes of the majority of his party and country the way Tony Blair did this year...

>Tell that to the Iraqis who spent the last 30 years living in

>terror and tyranny under an incomparably sick and pathological

>dictator who is now powerless and/or dead, thanks to the U.S.

>and the U.K.

Yes, a regime supported by both the US and UK in the 1980s when they felt it was in their interests to do so.

I suppose the thing that I object to most in your posts is your assumption that US troops are in Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. At most, that's an agreeable bonus. There are other regimes maltreating their people just as viciously that we neve heard a single word from your government on.

Case in point is Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe has been in power since 1980. In the last two decades he has tortured, murdered and robbed tens of thousands (white and black) of his own people. This spring Mugabe even compared himself to Hitler (I think he flatters himself). So can you or Ari Fleischer or Colin Powell or 'someone' tell me when the 82nd Airborne plans to visit Harare?

Or what about General Musharif (I'm sure I'm spelling that wrong ;-) ) who seized power in a coup-d'etat against a legitmately elected government of Pakistan and has locked up thousands without even any pretense of a trial? Oh yes but I forgot, he's on 'our' side.

So go ahead and gloat and I will take my cue from Winston Churchill (the man who did more than any other to win WW II, BTW)

"In war: resolution. In defeat: defiance. In victory: magnanimity. In peace: goodwill."

RE: the machine keeps going

(I like debating Woodlawn. He

>is tough and can be relentless, but at least his thinking is

>nuanced and his arguments logical and non-dogmatic.)

Thanks.

>>yes he would still be in power... I'm not disputing that,But

>>with the sanctions placed on that country over the last 10

>>years, his power has been increasingly limited.

>

>I don’t believe that’s really true. The everyday citizens

>were certainly paying a price,

I would put it differently. The regime of sanctions and no-fly zones had certainly limited Saddam's power to threaten other countries and to tyrannize the Kurdish area in the North, but not his ability to tyrannize the bulk of the population. There was never any remedy for that except to use force against him.

>>and again I'm not sure what the

>>logistics are, shouldn't he be tried in a world court or

>>something along those lines, for war crimes, or crimes

>against

>>humanity then?

As phage correctly points out, what is the point of trying Saddam if he refuses to submit to the orders of the court?

>>I'm disputing the motivation of this war. If

>>it's about tyranny and oppresion and weapons, then North

>Korea

>>better be next... I doubt that it will be though.

North Korea better be next? Some gambles make sense and some do not. It might make sense to attack Iraq if we believe Saddam has non-nuclear WMD's but that we can overcome his forces before he can do a lot with them. It would not make sense to attack North Korea if we believe they already have nukes.

>>for many many years, and the suspition of weapons has always

>>been there, so why now? And why the urgency? The UN was

>doing

>>their job, yeah it takes a long time to look for the

>evidence,

>>but again Sadam was there for a long time, so what's a few

>>more months while the UN keeps looking for the evidence?

And then what? There was always a disconnect about the meaning of Resolution 1441 between us and certain other members of the Council. To us, it meant that Saddam was supposed to disarm voluntarily the way South Africa did and the inspectors were simply there to monitor the process, not to uncover things he was trying to conceal, which given the size of Iraq is an impossibility. To certain others on the Council it meant that the inspectors would play hide-and-seek with Saddam for a while, and if they couldn't find his stuff that meant he won the game and we would all forget about the whole issue. Which of those interpretations makes more sense?

RE: the machine keeps going

>I love when the wishy-washy celebrate their indecision and

>wear it as a badge of honor and sophistication.

And I love it when people who are trapped in pure linear thought arrive at what they think is the one right answer to a complex problem and lash out at everyone who isn’t goose-stepping along with them. While you’re at it why don’t you tell us the true meaning of life and what happens to us after we die?

>"I see both sides - every side - I never commit to any side -

>I'm always 60% on this side, 40% on that side - nothing is

>evil or good - nothing is right or wrong - everything is gray

Only children see everything in black-and-white. Aren’t you the one who suggested that Taylor was a little developmentally stunted? For a 27-year-old you haven’t come very far with regards to complex reasoning or communication skills. Keep at it. There’s always hope for 37.

>That shows how sophsiticated and complex and deep-thinking I

>am . . . unlike all these mongrels who actually believe in

>something. How primitive and simplistic."

