More bloody semantics! Alright then, if we must… political correctness is designed not to offend and to gather as much popular opinion as possible. Being politically astute is to use politics effectively. Since politics is nothing more than saying nothing to offend and everything to gain support (regardless of how the words compare to truth or deeds) the difference between “political astuteness” and “political correctness” would amount to the difference between “six” and “half-a-dozen.”
That you have to hear “the movement’s message” to make up your mind is discouraging. How do you think the movement made up its mind? Look at the facts, the history, and the logical consequences and draw your conclusions.
Let’s examine the issue of the polls. I may be missing something but the polls I’ve seen are largely news network polls. These polls announce that “70% of Americans support the war.” No, 70% of the drones that vote on your polls support the war. Those that are sucked into the network news scene and bother voting on a poll are just the sort to believe the garbage dribbled by the mass media. They should be ashamed that they can only convince 70% of their faithfuls. These polls amount to measurements of the effectiveness of their message—please do not fall into line with the notion that this is popular opinion.
May I toss in some suggestions as to how to resolve the “issue of Iraq?” I have not contributed my view on this yet. I did express my view on how to prevent terrorism, but not how to handle Iraq specifically.
First and foremost, leave Iraq the hell alone! Concentrate on the travails of the United States and its economic woes. Clean up your own back yard before you are so arrogant as to clean up others’. Use competent intel (that the CIA is obviously incapable of) to keep an eye on any terrorist activity. Nip it in the bud whenever it tries to enter the US with astute immigration screening and effective local law enforcement (which the INS and FBI have shown an inability to do) without imposing onerous and oppressive measure on your own citizens like the Patriot Act.
If you really see a need for the removal of Saddam due to obviously aggressive moves (that he hasn’t made in over ten years) remove his power from beneath him by aiding the evacuation of any Iraqis that hate their regime. Grant them exile in America and so generate growth in the base of the American economy while undermining Saddam’s. Saddam will be rendered impotent with no population to rule and America will gain. Unless of course the Iraqis don’t wish to flee, in which case the whole argument is mute anyway.
Such an approach would be of less cost to American tax-payers and result in far less blood-shed.
But of course, the issue of invading Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism/WMD/poor Iraqis. It has to do with special interests, and that is what the problem is; special interests ruling the political leaders, and hence, screwing the population at large.
The whole “Iraq problem” has become so distorted as to take for granted that there even is a problem. The problem has been invented to justify actions which serve an entirely different purpose than that stated. Is that so difficult to grasp? Or is it just easier to label such a notion as “conspiracy theory” as opposed to actually confronting the situation?
Perhaps the purpose was to simply provide a voice of reason when a nation has been led astray. I, for one, never expected the protests to result in any political change. I was relieved however to see some sort of sense and reason out and about. It gave me a little hope that, as a species, we can hang in there for a while longer.
Since terrorists killed 3,000 people in NYC. Since WMD have come into the picture, the risk is too great to let ourselves be attacked first. Besides, there is nothing that says you have to wait for an enemy to attack you first.
Really, the reasons for the war are a lot more complex than “Sadaam has WMD” or “Free Iraq!”.
The concern was not that the Soviets would attack us first. The concern was that any war fought with nuclear weapons would devestate the entire world, regardless of who started it.
3.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by PhuQan G Nyus
We grew up hearing about the evil expansionist communist state, that would take over other countries if the US was not there to
Hearing and seeing: Afghanistan, East Germany, Hungary , Czechoslovakia , Yugoslavia, and so on.
4.
Which is what exactly?
5.
Really? And yet I still see people protesting Bush by the thousands. You certainly have not experienced any consequences from calling the President an “assclown” (nice ad-hominem attack by the way). Which Amendment in the Bill of Rights has been taken away from you?
6.
Would you really care if weapons were actually found? Wouldn’t you just say they were planted?
7.
I wouldn’t show either. Maybe they didn’t want to throw their lives away fighting against a superior force in order to protect a dictator.
Really, you sound ridiculous. First people were complaining that the war was proceeding too slowly. Now you are complaining that it went too quickly.
8.
Yeah…do you uh, have a cit for that statement? Even if it was true, if degrading 5% of the Iraqi forces caused the remaining 95% to give up, thats another mark in the “W” column.
In fact the goal is not to completely anihilate the Iraqi army. Since we are trying to liberate the country massive military casualties, even if they are military, would undermine that effort.
9.
Yeah, Clinton certainly won us a decade of respect.
10.
Fortuneately you’ll get your chance next year. A lot of countries (like Iraq under Sadaam ) aren’t so lucky. Of course, if Bush does get elected next year, what would you say then?
