*DAMN R6 Forum

Ok, one more take on the war, something I've been wondering lately since it seems like we're about to go to war for real.  Here are some facts, as far as I know:

1. Part of the reason for going to war is that Saddam Hussein has terrible weapons.
2. Some of those weapons can reach Israel and other countries in the area.
3. The US apparently believes Saddam might use those weapons.

Ok, so before going to war there's a chance he'll use them.  If we go to war, isn't that going to guarantee it?  If you were a madman with terrible weapons you wanted to use anyway, wouldn't launching them be your first action when under attack?  I haven't seen any discussion of this possibility anywhere.  Am I missing something?

It sounds logical to me that he will use them if attacked.  It is like the quote, "It is better to be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt"  The US thinks "Why claim that Saddam has WMD when you can attack and remove all doubt"  Unfortunately that way of removing doubt is by seeing their use.

That is why I found the whole idea of Saddam disarming with the military right on the border so wrong.  The attack was going to come at some point because Bush wouldn't be satisfied no matter what Saddam did.  So, considering a war was definate, why would Saddam want to give up his weapons.  That would be like knowing you were about to get in a duel with another person but giving them your gun before hand.

Although I don't want to see any US soldiers killed, I think Saddam is free to use any means to fight the soldiers as he wants as part of war.  Using weapons agains civilians of course isn't acceptable, although I garentee more Iraqi civilians will be killed by the US than non-Iraqi civilians killed by Saddam.

Also, I wanted to add that even if Saddam attacks with mortors or something at this point, it wouldn't justify the war by saying he started it because for all intensive purposes, Bush has already declared war, even if it is not officially.  Add to that that the US has already been bombing various anti-aircraft instalations for a few weeks.

I'm not sure if this is common practice or not since I haven't really lived through a war before, but the paper has stopped printing any anti-war editorials and for the past three days has filled its editorial pages with what I consider basically pro-war propaganda. Why do they do this? I was very dismayed to see it.

You need to modify #2.  Most of the WMD's in question could be easily smuggled into the USA to use against it's citizens.


Here's what I think you are missing.  Two things.

First, Both France and Russia have now stated publicly that if Iraq uses any WMD's, even on American troops, they will both jump in on the USA's side.  And that should make him think again.

Second, and more important.  Isn't it much better for him to use them on troops that are prepared for it, rather then give him the choice of targets?  Like civilians that aren't prepared for it?  By choosing the offensive, the USA is limiting his options in many ways (the bad ways you've been pointing out, this is one of the good ways).  Another aspect is that if he fires off one, it can be tracked back to where it came from.  The more he uses the weapons, the closer the USA will be to finding any stockpiles / production facilities.  

This is all based upon the same assumption you started with (and our government is telling us), which is that he has these stockpiles and production facilities.


Better to find it with troops that are prepared for it, then with an outbreak in New York City, no?  Or Tel Aviv.  Or anywhere else they aren't prepared for it.


No surprise, but I disagree with your analogy.  To think that it's a duel would imply Iraq has a chance.  You yourself have said they don't in the past.  I would say it's more like a cop with a shotgun pointed at a criminal.  The criminal can take the .38 special out of his belt, and lay it on the ground, or he can try to shoot the cop with it.  The criminal is in a no win situation.  So yes, expecting him to give it up is reasonable, but iffy.  


This is me questioning your context, btw.  So you are saying that using WMD's is ok for Iraq if used against the USA?  Any means means anything to me.  So you are saying it's ok for him to use mustard gas, nukes, or anything else?  Even if their use has been outlawed?

And, if this is true, doesn't this conflict with your previous positions on the USA using any WMD's itself?


I hope so.  That is the whole point of this, to keep him from killing any non-Iraqi civilians, after all.  

Now, I hope that the USA doesn't kill any civilians.  I know that is a fleeting wish.  But, I also don't consider anyone that points a gun at a USA soldier a civilian anymore.  I also don't consider people that decide to be human shields as civilians anymore either.  If they chose to go sit in front of a SAM site, they may as well put on a uniform in my opinion, because they have decided to put themselves into combat.