It’s only simplistic if what you believe in has been oversimplified. Picking out a couple of arguments and making an entire belief system out of them is hardly something to be proud of. Saddam bad. War good. Congratulations. You’ve got yourself a belief system that will really stand the test of time!

I’m not about to get caught up in the HairyDogmaBullshit. You were interesting for about a minute but you’ve become tedious. If I wanted to get preached at by a dogmatic automaton who arrogantly believes that he knows the one truth, I’d go to church. At least they believe they heard it directly from God.

RE: the machine keeps going

Aren’t you

>the one who suggested that Taylor was a little developmentally

>stunted?

developmentally stunted!!LOL....so thats the reason for my 3.2!well it does sound better than dumbass..............taylor(akadevelopmentallystunted)@18:52-04/13/03

RE: the machine keeps going

3.2???? And they were saying Asians were small!

RE: the machine keeps going

hmmmmmmmmm [email protected]

RE: the machine keeps going

>And I love it when people who are trapped in pure linear

>thought arrive at what they think is the one right answer to a

>complex problem and lash out at everyone who isn’t

>goose-stepping along with them.

As Dante put it: The deepest level of hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis.

It's so easy to staddle the fence and stay in the middle: "oh, i see your point - and i see yours, too." "I'm for the war, but I also have great reservations about the war. I'm 60% for the war, but 40% against."

Then, things go well: "I was for it." Things go poorly: "I had serious reservations."

Certain things are right and wrong. There is good and evil in the world. An inability to distinguish those things is a sign of pychosis and emotional disorder, not intellectual sophistication or bohemia.

>While you’re at it why don’t

>you tell us the true meaning of life and what happens to us

>after we die?

I don't purport to know that. I do know that: (a) Saddam Hussein is evil; (b) we achieved a substantial good by eliminating him;© we are facing a grave threat to our national interest which requires resolute, unequivocal action; and (d) a primary reason why we are in this situation is because we had leaders for the prior 8 years who were also 60-40 people, and who never believed in anything other than their own virtue and sophistication for believing in nothing.

Fortunately, we have leaders now who are resolute and devoted to what they have chosen, which is why they are so wildly popular. People look to leaders to be certain and strong - not waffling and trying to be on every side at once.

>Only children see everything in black-and-white.

I believe our government does as well. That's why they called North Korea, Iran and Iraq "evil." That doesn't sound too gray to me. It sounds pretty black-and-white, whic his what it is.

It's also why they are enjoying an 80% popularity rating. People appreciate, admire, and respect someone with sufficient character to commit to an actual view decisively and without constant apology and waffling, and to call things as they are.

By contrast, people find those who are afraid to take a position - or who run from one position to the next, or who have every position at once, or who take a position and then immediately dilute it -- to be repugnant and weak.

I should at least acknowledge your candor in proclaiming which type of individual you are.

RE: the machine keeps going

>That's OK 'cause you missed mine completely as well. ;-)

No, I didn't miss your point. I was comparing the war in Iraq with WW2 only to the extent that they have one attribute in common: people died in both wars.

I compared them in this limited respect in order to make the point that the mere fact that people die in war is an insufficient reason to label the war "unjust," since people died in WW2 as well, yet most people consider that to be a just war.

Get it now? The comparision was for one point ONLY: "that people die in a war does not, by itself, render the war unjust."

>This was a pre-emptive war designed to remove a potential

>threat to US (and theoretically world) security. I'm sorry,

>but you can't compare Iraq in 2003 with Germany of 1939/41.

What was the immediate threat to the U.S. from the Germans in WW2? The Germans hadn't invaded or threatened to invade, had they?

>Before going to war with Germany, Britain and France tried

>every compromise (going as far as giving Hitler 1/3 of

>Czechoslovakia x( ) to reach a peaceful settlement. Most of

>the world's people didn't see anything like that kind of

>'peace' effort before this war so it's not surprising that

>they refused to endorse this war.

I agree - we only allowed Iraq to violate 17 different resoultions for 12 years, then gave multiple ultimatums which were repeatedly violated. I don't know why we "rushed to war." How could we have only waited 12 years and 17 UN resolutions? How hasty of us.

>Actually the 90% of Americans who opposed war in 1939

>(including the entire Republican party, how things change!)

>had a variety of reasons for opposing joining the war. As for

>Roosevelt's 'wanting to get involved' it's true he did, but he

>certainly never took the direct action against the wishes of

>the majority of his party and country the way Tony Blair did

>this year...