11.
For you maybe. Most of us have a little more backbone than that. My pride in my country is certainly not based on the actions of our politicians. It’s based on the spirit and character of the people living here (well, most of them).
I cited U.S. polls in which significant the anti-war support (or at least less pro-war support) came from traditionally liberal groups and demographic data suggested anti-war support grew larger among the population (as determined by age, race, location, socio-economic status, religion, etc.) traditionally identified as “progressive.” A reasonable interpretation of the poll numbers indicates that anti-war support eminates from groups in the United States traditionally identified as “progressive.”
I might ask you the same question in reverse: Why **don’t ** you think the rank-and-file of the anti-war movement falls “left of center” (for lack of a better term)?
I certainly don’t think most American anti-war folks are anti-American. Dissent in wartime is precious and must be zealously protected. Therefore, my point is, since it is precious, anti-warriors should not spend it capriciously (as I feel the anti-war movement - taken as a whole - did).
However, I do recognize the presence of compelling, morally sound anti-war arguments, especially those made by individuals here on the SDMB. Even though I still disagree with some of their points, sober debate - relatively free of political theater - has forced me to constantly reevaluate what I think. That’s healthy, I think.
You yourself don’t seem to think so:
and, then, this:
Blame the media, or rail about the myopia of America’s citizens, to your heart’s content. But that explanation only goes so far. I didn’t need a FoxNews commentator to tell me to be disappointed in what I heard and saw from the majority of the protests I observed. I didn’t need Rush Limbaugh to determine where I stand on this war.
The current U.S. environment is what it is. I would argue it is much more nuanced that you give it credit for, but that’s a separate debate. IMHO, the movement did not do a credible job of persuading moderate America - at a time when moderate America was ready to be persuaded - for reasons I listed above.
Fine, we agree to disagree on this point.
Appreciate that. No hard feelings.
Well, Human Rights Watch, not exactly a lackey of the capitalist American behemoth, begs to differ with regards to ol’ Slobo:
If you are arguing that atrocities occurred during the American civil war (I assume you’re referring to Andersonville and the Union’s equivalent camps, whose names currently escape me, or maybe Sherman’s rampage across the South), I can go along with that.
But I’d like a cite for your assertion that Lincoln planned and implemented these atrocities from the White House in a manner similar to what Milosevic or Saddam allegedly :rolleyes: did.
Me too, Lander. During the whole prelude to war up to the commencement of hostilities, I’ve consciously tried to read writers and activists who challenge the whole premise of my support for the war. I hope I’m a smarter man for doing so.
The feeling is mutual, friend.
I hope we get to exchange more views in other SDMB threads.
I think that’s a little limited. At certain points, politics is about inspiring a mass of people to political action. Sometimes it’s for good (such as Churchill rallying the British people to confront Hitler) and sometimes it’s for ill (such as Hitler rallying the German people into a nationalist fervor). Sometimes it comes from a leader - not necessarily a politician but someone who holds significant political clout - that inspires the people (such as Martin Luther King). And sometimes, earth-shaking politics spring up from the grass roots without the aid of a leader (such as the Palestinian intifada of 1988, which emerged as quite a surprise to Arafat and the PLO leadership).
I think you’re right to say that when people perceive a message as politically correct, they tend to be uninspired. However, a politically astute message may have helped the movement actually achieve what it desired - to stop the war. Honestly, it was probably a long shot anyway to enact political change, but if your concern is that the war is really screwing the population at large and benefitting sinister special interests, it behooves you to get as many of those people to sympathize with you.
Or, perhaps the anti-war movement inherited a hopeless cause and was doomed from the start. I assert the anti-warriors marginalized themselves, and you (and others) might say Bush marginalized the movement with his rush to war. YMMV.
I myself made up my mind from reading lots of pro-war and anti-war viewpoints, trying to educate myself as best I could on the history and culture of the region, praying a little, and trusting my gut feeling, knowing that as a human being, I do not have a monopoly on the ultimate truth. It was the best I could do.
That sounds close to denial. But you’re entitled to believe this.
Actually, I’m not too crazy about the Patriot Act, myself. But correct me if I’m wrong, but are you saying let incompetent federal agencies who you disdain protect the nation. You say use competent intel, then claim the agency responsible for the job is clueless, so therefore, let’s give them the job.
How are supposed to aid Iraqi evacuees when we wouldn’t even be there in the first place (you did say, “leave Iraq the hell alone”). How do you propose we get them here - osmosis?
Um, we’ve been in a recession since early 2000. We’re not exactly in an economic growth period. How are we supposed to just incorporate people who likely don’t speak English and may or may not have marketable skills?