One last point.  How many will Iraqi civilians will die due to Iraqi actions?  More or less?  That is a big question.  If they use chemical or biological weapons, they could very well spread to the Iraqi people too.


The US has been doing this for 10 years, not two weeks.  I know it doesn't make the headlines most of the time, but if you read deep into the news, it happens almost every month (sometimes more then once a week).  It happens when Iraq decides to turn on a anti-aircraft radar and point it over the "no-fly" zone.  Or put a sam where they aren't allowed to.  The USA (and UN approved) has had a zero tolerance policy about that since this all started over a decade ago.

Tasty, it could be because public opinion has shifted to more of an pro Bush stance on this.  CNN was showing some of the polls yesterday, and in everyone, Bush had gained support (70% in some cases, with only 18% opposed).  

That, and if war is a foregone conclusion, supporting our military is the right thing to do.  

I say that because if the democratic process is followed, you should support it, even when it's not the outcome you wanted.  That's the price of democracy.  You can be against the war, against Bush's policies, but to not support the armed forces (as happened in the Vietnam era) is complete bullshit.  So, some of this may be rubbing off on the media as well.

More on the wartime coverage thing: here is a study from FAIR:

http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-sources-networks.html

that pretty much sums up what I said.

Bucc: I just saw a CNN poll 2 days ago that said if Bush didn't bring the war to a vote in the UN, that only 48% supported it. Since he didn't ever call the vote, I'm going to assume that that poll still holds true. Also, if a majority supports the war, that doesn't mean that the opinion of the minority should be supressed completely. That is undemocratic and pure bullshit. The media's job is not to be a mouthpiece for the Bush administration. It is to cover the war, both the good and the bad, in an unbiased manner. I know people in the military, and I wish the best of luck to them.  Hopefully they can get out of there with as few casualties as possible.

Polls are funny that way.  It's all in how the question is asked.  Yesterday's WSJ had one that just asked if you supported the President's position in going to war, and it got 62% approval, and like 15% undecided if I remember correctly.  And it was remarked that this was up 8 points from when the asked the exact same question a couple months ago.  So, they all have to be taken with a grain of salt.  But everything I've seen shows a trend in more favor towards going to war.


Whoa, stop right there.  That's not what I said.  I said you can still be against Bush and the war.  That is also part of our democratic process.  The point I was making is you can't be against the armed forces, for the application of the decision, like it or not.  This happened to our forces in the 60's and 70's, and was completely wrong.  

If you think it was right then, or now, to spit on a soldier for doing his duty, then I'll have lost all respect for you.  

So, please, go back and notice that I said I think the media may be reacting to that (over correcting for past sins).  

Bucc, I never said those in the duel had equal reflexes and aim.  The point is that the weaker one will die regardless of what he does so he might as well keep his weapon and attept to wound the other than just put it down and be killed.

As for the WMD use, I said Saddam would be justified to use them ON US troops, not on US civilians.  Just like the US could use them on Iraqi millitary but not on Iraqi civilians (by this logic, not by the established rules of war).  Also, since he isn't really being given the rights of a real nation, there is no reason why Iraq should follow such rules.  If you don't get rights of some jurisdiction, then in my opinion you have no obligation to follow the laws of that jurisdiction.  The US does have the rights so they have reason to follow the laws, but anyway, the WMD use they've had in the past has largely affected civilians.

Any Iraqi civillians killed because of Iraqi action go on the US's responsibility since the action was a result of the US attack.

Bucc, today I heard Rush talking about how you can't support the troops but not support Bush.  I think that is bullshit and I think you may agree from what you said.  I support our troops in such that I want them to be safe, but I don't support the reason they are fighting...which is not of their control so they get none of the blame.  I think it is fully reasonable (especially since in this case war isn't a result of democratic process but rather of the US's dictatorship lead of the world) to maintain an anti-war stance throughout the war, as long as you don't spread the opposition to the action to the opposition of those who are used in the action.

About Vietnam, I don't know anyone who doesn't have major issues with the war itself, but the people who attacked those who faught it, often unwillingly, and their families is just awful.