You must have missed the Parliament vote where an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons -- including an overwhelming majority of MPs from the Labor Party -- voted for the war.

>I suppose the thing that I object to most in your posts is

>your assumption that US troops are in Iraq to liberate the

>Iraqi people. At most, that's an agreeable bonus. There are

>other regimes maltreating their people just as viciously that

>we neve heard a single word from your government on.

I don't believe that, absent a vital interest, the US would have invaded Iraq. I am just astonished that those who are "anti-liberation": (a) are so intellectually dishonest that tehy can't admit that the outcome of their view would have been to subject the Iraqis to ongoing, unimaginable tryanny and (b) are so attached to their "anti-war" view and their hatred of the U.S. that even seeing how we conducted this war, and seeing the effect that it had on millions of Iraqis, there is no sense at all - none - that perhaps this war had extremely good and beneficient aspects to it.

The only way that one who is vehemently "anti-war" can see the liberation of the Iraqis, and not have it dilute the certitude of their opposition, is if: (a) they are completely indifferent to the plight of Iraqis or (b) so blindly contemptuous of the US and/or Bush that they don't allow reality to alter their views at all or © both.

>So go ahead and gloat and I will take my cue from Winston

>Churchill (the man who did more than any other to win WW II,

>BTW)

>"In war: resolution. In defeat: defiance. In victory:

>magnanimity. In peace: goodwill."

Magnanimity - which is what this formula calls for - is to celebrate the great good that this war achieved. That's what I'm doing. It's sad and pathetic that those who were opposed to this war won't acknowledge what is so glaringly apparent to any person who has their eyes open.

Everyone who was against the War in Iraq should wear a button for the next 12 months which says:

I SUPPORTED TYRANNY IN IRAQ

or

I OPPOSED FREEDOM FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE

or

I TRIED TO BLOCK THE ELIMINATION OF SADDAM HUSSEIN

or

I FOUGHT TO KEEP SADDAM IN POWER.

The sickest thing about ALL OF YOU is that you pretended to oppose this war because you were concerned about the "Iraqi people." You don't care at all about the Iraqi people!!!! They have been murdered and slaughtered and imprisoned and threatened and suppressed for 25 years - and YOU SAID NOTHING!!!! NOT A WORD OF PROTEST!!!

Suddenly - when it comes time to FREE THEM - to allow them to live with the same basic rights and liberties which YOU ALREADY HAVE - then you are suddenly so concerned about them, and OPPOSE their liberation from one of the most vicious dictators ever on the ground that you "care for them."

SICK SICK SICK - I wish everyone of you who opposed the war had to go to Bagdhad and speak to the celebrating citizens and explain to them why you OPPOSED the war against the Dictator who terrorized, killed and destroyed them for 30 years.

RE: the machine keeps going

>I don't purport to know that. I do know that: (a) Saddam

>Hussein is evil; (b) we achieved a substantial good by

>eliminating him;© we are facing a grave threat to our

>national interest which requires resolute, unequivocal action;

>and (d) a primary reason why we are in this situation is

>because we had leaders for the prior 8 years who were also

>60-40 people, and who never believed in anything other than

>their own virtue and sophistication for believing in nothing.

Time to grade this paper now. A) Correct. B) Correct. C) I can only give you partial credit for this answer. While we are facing a grave threat to our nation (ie Al Qeada and Osama bin Laden) it has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or Iraq. D) Incorrect. Plus, I have to deduct points for resorting to the typical GOP standard of blaming everything wrong in the world on Bill Clinton. The correct answer would be Bush the Elected's failure to take out Saddam when he had the chance. But we operating under the UN at that time you say. It was still an error.

And let's not forget too that Clinton was the one who got Slobodan Milosevic out of power. Oh, but wait, that was just to take the focus off him getting his dick sucked by an intern. That's almost as bad as having a war in the middle east to take peopl's minds off not finding Osama bin Laden.

>Fortunately, we have leaders now who are resolute and devoted

>to what they have chosen, which is why they are so wildly

>popular. People look to leaders to be certain and strong -

>not waffling and trying to be on every side at once.

Strong leaders? I agree. They are certain that the rich need tax cuts, that white people are vicitms of discrimination and that everyone should do as they say without question. Seig Heil.

