This is not just for you Lissa:
Not contradictory or hypocritical, just that I am able to control my emotions for an issue that is more important/bigger than my desire to throw a tantrum about something that I personally might disagree with or dislike. I’ll explian. I do not know of any pro-war people, but think of the kids on the ships. Think for those that are going to the Middle East. Think about the second guessing the division on an issue that will cause the Country to hurt.
All the flapin’ is not going to change the situation, so don’t give me the that is why I protest - I do care about those things crap.
I don’t have the time to dive in to it as deep as perhaps I should - it is the reason for the short replies. We did not start it, it is not just President Bush, the UN and other Arab nations believe that Saddam is a threat to the region, and I believe that Iraq is one of the best places for the terrorists to regroup.
I believe that unchecked, Iraq would eventually do something else like a bio attack via scud on Israel, and the possibility of a nuclear reply is real. We must defuse the area because there will be some huge death
Pardon my ignorance, but could this just possibly be referring to things like compromising national security (giving out troop movements, etc.) and not things like holding a dissenting opinion?
Iraq is violating the terms of its surrender. It constantly reneges on the conditions of disarmament. It is found lying to the UN, violating UN resolutions and is a clear military threat to all its neighbors, who happen to be arab. No, we are not in war now, but the continuation of the war of 10 years ago would be Saddams fault, not Dubya’s.
B&I, you are attempting to use a ploy already patented by another Doper. Which is to claim that the probity and insight of your post has eluded them, and to suggest a more earnest effort on our part will clarify. We are not so obligated. It is up to you to make yourself clear, even to such admitted dullards as TomnDeb. I admit it is not always easy. Eschew obscurantist phraseology!
That said, I take a bit of umbrage at your reference to the “kids in ships”. It carries the repugnant tone that those who disagree are in some way unpatriotic. As they have thier duty, so have we. They pledge themselves to our defense. We must honor that pledge with our own: that we shall never ask them to kill or die in a questionable cause. Anything less makes a mockery of thier sacrifice. To squander money is foolish, to squander young lives is vile.
I hate to do a “me too” post, but this is exactly how I feel.
I think the whole, attitude towards going to war with Iraq and the whole, “If you say/do this and this, then you’re aiding terrorism!” is nothing more than McCarthyism. Only with terrorism substituting for communism.
Sorry about the AOL problem. Maybe you could get your computer checked?
As for Clinton doing what he wanted: you’re damn straight I criticized him when he popped off a random missile in '93 that killed 8 Iraqi civilians and then blamed them for their deaths. You’re damn straight I criticized him when he bombed a medicine factory in Sudan. Don’t go accusing me of partisan politics until you know what you’re talking about.
And the last sentence? You believe I’m blind if I think Saddam is better left alone? Where in my post did you get the idea that I think Saddam is better left alone?
Had you read my post, you would’ve seen me saying that 2/3 of Americans think the US needs to pursue a diplomatic, rather than military, solution to this problem. I said this in response to your snarky comment about “United We Stand – except for these three anti-war Dopers.” Thing is, most Americans stand united behind the idea of a diplomatic solution. To the extent that Bush’s foreign policy team is downplaying the diplmoatic solution, they stand alone in this country, against the majority of Americans.
(There is an argument that Bush’s team is pursuing a convoluted diplomatic strategy; if they are, and if they’re trying to avoid war, then the anti-war protestors have no beef with them).
I can’t help but think Bush’s real agenda in pursuing this war has nothing to do with any “Axis of Evil,” and everything to do with oil and, yes, his dad.
Another one jumping on the societal wave trying to hold themselves up with absurd gossip.
While I do not agree with some of what B&I has said, I must say those who think this impending battle with Iraq is because of oil or grandpa-bush are completely missing the reason for getting Saddam out of the global picture. Those who rule by way of torture and savagery need to be dealth with. I do not think the US should be the only nation to have the capability to deal with regimes like this, but surly no one on these boards is condoning what Saddam has done and continues to do?
And for those who are still playing poker without a full deck, try looking at some other news sources besides CNN…
As of this morning the US is hinting about exile over war, and actually giving some thought into what the Saudis are suggesting for a governmental change of underwear in Iraq…
I don’t see why these views, which fly in the face of certain facts pertaining to the Middle East and Asia, and which are at the very least debatable, should be entitled to any protections because they might have come from people who band together in ever-larger groups. I recognize that it’s a valid belief system to have, since plenty of legitimate anti-war people know these certain facts are less important than the fact that war kills, and it’s never really necessary. I can respect that view because I know that they’d be protesting Iraq, too, and China, Russia, or whoever else was on a military campaign at the time.
But here the only relevant facts they accept are anti-Bush ones. Try to find something different in Bush’s policy toward Iraq from Clinton’s policy on Iraq, ditto North Korea, and you’ll see what I mean. It’s hypocrisy, and it’s offensive on some level to assume that our President has to lie to make a case that SH is a Middle East crime boss. Telling the truth that he is a Middle East crime boss, with a stranglehold on his people even outside his country’s borders and a contract against the US and Israel and who knows who else, offends the “peace” crowd, who want him left alone.
This looks like alternate reality to me - that we’re evil and everyone else really isn’t - and that’s pretty sad. Thanks for thinking that everyone ‘marching lockstep’ in this matter is less intelligent or something, the only really bright bulbs are marching for peace. I couldn’t care less about your patriotism; I ask what a ‘threat’ actually looks like to you, and how do we know when there’s a real one and not a fake one. When a Democrat is in office?