Bucc: It seemed like you were trying to justify the censorship of major newsmedia by saying that a majority of people supported the war. That's the only reason I flew off the handle. I doubt they are trying to overcompensate for Vietnam, my thoughts are they are trying to be as uncontroversial as possible which in my mind is highly controversial.

I don't plan on spitting on anyone and I sympathize with the soldiers for their plight. But where is the line drawn between policy and the application of policy? Is it right for soldiers to perform tasks required of them if they are ordered to do something terrible? I don't really have clearly formed opinions on this yet. The attitude of the soldiers I've talked to (recently at a party 2 days ago) was that they were apprehensive about the possibility of war and not necessarily supportive of it, but that if they did end up fighting a foreign war that they expected respect upon returning, which I thought to be reasonable.

Bondo: Saddam is justified to defend himself from attack but I don't think the use of WMD is EVER acceptable, no matter what the circumstances. I don't think death on either side is justified, and you really seem to be holding the US to a double standard.

It's why I think your analogy doesn't fit.  He could have put the gun down and lived in my anology.  In yours, he dies both ways.  Do you really think mine doesn't fit the situation better?  Especially since Iraq is much like the criminal on parole.  The US just isn't the cop (that would be the UN), but a private detective or bounty hunter instead under current circumstances.  


I don't agree in the use of chemical weapons in most cases (tear gas being a notable exception) and don't agree in the use of biological weapons in any case.  

Yes, you are equal in your application, but one of the reasons against both chemical and biological weapons are that you can't really control them.  Can't keep them from hitting the wrong people.  You think a 2000 pound bomb is inaccurate, think about changing winds, or one person getting infected and becoming a Typhoid Mary.  No, I find the use of them against people unjustified, whoever is pulling the trigger.


Part of my point was, what about all the ones killed before by Iraq?  All the blood already on Saddam's hands?  I didn't state it well, but it's there.

Also, I don't agree that if he chooses to use WMD's and Iraqi's are killed, it's not his fault.  That's like saying that me fighting off a mugger with a 'nadelauncher and killing 5 innocent bystanders in the process isn't my fault.  Let alone like me fighting off a cop, which is more accurate in my opinion.


I agree except in one small detail that I implied but didn't say.  Yes, having an anti-war stance is fine.  Voicing your opinion is fine.  Not just fine, but part of the system I believe in.  But, when I spoke about accepting it as part of democracy I also meant not denouncing it and leaving because it went against the way you think.  That's the price of democracy.  Yes, voice your disapproval of the policy, by all means.  It's as important as the people voicing the other side of the issue.  But, not supporting our nation, or it's forces is what's not excusable.  Saying that "I didn't get my way so I'm taking my ball and going home" because you were out voted isn't democracy, it's childish.  If you believe in democracy, how can you not believe that?

You are an exception because you hate the USA, so you should move.  Not based on one policy, but based upon the nation as a whole.  That's the difference.  


Yes, but I brought that up as a possible reason that the media had shifted of late.  They don't want to be even hinted at of having that posture again.  That's a theory anyway.

but the paper has stopped printing any anti-war editorials and for the past three days has filled its editorial pages with what I consider basically pro-war propaganda.    Would that be the Press Citizen or the Gazette?  ;D

Bucc, my analogy was looking at his "death" as leader, not his literal death.  Peaceful or not, there will be a regime change.  As such it is the same result for him, but a different result to the US.  To him, having the US be unwounded is not as good as having them be wounded.  That they are on parole doesn't affect the clear advantage to him to keep and use the weapons rather than give them up.

Anyway, to both you and Tasty, I don't think Saddam should use his WMD, I just don't find their use particularly unacceptable given his situation and acting in his own self-interest.  It is reasonable that he would use them.  Just as it could be reasonable not to quit smoking even though it causes harm.  This is the basis of assumed human cost/benefit analysis in all actions.