>I believe our government does as well. That's why they called

>North Korea, Iran and Iraq "evil." That doesn't sound too

>gray to me. It sounds pretty black-and-white, whic his what

>it is.

Of course, there is and has never been a world that is simply black and white, good versus evil. For example, take these three words: terrorism, patriotism and racism.

The word “terrorist” has become an epithet for all those who disagree with Bush. The April arrest of a prominent civil liberties lawyer in New York for allegedly abetting terrorism by communicating to her Muslim client in prison shows the logic of the “war on terrorism”. It will be turned against liberals, radicals and many others in the country, not just foreigners charged as “terrorists”.

Jessica Stern, a lecturer at Harvard University and author of the Ultimate Terrorists, rejects a black and white version of terrorism. “To me”, she's quoted in the April 7 New York Times as saying, “the definition of terrorism is deliberately targeting noncombatants with the aim of instilling fear. I don't think it's useful to focus on the perpetrator, because then it just becomes an epithet. It's a technique that can be used by non-state actors, as well as states. I believe that when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, terrorizing the Japanese population was a very deliberate strategy.”

This is an interesting point. The US government defends its slaughter of Japanese civilians as justified. It defends the state terrorism of Israel, armed by the US, as “self defence” to fight Palestinian “terrorists”.

In truth there is no simple black and white version of “terrorism”. It is not simply killing civilians that makes a group or state terrorist.

Palestinians are an oppressed nation dominated by an overwhelming military power (Israel) backed by an even stronger power (US). The terrorist tactics by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and even Fatah are incorporated into a mass strategy of resistance.

To condemn suicide bombers (martyrs of resistance), who see their bodies as the only equaliser to a completely militarised Israeli society that uses F16s and tanks on Palestinian civilians, is to accept Bush's and Ariel Sharon's black-and-white view of the conflict: the suicide bombers are “murderers”, and the Israelis are defenders of “democracy and civilisation”.

Patriotism is not black and white either. Bush states that true patriots are those who accept his definition of terrorism and evil. Attorney General John Ashcroft charged some Democrats in Congress as unpatriotic for daring to question the Bush administration's domestic policies to fight terrorism.

In a true democracy, however, a patriot can disagree with the government. Socialists reject the idea that a “patriot” is only a person who agrees with the government. We distinguish between the patriotism of oppressed nations and the chauvinism of the oppressors.

The patriotism of the US ruling class is reactionary, since it extols loyalty to an imperialist, oppressor state. When Bush told the Taliban and Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf to “get behind us or face our massive power” he was simply expressing US imperialist arrogance.

The patriotism of a Third World people, on the other hand, has a progressive content when it reflects a desire to end their subordination to imperialist domination.

The patriotism of oppressed people in an imperialist country is also not black and white. Patriotism for African Americans has always been a problem because of the country's history of racial discrimination. Patriotism for the most part has been identified with white racism, Jim Crow segregation and slavery. After the 1960s and the victory of the civil rights movement it became more complex as more blacks identified themselves as “Americans”.

Blacks today are proud that more African Americans are serving in powerful governmental and corporate positions that weren't possible in the past. This is so even though such gains haven't benefited the majority of blacks. The broad pro-American attitudes among black people after September 11 reflect the changes in US society since the 1960s.

Yet the contradictory interaction of racism and patriotism hasn't gone away. Conservatives argue that the use of race is outdated and reflects negative attitudes among blacks toward themselves.

The strong opposition by black conservatives to reparations for the descendants of slaves is a case in point. While it isn't often discussed in the mainstream media, it is heated among the black elite liberals and conservatives.

In March a group of lawyers filed a federal class-action lawsuit in New York on behalf of all African-American descendants of slaves. The lawsuit seeks compensation from a number of corporate defendants for profits earned through slave labour and the slave trade.

The Reparations Coordinating Committee, a separate body of mostly academics and professionals, has been pursuing the issue for years. The committee is following the examples of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Jewish and Japanese Americans who suffered during World War II. The committee seeks to get the US government and Corporate America to take responsibility for slavery and its aftermath.

It is not a new idea. Representative John Conyers of Detroit has been filing legislation in Congress since 1989. There have been conferences on the issue, which is more about morality, historical justice and political responsibility than money.

Yet for some in the conservative black elite the issue is an insult and a danger to the country, not just blacks. I've never seen so much venom — not even during earlier debates over quotas and busing for school desegregation — than around this issue.