Iraq has a population of around 22 million. Don’t you think Saddam would notice if his population starts to mysteriously shrink to the point where he becomes impotent? The guy was evil, but he wasn’t THAT stupid.
Please, understand I wasn’t denying your left-of-center argument, I was just curious as to where you get the idea. The curious thing is that it seems that anti-war is becoming synonymous with “leftist.”
The whole left vs. right idea is kind of curious concept when you look at it. From what I understand, the left consists of those that favor socialism and large government; the right prefers capitalism and small government. However, the left and right has come to imply certain stand-points concerning the full gamut of social issues. For instance, what would one’s opinion on abortion have to do with economics? There’s no philosophical base for it so you end up with people being left on some issues and right on other issues and it has no foundation other than an arbitrary label. Okay, so perhaps you can make generalized observations that many socialists think abortion shouldn’t be outlawed. However, that seems to be pure chance since an economic doctrine has nothing to do with such matters. Add to that the fact that no right-wing administration has yet reduced the size of the federal government, but has rather continued to create more and more socialist institutions—it begs the question is the right really right or is that just a nice label. It just seems like a convenient way for those that wish to generalize a certain view and create a childish us-and-them mentality.
I’m getting way off the subject, I know. I tend to think socialism is a terrible idea yet I’m perceived as “left-wing.” Pretty damn silly, I think. I guess it was largely a rhetorical question on the left-wing thing, GoHeels. It’s not really a point of contention; just a curious phenomena that intrigues me that I thought you may be able to shed a little light on.
I’m happy to know that you haven’t made the mindless equation of anti-war = anti-American that I hear on the radio and such. It disgusts me to think that many might buy such drivel.
And I can’t argue with your view that the anti-war movement has spent its political opportunities capriciously. That may well be so. You’ve made your view there clear and I can’t argue that. What I’ve been trying to argue is that it is incredible to me that it should even become a political debate; that it can be condoned at all to initiate war against another nation is deplorable in my view. If pre-emptive war is condoned and even held up for political debate then you set a precedent that will allow war to be waged on any nation that the President feels, as long as he convinces enough people that the target is bad. It is very easy to foment hatred toward a nation or its leader. I’m sure you’re familiar with the stereotypical work-place rumor-monger that delights in making people look bad; the slander doesn’t have to be true to incite ill feeling. The door has been opened to a state of militaristic hate mongering and that is a path that should be well avoided.
I think the American populace can research issues independent of the media hype. It just seems that they don’t. The media cultivates short attention spans and reactionary mind-sets. The American intellect is being sabotaged and the victims don’t seem to even know it’s happening. The mass media is a great example of an industry serving its own ends at the expense of the greater good and it infuriates me at times to watch people participate willingly in their own degeneracy.
I don’t think the media can be “blamed” any more than the people themselves that buy their spoon-fed opinions. Each is responsible for his own lot but the media is also responsible for the effects it creates. You say the explanation only goes so far and that you make your decisions for yourself. I don’t contend whether you decide for yourself or not but the source of information that forms the basis of your viewpoint is crucial to the conclusion that you reach. The mass media create issues that people decide on and that is a problem. An example is how anti-war proponents are asked, “Well what do you propose we do about Saddam?” The issue of if anything should be done at all has never been raised in the press. It is just portrayed in a light that takes for granted that “something must be done.” If the issue itself is beside the point then any decision made on that issue is going to be beside the point. Issues themselves can steer the course of public opinion.
I don’t think America could have been persuaded by an anti-war movement when the issues raised by the media excluded the point often being made by those opposing the war.
That you simply wish to agree to disagree on whether Iraq is a threat or not speaks volumes to me. This was never an issue raised in the media. It was always taken for granted that Iraq was a threat and that the issue was “what to do about the Iraq problem.” It is a manufactured problem used to serve as a justification to serve ulterior ends. Once it is taken for granted that that something has to be done, the deck is already stacked in favor of the Whitehouse agenda.
I would like to find out where the financial contributions to HRW come from. Do you think that may be pertinent? But I guess questioning such issues is conspiracy theorizing or paranoia, huh. The facts beg to differ with HRW and with the media hype at the time. Quoting an article by Michael Parenti: “Up until the NATO bombings began in March 1999, the conflict in Kosovo had claimed 2,000 lives altogether from both sides, according to Kosovo Albanian sources. Yugoslavian sources put the figure at 800.” Does this seem like genocide or more like casualties of civil war? Did you ever consider that the genocide hype at the time may have been used to justify American planes dropping bombs? Did it ever strike you as odd that Milosevic wanted no part of the European Union? You think that may have had something to do with the issue?