I certainly place the deaths of Iraqis related to Saddam maintaining internal power to be on his hands, not the US.  But I consider the US in part responsible for those that die in his attempt to maintain external power.  It doesn't justify their deaths but it does remove some blame from him.  Take for example if police are in a shootout with a criminal.  If the police accidentally hit someone, the criminal is held responsible.  He is being blamed because he was the reason for the accident to occur.  I think this generally responds to your analogy.  More directly though, it is a common practice in police chases that they be called off if public safety is too greatly risked.  That alone shows that the police take some responsibility in not confronting the criminal in a manner that results in danger to innocent bystanders.  Similarly the US would take some responsibility for those that are killed by Saddam as a result of our war.

As for the war support issue, I would argue that this war is in no way democratically approved.  As such I see no reason for people to accept that their side was simply not the majority.  I think by pulling the resolution from the table and ignoring the UN, they avoid democratic validation.  If the UN approved the war, then I think those opposed to the war would have to accept it, but I don't consider it democratically validated because a questionable majority of Americans support it.

The Gazette (the specific name of my local paper in Colorado Spings) has been all about pro-war propaganda from day one.  After all they covered the tear gassing of the anti-war rally as if the police had no fault at all when there is great indication that they acted excessively.

Well, now you see, so all is well there.  But I strongly oppose your use of the word censorship!  You (and Bondo later) both color this a little too zealously.  Who was censored?  What did they try to say?  They may have changed their opinions, they may have changed their stance, but who censored anything?

They way you both say it, it seems like you wish the people that support war were actually censored.  I keep hearing that "the media is afraid", "the media is just repeating the governments stance", "propaganda".  Please explain to me why, if many of the American Public can agree with the war, the media can't be?  And if they do they are being "censored" or the rest of it?  You haven't said it all Tasty, but you seem to have the same stance, which is why I'm asking you.


That's a big question Tasty, with one huge internal flaw.  Terrible is as subjective as you can be.  Some would think it terrible for them to ever take a life, even in defense of their own.  Some obviously didn't think the concentration camps of WW2 were terrible.  

What they have is the law.  If an order is lawful, they should follow it.  They, like the rest of us, have to put our faith in our laws.  Our laws can change if they are found to be wrong, but we need the guideline, to make it non-subjective.  

The USA declaring and going to war is lawful today.  If you think it shouldn't be, then you should look to change the laws.  Soldiers have plenty of laws, and "rules of engagement" they must follow.  If they think they are ordered to act outside of these, they have recourse.  If they just think it's wrong to go into Iraq, that's their opinion, but their job still has to be done, it's not a choice.


Pretty much the way I see it too.

That's still where your analogy fails Bondo.  When Iraq was told to "drop the gun", there was no regime change required.  They've been told to "drop the gun" for years now.  They ignored it until the shotgun was pressed up against their heads.  Now, they are still refusing, not giving any options.  Now there would be no change, but when they were asked to disarm (for years, and they agreed to it), they didn't.  They have refused the whole time.  So now, just in the last few days, has the change in regime been the final outcome.  Not before.


Then you and I have completely different definitions of what is reasonable.  It wouldn't surprise me if he uses them, but I don't find it reasonable at all.


Ah, and if no WMD's are used, I can agree with your logic for the most part.  Problem is, we are talking about WMD's.  If a cop kills a bystander while using "excessive force" he is very much held responsible.  

I'll give a real life example.  There was a police chase here.  The cop had already been fired at by the criminals.  He was in a car chase.  He decided to return fire (while driving the car).  He hit a bystander.  The cop was held responsible, not the crooks.  The cop was still supposed to act responsibly.

BTW, you have one thing very backwards in your logic.  The USA (the cops) aren't the ones we are worried about using WMD's.  It's the criminal.

But, that's still not close enough to the use of WMD's.  Go back to my earlier analogy.  A guy being attacked, for the right or wrong reasons, cannot just pull out a grenade and toss it into a room, killing innocent bystanders, in the name of self defense.  He can respond to force with force, but not indiscriminately.  

But, without the use of WMD's I agree that both sides share in some of the blame for the loss of innocent lives.