Black columnist Juan Williams, a senior correspondent for National Public Radio and a political analyst for Fox News, wrote a vicious column in the April 9 Wall Street Journal entitled, “Slavery isn't the issue”. He sees it as an attempt by the civil rights elite to gain more power.

“In the current lawsuits”, he writes, “the money from reparations is designated for a treasury that would be controlled by a black elite and used as they see fit to improve life in black America. What is now national policy for dealing with black poverty would become a matter of a black nationalist agenda.”

Williams concludes his piece: “Reparations are a dangerous, even evil, idea because they contradict the moral authority of black America's claim to equal rights. Pushing them through would only hurt race relations by encouraging negative stereotypes about blacks at a time when the nation is more diverse and the need for inter-racial understanding is at its greatest.”

“Reparations' bottom line”, writes Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe, “is that black people are hopeless losers who cannot rise above their history. That is a terrible libel, and no one but a racist would believe it.”

In other words, the victims (as Malcolm X explained) are responsible for the racism of the white majority.

Williams' charge of “evil” neatly fits the black-and-white, good versus evil paradigm. The truth is the reparations issue highlights and exposes the long history of white racism and the racial underbelly of Corporate America.

Simply put, there is no “black-and-white” understanding of terrorism, patriotism or even racism in today's world separate from the bigger social and class picture. What is clear is that those seeking progressive social change can never allow the oppressors and aggressors to define the terminology and its underlying meaning.

>It's also why they are enjoying an 80% popularity rating.

>People appreciate, admire, and respect someone with sufficient

>character to commit to an actual view decisively and without

>constant apology and waffling, and to call things as they are.

Bush's current popularity rating is a 71%, but thanks for exaggerating.

RE: the machine keeps going

>

>>That's OK 'cause you missed mine completely as well. ;-)

>

>No, I didn't miss your point. I was comparing the war in Iraq

>with WW2 only to the extent that they have one

>attribute in common: people died in both wars.

Okay, but then you can throw in car accidents, avalanches and anything else that causes people to die. Hitler was a clear threat to world peace and security to most people. While I feel that Sadamm was also a threat to that security, I concede that the case is certainly less clear-cut and understand why some people would support the one conflict and not the other.

>>This was a pre-emptive war designed to remove a potential

>>threat to US (and theoretically world) security. I'm sorry,

>>but you can't compare Iraq in 2003 with Germany of 1939/41.

>

>What was the immediate threat to the U.S. from the Germans in

>WW2? The Germans hadn't invaded or threatened to invade, had

>they?

No, but as previously noted, Germany 'did' declare war on the U.S. in December 1941

>

>I agree - we only allowed Iraq to violate 17 different

>resoultions for 12 years, then gave multiple ultimatums which

>were repeatedly violated. I don't know why we "rushed to

>war." How could we have only waited 12 years and 17 UN

>resolutions? How hasty of us.

>

I agree but the counter-argument is that no country endured such a drastic infringment on their sovereign rights as a country either, From no-fly zones over much of the country to UN weapon inspectors on the ground. Nor is it entirely clear to many people why 'suddenly' it was necessary to act, especially as no-one has ever shown any clear Iraqi connection to the events of 9/11.

>You must have missed the Parliament vote where an overwhelming

>majority of the House of Commons -- including an overwhelming

>majority of MPs from the Labor Party -- voted for the war.

I also didn't miss that Tony Blair endured the two greatest caucus revolts in over a century with more than 100 of his own MPs voting against the government twice. Without the support of the opposition Conservatives on this issue, his government may have fallen.

>I don't believe that, absent a vital interest, the US would

>have invaded Iraq. I am just astonished that those who are

>"anti-liberation": (a) are so intellectually dishonest that

>tehy can't admit that the outcome of their view would have

>been to subject the Iraqis to ongoing, unimaginable tryanny

>and (b) are so attached to their "anti-war" view and their

>hatred of the U.S. that even seeing how we conducted this war,

>and seeing the effect that it had on millions of Iraqis, there

>is no sense at all - none - that perhaps this war had

>extremely good and beneficient aspects to it.

I agree but the long (and even medium)-term outcome for the people of Iraq is still far from clear. I think that despite the deep divisions on the war, people are fairly much in agreement that winning the peace will be far more difficult (and important) than winning the peace!