As for Saddam, I’ll sit tight and wait a few years for more information to surface, as it tends to do in the years following these events. Concerning the supposed mass graves of Kurds, has the documentation been made public? Is the exhumation of the mass graves documented with photographs etc.? Or are we just taking their word for it? Maybe the Kurdish “witnesses” had an agenda behind their accusations. Oh, I’m sorry. Am I questioning that which I should just believe without pause?
Exactly. “Allegedly.” It seems the media can allege what they wish and not be held accountable for their rantings.
Why is it that, according to you, American figureheads are never guilty but CNN’s villains are always presumed guilty until proven innocent?
I wasn’t asserting that Lincoln planned specific atrocities from the Whitehouse. I’m saying that initiating warfare is an atrocity in itself—of which I do believe Milosevic and Saddam are guilty, as is Bush.
It’s nice to actually see eye to eye on some things. I applaud your attitude.
I will concede that perhaps my view of politics is limited. I tend to hold the very subject in contempt. I see “politics” per se as the art of manipulating opinion independent of truth. Leaders who simply assert their beliefs and garner support by not trying to garner support but rather by leading by example are, in my book, not politicians, but “statesmen” or simply just “leaders.”
But now I’m reducing the issue to semantics. I don’t actually have a disagreement with you here.
It is all you can do. You have my respect. That we come down on different sides of this issue does not alter that. I like to think I know best, but I’ve been wrong before and so can also acknowledge that I have not necessarily cornered the truth. That I am arguing the issue is testament to the fact that I still wish to learn more about what is going on and further pursue the truth.
I’m not sure what you think I believe. I am not denying that the majority of Americans support this war (nor am I acknowledging such). I was simply questioning the polls as a basis for an argument. It would not surprise me at all to learn that across a true cross-section of society, there is not such an overwhelming support for the war as is promoted. Having said that, the press can be a persuasive medium and I also would not be shocked to learn that the majority of Americans do support the war. I just don’t necessarily buy the news network polls, esp. since those that wish to manufacture popular opinion could vote over and over all day on those polls. (And yes I can acknowledge that the anti-war crowd could pull the same trick—it doesn’t make the poll any more reliable as a source though.)
I was waiting for this one. I say root out the corruption and bureaucratic politics and restore functioning competence to the agencies and make them do their job. To wage war because federal agencies fail to do their job is ludicrous.
C’mon GoHeels, surely you can think with it. I said IF you really see a need to remove Saddam due to obviously aggressive moves (which he was not making). I just happen to think that that is not necessary to solve any of America’s problems. It would be an awesome humanitarian gesture though and, given that it was undertaken, yes the US would have to visit the place—just not with a few hundred thousand troops. I do think that a warning would also be a good idea, making clear that if Saddam did initiate aggressions, that he would be met with force. I think Saddam would’ve kept well quite.
Plenty of Vietnamese were incorporated after the Vietnam War. It can be done. At the risk of getting into an economic discussion, the incorporation of very large numbers of refugees could be handled with diligent management. Of course I must admit that there is a flaw in the plan in that if the diligent management existed, America’s economy wouldn’t be in the bind that it currently is. But, again, incompetence is no excuse for militaristic policy. Politicians make poor managers and therein lays a fundamental problem. However, the fact remains that the refugees would not be just consumers; they would also be producers and therefore contribute to economic growth.
No, I don’t think Saddam wouldn’t notice his population shrinking. But when he did, he would show his true colors. He could either reform his ways and give his people a reason to stay by leading his country benevolently, or he could pick a fight that he wouldn’t win. Keep in mind that I do believe that if Saddam ever initiated military conflict, there would be every justification to respond with overwhelming force.
I thought that this interesting op-ed (by a self-described liberal Arab-American) that appeared in the Washington Post on Sunday might interest you, and reflects some of the points I made in this thread.
Yes, the article did interest me. I’m not sure I am clear on what you felt the article said to reflect your points in the thread. The author did mention that he felt the anti-war movement’s message was not as clear as it could have been, which is one thing that certainly reflected a point that you made. I don’t recall contesting that point in and of itself.
For me the most telling line in the article was the following:
“It bothers me that American progressives and Arab Americans woefully cede discussion of democracy in the Arab world to neoconservatives with discernibly dubious motives.”
The dubious motives that pushed for an Iraq invasion are disturbing. I don’t buy for one minute that they were in the slightest bit concerned about the plight of the Iraqis. It seems to me the author has reluctantly countenanced the invasion despite those dubious motives because he knew it would serve the purpose of achieving an end (removal of Saddam) which he genuinely believed in.