And I argue that you are completely off base with that.  The USA doesn't now, nor ever has, needed the sanction of the UN to go to war.  Moreover, since the UN isn't even as democratic as the USA (remember all those inequality of powers you talked about before?), it's approval or not isn't more democratic, it's less.  First, it's not like the whole UN has to agree, or even a majority.  Second, with the excessive veto rights, all but one could agree, but something still not pass.

We in the USA have laws that govern how this works.  That makes it democratically approved.  Not only that, but in every poll inside the US that I have seen, more are supporting it then not.  Once it goes to Congress (and it has to at some point, as says the law), you'll see democracy in action again.

But, your belief that the UN is the end all, be all governing body (which I don't agree with, since we don't have a world government), doesn't make it less democratic.  I don't believe that the French, for instance, have any more say in who we go to war with then we do them.  If they oppose us, they are free to join with Iraq as well.

So, in no way, do I see it being less democratic since the UN hasn't approved of it.  I see it as being less accepted.  I see it as being less justified.  But not less democratic.


Just pointing out that you used propaganda again.  So I'll ask you the question to.  Why is it that any opinion that is "pro-war" has to be looked at as propaganda?  Isn't that just you belittling the contrary opinion again?

I used propaganda because the post I quoted used propaganda.  On the other hand since I clearly discribed a case where it was twisting the truth to belittle the anti-war protesters, it very much would count as a move of proaganda for the war.  Contrary opinions are one thing, telling falsehoods as truths is another (before you say anything about my posting falsehoods as truths, I don't often make the claim that I'm saying facts, I mostly am saying opinions based on facts).

Don't kid yourself, regime change has been all but assured since Bush decided Iraq had problems, there was nothing Saddam could have done to avoid the regime change.  Perhaps he could have at somepoint in the past 13, but not in the past 18 months or so.

About the UN being democratic, I'd ask that you take a look at my adaption of the US democratic documents for the world stage.  It would be a true democracy.  Anyway, the main reason the UN isn't a democracy is because the US is so powerful that they'd prefer to just be the dictator.  I don't care what the US internally does, that wouldn't make the war democratic because it doesn't have jurisdiction over Iraq.  Only the UN could give a democratic sort of approval to this war by having a majority vote (vetos aside).  It wasn't going to happen and so this war is not democratically justified, no matter what the Congress or US public think.

First of all, the best support for the troops might be to get them out of a war and home as soon as possible.  I think in general it's good to question laws - all of them - even as you support their application.  If they're changed, you can support the change and still debate it.  In this forum, for example, we've talked about our opinions of the president - but one of the great things about this country is that even though some of us hate him - we haven't responded in a way that defied the law.  (Civil disobedience being a notable exception)

Also, Here it's lawful for the US, because the US makes it's own laws.  Anything the United States government does will be lawful by it's own standards.  However, I don't believe it's actions would be considered lawful under established international law.

But back to the original concern I had in this topic -

With Saddam Hussein being a pretty clear madman, I had minor concern of his using WMD before this war.  Now though, I wouldn't trust him to use logic - it seems he would be extremely likely to attack using them at the first opportunity.  If he doesn't, I would question whether he actually has them - or whether his notorious reputation is so deserved as to warrant the war.

Overthrow: haha, I don't even read those rags when I am in Iowa City. I was actually referring to the Des Moines Register. The Press-Citizen is probably busy covering a 116 year old grandma who makes quilts and sends them to soldiers to say I love you.

Bucc: Laws aren't always the most concrete thing. People say all's fair in love and war, but what if some soldier gets William Calley as their commander?

I believe it is the media's job (in regards to opinions/editorials) to make an effort to present both sides. I also think that it is the duty of the media (or at least it should be) to question authority. I use the word censorship because when the media does not present a point of view, that point of view essentially does not exist in the eyes of the public. The media plays a critical role in controlling public opinion about basically everything. Generally, people believe what they read in the newspaper. If they hear it all from one side and not the other, than there is no option or free thought, there is only that single media-reinforced point of view. Public point of view and media have a reciprocal relationship. Public opinion reflects the media. Therefore, the media cannot and should not be trying to reflect public opinion.

You weren't afraid of Saddam Hussein using these weapons because you NEVER thought about him or that region of the world before the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks. It is pretty clear to a majority of the people that he has these weapons, and as he has shown in the past, he is willing and capable to use them.