>Magnanimity - which is what this formula calls for - is to

>celebrate the great good that this war achieved. That's what

>I'm doing. It's sad and pathetic that those who were opposed

>to this war won't acknowledge what is so glaringly apparent to

>any person who has their eyes open.

And yet that's not what Churchill did. If any man in the 20th century had the right to say 'I told you so' it was Churchill in 1939. Instead he joined the government (rising to lead it) but during his time in office, never once did he condemn those whose views he disagreed with. I think it was that, more than anything, that kept Britain united in WW II.

RE: the machine keeps going

Can you believe it? I agree with everything you just wrote!

RE: the machine keeps going

As I said before, it is a sure sign of the Apocolypse. I just hope Dubya doesn't start wearing a blue turban....

I decided to take a peek at this board out of curiosity as to what type of venom (and ignorance) the "Hate America Coalition" would be spewing considering the current state of events (i.e., the success of the war). I'm not at all surprised at what I've seen.

But I am curios. HDM, have you not read all of the posts in this thread? SEVERAL of the posters here have accused you of being me re-incarnated (albeit a different handle). I find it odd that you have not refuted this claim.

For the record: Although I happen to agree with about 98% of what HDM says (it's not 100% because I differ with his opinion about Bush; I can't stand him), he is NOT me posting under a different handle.

Based on his profile, he's Brazilian (or Brazilian descent); I'm mostly Irish, Scottish, and a little native American thrown in for the hell of it (but I like to fuck Brazilians!). He's 27; I wish I were 27 (I'm 40 ... ugh!). He's hairy chested; I'm smooth. But I certainly do admire his passion! And I also admire his patience with ignorance (I just don't have that kind of patience).

However, I'm glad he's posting here since I left. He's articulate, to the point, passionate, persistent, and comitted. This board needs someone like him to provide balance to all of the pacifist ignorance and America bashing that takes place on this board. And he appears to be more up to the job than I am. Good luck, HDB ... and keep it up (your posting that is!)!! :7

one lunatic praising the rantings of another lunatic......try medication my boys.........it may help you deal with the real [email protected]:02-04/14/03

Taylor, you (and so many others here) are so far removed from the real world, it's sad. After a short return visit to this insane place, I'm going back to the real world myself. I highly recommend that you make a visit yourself. You have so much to learn.

After wading through the muck and mire of this thread, I had to mention a couple of things that haven't been said yet.

On the matter of the double standard with respect to Bush's inaction on North Korea, there is a method to his madness: Bush is obsessed with developing "Star Wars". Having North Korea with nuclear weapons gives him the perfect excuse for saying how "essential" it is that the U.S. develop the Star Wars missile shield.

And on the matter of "black and white" thinking.........the jury is in, at least in the field of psychiatry and psychology........it is essentially a cognitive distortion, in other words, pathological, and rather common among dry drunks like Bush. Of course, the bigger issue with Bush is his pathological lying. Whenever his lips are moving, it's a safe bet he's telling another whopper.

Bucky,

You and taylor has script approval on "A Mighty Wind," didn't you? Just wondering.

Later.

PS. If I had a hammer, I'd bury it in Pelosi's head.

RE: the machine keeps going

>Can you believe it? I agree with everything you just wrote!

Unfortunately, axe, BewareofNick didn't write that post. Those are the words of MALIK MIAH, a reporter for the Green Left Weekly. BewareofNick plagiarized it directly from Mr. Miah's article, as posted on the greenleft.org website. Click here and you'll find BofN's entire post verbatim: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/488/488p20.htm

This is not the first time BofN has plagiarized something he found on the internet and posted it as his own words (see the "Religious Wackos" thread). How fucking pathetic is this? BofN presents himself as Mr. Ethics. At least everyone else here (one hopes) comes up with their own thoughts!

RE: the machine keeps going

>Can you believe it? I agree with everything you just wrote!

Unfortunately, axe, BewareofNick didn't write that post. Those are the words of MALIK MIAH, a reporter for the Green Left Weekly. BewareofNick plagiarized it directly from Mr. Miah's article, as posted on the greenleft.org website. Click here and you'll find BofN's entire post verbatim: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/488/488p20.htm

This is not the first time BofN has plagiarized something he found on the internet and posted it as his own words (see the "Religious Wackos" thread). How fucking pathetic is this? BofN presents himself as Mr. Ethics. At least everyone else here (one hopes) comes up with their own thoughts!