So does anyone still believe the president’s whopper about the aluminum tubes being used by the Iraqis to build gas centrifuges as part of a renewed uranium enrichment program ? Or Rumsfeld’s assertion that the Iraqi’s were growing up bio-weapons in mobile germlabs trucked about the countryside on 18-wheelers ?
These were some of the administration’s core accusations against Saddam, and they’re coming down to bullshit. Now we want to go to war over a dozen rockets -without the tasty creme filling ? American soldiers deserve a lot better than that sort of bullshit rationalization, and if the president thinks otherwise, he needs to be corrected.
Oh, give us a break already! You are the one who wants to put them in harm’s way! Those who are against the war are the ones thinking of saving lives on both sides including the “kids” on the ships. Your posturing is unbelievable. You are twisting things to an incredible degree.
And you believe all those things based on what? On the fact that the government says so and the government always tells the truth?
Course not. But an invasion force is not the answer. It is only moving the problem into some other country. But Bush doesn’t care, as long as that some other country has less oil reserves.
Diversionary policies. By throwing up these possibilities, no matter who ridiculously unlikely, Bush gets to appear that he’s being reasonable and offering options that Saddam just won’t take. Makes it appear that the military solution really was the last resort. But no-one believes that Saddam is going to even consider throwing in the towel and walking away from Iraqi, least of all Bush.
Right, and following the GW speech to the UN, which was pretty effective, action was taken and is being taken to correct Iraq’s violations.
But, this is entirely different from the OP’s complaint which implies that he would stifle all dissent and contrary opinion as to whether or not the US should go to war if we, and we alone, decide that the UN isn’t doing enough. Or even, as it would appear, go to war just because …
I stand by my statement that the time to debate the need for war is before one starts. You have done that by giving your view of the reasons for it. No problem except that I’m not sure the question of whose “fault” it is makes all that much difference.
Unfortunately, emotive supposition is what quite a few people lean on when talking about things they know little to nothing about. It is an unfortunate dramatic pulse to debating things when not looking at someone in the face, trust meFutile had I been sitting across from photo when he said it, I’d certainly look at him like -> :dubious:
So, you are espousing censorship? What “protections” are you claiming beyond the First Amendment principles of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly? Are you saying that those “protections” should be removed [because the statements are debateable? How are they to be debated if you prohibit debate?
What is more offensive is that the president and his administration has chosen to lie when, if his intent and his information is actually supportable, he should have no need to.
Hussein is clearly an evil person whom Iraq and the region would be better off without. The same can be said for a fairly lengthy list of national leaders throughout the world. We are concentrating on the one guy who has already been contained and we are lying to make the case.
A known suicide bomber was stopped by the police in the middle of a mall parking lot before he could blow himself up and his targets. He is told to strip and remove all of his bombs from his body or he will be shot dead.
Bomber reacts by taking off some bombs and tosses them on the ground but he also takes out some bombs and puts them in his pocket (sometimes behind his back)
The police agains calls for the bomber to strip and remove all of his bombs. By this time people in the mall are watching as are city officials.
The bomber drops a few more items, but refuses to strip. It was against his religion and does not want to appear naked in public. The people watching see all the bombs on the ground and figure no one could possiblely have anymore than whats on the ground. They start shouting “he’s clean” “let him go”
A bomb expert approaches the bomber and starts frisking him. At first the bomber allows it but when the expert starts to search his back or his privates, he is pushed away ad the expert withdraws. The bomber is still moving items on his person around. The police can see this with their high powered telescopes but the people only see a man fidgeting in the middle of the parking lot with a lot of guns trained at him. The chant even more loudly “he is clean … let him go!”
After “fidgeting” for quite a while, the bomber says he has had enuf and wants to go to the mall. The police yell he is under arrest and to stay where he is until another experts checks him out. The man refuses and starts walking towards the mall. The police yells “halt or we will shoot” the people yell “if you shoot him that would be murder” the city officials cant decide what to do.
***The police is privy to information that may not be evident or even divulged to the people watching. the person in charge of the police should be given a certain leeway as to how to do his job, the bomber is not cooperating as is legally required. The people who are protesting for the bomber are the same people being threatened by him.
Should a debate ensue as to whether or not to shoot the bomber while he inches towards the people? Should the debate hold police action until it is resolved?
Should the people decide on what to do next even tho they may not be fully informed. Is the information that the police have accurate? Should the police NOT shoot if the information is not totally accurate? Should we fire the police official at the scene?
Gee, exercising my right of free speech does not apply now, eh? So who died and made you king?
Among other things, our country is divided because Bush & Co are on course for a war many Americans do not think is necessary. Many around the world think so, too. So what are you truly afraid of, Blown & Injected? When did expressing an opinion become anti-American? Will my words here place our men and women in uniform in harm’s way? How do you defend the concept of freedom by denying it? Is this the new Bush maxim?
Source: Theodore Roosevelt, 1918. “Lincoln and Free Speech,” The Great Adventure - vol. 19 of The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, New York: Scribner’s, 1926, Chapter 7, p.299.
Source: Benjamin Franklin, reply of the Pennsylvania assembly to the Governor, Nov 11, 1755 (This became the motto of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania in 1759.)
Source: Nazi leader Hermann Goering, iterviewed by Gustave Gilbert during the Easter recess of the Nuremberg trials, 1946 April 18, quoted in Gilbert’s book Nuremberg Diary