If you do no think he has these weapons, ask yourself this:

Why would he destroy his stockpiles inbetween 1998 (when the inspectors were kicked out) and 2002 (when inspectors were allowed back in)? He had no motivation to destroy any of his weapons because he knew he had a long period of time to hide his weapons. Let's be realistic here...inspectors would have never found anything because Saddam has had over four years to hide items in a country with the land mass of California. Anyone with any intellect could hide anything from anyone given four years and that much land space.

As for why he wouldn't use his weapons, he might be afraid that world opinion would turn on him seeing that almost all of the countries who are anti-war would change their opinions and support the US. Saddam is a spinmaster, and always tries to make the situation play into his favor...using WMD within his own country would make him look really bad and would tarnish his reputation among arabs. Seeing that Saddam cares about his reputation above all else, he might be compelled to not use the weapons.

What falsehoods did they print Bondo?  All you gave was this:

Pardon my ass, but saying there is indication that they acted excessively (your opinion) doesn't mean the papers have to share in it.   How many protesters were killed?  How many seriously injured?  What was the ruled caues of the use of tear gas?  Was it within normal police policy?

There are a world of questions there, that you dismiss as propaganda.  What truth did they twist?  You accused them of spouting pro war propaganda since day one, it shouldn't be hard to find a good example for me.


Bullshit.  I don't agree with you at all.  Without war, Bush has no way to force the regime change.  If Iraq had disarmed, there would be no way to push it.  18 months, pfft, I say 3 weeks, since US decided to act with or without UN support.  That's when it was no longer an option, not before.  Don't say I'm kidding myself, give me a reason.  How could Bush have enforced it?


Fiction.  Pure fiction.  Your ideas have nothing to do with the actual state of the UN.


That's not the main reason at all.  That's just another jab at America.  It's not a very good democracy because it's not structured to be.  World powers were named and given more rights then others.  That forever limits it, at least until it's changed.


Excuse me?  So, America is no longer considered a democracy?  We aren't talking about the world's opinion of America, the point I said, IN CONTEXT, was in regards to the internal workings.  We are part of a democracy here in America.  Going to this war has followed the forms and laws we have.  So, if you are part of this democracy, that is the outcome.  

Remember, the USA never gave up it's rights (and going to war is one of a nations rights) to join the UN.  It doesn't need UN approval.  Your opinion that the UN is more qualified to run our country isn't shared (thank God) by most of our nation.  So, I really don't see how you can say it hasn't followed a democratic process.  

Thanks for pointing out that it's not Congress, or the public, but only those on Bondo's side that Bondo cares about.

Not just good, but necessary.  Our government, our judicial system, all of it, is based upon multiple voices, about debating the issues, and, once heard, majority rules (in most cases).  So challenge the decision all you want, but respect the other side too.  It's not just propaganda.  Either side can say that.

But, I also emphasize the point of supporting their application.  Loudnotes, you should think about that, because I agree with just how you put it.  And that includes the draft.  Which you previously said you wouldn't go (or am I mistaken).  Since to have a draft, it would be law, if you protest it but abide by it, you would have to go (if called), wouldn't you?


What established international law do you think the USA is breaking?  I don't know of any law that says the UN has to approve a war.  I do know that there are provisions for wars in international laws.  So I'm interested to know which laws you think were broken?  At worst I think the UN may attempt a resolution telling the USA to back off, but I honestly don't think that likely.  


Loudnotes, while your logic is sound on the surface, there's two little problems with it.

First, You don't trust him to use logic, so you can't really apply your logic to him, can you?  By him being illogical (and a madman), there's really no way to say for sure what his reasons would be for making the choice.  Knowing that, you can't base any conclusion off his actions with a good amount of faith.

Second, and even more to the point, he didn't (as far as we know) use them in the fist Gulf War, but, we know he had them (he admitted to it, and did prove that they destroyed a small part of their stockpiles, just not all of them).  So, if he had them, and didn't use them before, he's just not predictable in this way.  So I wouldn't judge his having WMD's on if they show up in the war or not.  I'll base it on if occupation troops (who will be inspecting much more then the few the UN had there) find anything.

Tasty, laws are not perfect, which is why they can be changed.  But, more importantly, that's what they are there for, and we don't have anything better.


Actually, I think editorials are ok to not be both sides, they are just the opinions of the editors (or a letter he chose).  On the otherhand, when reporting things as flat news, I think opinions should be left out (as much as possible), and both sides given equal time.  This goes back to our conversation about the 100 pro Bush supporters getting the same amount of coverage as the 10,000 anti-war demonstrators.  In just the news, both sides should get equal time.


Why?  It's the right of the media.  It's the right of the people.  But why the duty.  If that's all they did, wouldn't it grind progress to a halt in some cases?  What if the government backed down to the UN, you would want the media pulling for war?  

I really don't think the media should question authority just for the sake of doing it.  I think editorials should do that when someone actually does question it.  Doing it just for the sake of doing it isn't really a stance at all.  It's just nay-saying all the time.  Eventually, people would catch on and it would be ignored in my opinion.


So make up your mind, should the media be neutral or should it question the government?  because it can't do both (what if public opinion is questioning?).

Really, you are using the word censorship too liberally there.  What I'm hearing more of is you wish the popular media reflected your opinions more, and not opinions that you oppose.  Again, I'm taking into account the previous conversation on media we had.  

More then anything, you have to look at news and editorials.  News, when reported as news, should be neutral.  Explaining both sides of an issue, but not taking one.  Not challenging authority for the sake of it, but not stopping with just what authority tells them either.  Editorials are the opinions of the writers.  And I'm sure you are finding it frustrating that most editorials are favoring the war, but since the people writing them are expressing their opinions, and there seem to be more opinions that are pro-war right now, that is to be expected.  

What I disagree with though is that there is any censorship going on.  If you look you will find opinions on both sides.  The media is not some sacred community, that is here to lead the American sheep (the ones that wont think for themselves).  The media is a subset of the nation.  With all the good and the bad that entails.  

Remember, you complained when Bush supporters got equal air time.  So it would be ok to "censor" those?  Why then?  I just think you are still frustrated that your side doesn't get more or better air time.

Bucc, if the US is in its rights to launch this war, then why is Kofi Annan saying it isn't justified?  Wouldn't he be the one to determine if an attack is internationally justified?  Anyway, I think I made myself clears saying that the US's domestically democratic decision to go to war holds no weight in international issues.  It would need to be democratically decided on an international stage to be democratically justified international action.

As for Bush not being able to force regime change, what I mean is there is no way Iraq could have disarmed enough to avoid the attack.  They most likely don't have some of the things the US claims they do because they did indeed destroy it, and the US wouldn't believe them so it would be impossible for them to prove they were disarmed.  Bush has shown great willingness to disregard anything Iraq says.

As for Saddam disarming, I find it a very Saddam like thing to do to destroy all his illegal weapons, then when the US rolls into town they won't find anything and they will lose all credibilty on the world stage.

As for my local paper...I know people who were there and, unlike what the paper made it seem, they were not failing to obey orders to leave the street, in fact they were off the street when the tear gas was used.  But the paper said basically that the people weren't leaving the street and were infact moving towards the police so it was used...first hand accounts in no way varify this pro-police account.

hans blix himself said he is very curious what the americans  will find in iraq. from his point of view the americans didnt show enough patience, and he thinks they never intended to wait for the whole timespan the un gave iraq.

we will see what they will find...

I guess my feeling is that the US is proposing to kill and completely remove Hussein.  If he finds himself in a position of such desperation that there is no hope of escape - which seems likely - he will probably start to care less about his reputation, his people, or much of anything at all.  At that point, if he still has control of WMD - what would prevent him from using them wherever possible?

And regarding the draft - my first recourse would be to do everything within legality.  I would probably be a conscientious objector if possible - and if that were rejected, I would voluntarily join a non-fighting branch of the military.  Only as an absolute last resort would I flee the country, or go to jail.  For example, I might play trumpet in the National Guard band, or something of the like.

Well, an editorial has to take a side to be an editorial. A good editorial takes a strong stance. In an editorial section, typically there are two or three editorials written by the newspaper's staff and then five to ten editorials written by guest columnists or nationally syndicated columnists. The editorial staff has full license to pick whichever editorials they want out of a pretty diverse stack to fill this space, and when they pick 5 editorials that express the same opinion they are not doing their job in my opinion.

It's their duty because leaders lie. Yet the truthfulness of our leaders is rarely questioned until after the fact, and even then it is usually swept under the rug. How would this grind progress to a halt? If that were true, than you would be rating the power of the media at a level even higher than I am. If the government backed down to the UN, the media should be there questioning "what if"? I don't think that people would ignore this stance either, because if the media was how I ideally pictured it there would  be editorials there to balance them.



Why can't it do both? How does questioning authority interfere with neutrality? As long as the appropriate editorials are there to balance it, it could easily be maintained.

I don't expect them to stop printing opinions that I disagree with. I'd just like them to start printing more opinions that I do agree with. Our conversation about coverage of the protesters had nothing to do with supressing opinions; after all, this wasn't the editorial section we were arguing about. All news stories have varying degrees of importance, and I didn't think the importance of the different groups of protesters in this case was comparable due to the large difference in their size. It's like saying that a single homicide should get the same amount of coverage as Columbine. That's just not how news works. Newsmedia already set this standard of size and popularity for the things they reported in the past; if that's the standard that they want to go by, then I expect them to hold all news stories to that standard and not just news stories that are convenient to them. It's all about fairness and I don't think that the anti-war protesters were treated fairly in this incidence.

A few things...first off some stats from this week's Newsweek which has a cover story about why American is facing such opposition.

It says that with our increased defence budget for the coming fiscal year, we will have a larger deffence budget then EVERY other country COMBINED.

It also said that only the US and Israel have majority public support for the war.

This next part was meant for the Debate Style thread but it was locked so since it does relate to this thread in part I'm putting it here.

It is one of my main concerns in the debates here is that I feel like I state my side of the case, and instead of having Bucc disagree by stating his side, he merely attacks my side.? I accept those who have differing opinions and I don't attack their viewpoints, my bulk of posting is merely in defending my own point from claims that it is ignorant, hypocritical, or just poorly argued.

I have at points been happy to have you debating Bucc.? Take for example our exchanges in the [this thread].? We manage to have an exchange without you getting into the overly condescending style.? There is a difference to pointing out a few mistakes politely in a general reply and browbeating a post phrase by phrase.? Point those few mistakes out in your quoting fashion if you will but what is needed is a show of civility and respect.? Try to ignore the fact that you are more schooled than us and avoid looking down on us.? You just have too high of a standard that you are setting for this forum that has high school and college kids as opposed to Masters graduate discussion.? Nobody has all the knowledge to make a completely factual based argument, nobody really has the time for finding every fact and reviewing every point of the argument to check that it is flawless.? You are expecting perfection where it isn't attainable.

No, he hasn't been given that authority.  He can give his opinion on it, and he has.  There's a difference between him saying it's not justified, and him saying that the USA has committed a crime, or over stepped it's rights.  Annan may think that the USA is wrong, but so what.  There's a difference between being unjustified and being criminal, isn't there?  

You also seem to keep confusing the UN as a governing body, instead of what it really is.  The UN isn't a government.  No country gave up their rights to join.  It isn't your fiction about a world government, it's a tool to try and avoid wars from happening.


Well that's a whole twist on my words, and what Tasty and I were talking about Bondo.  We were talking about internal American response, not if it was justified internationally.  So, your statement has no relevance on telling me I was wrong about it.  Way to go out of the country for context.


Just like you have shown great willingness to disregard anything the US government says.  Why?  What makes you think that Saddam is telling the truth and Bush (and Powell, etc) are not?  The UN report actually says Hans can't say either way, so what are you basing this on?


You find it Saddam like to have actually disarmed?  If he had, why wouldn't he have supplied that information to the UN, as required.  Why would he have fought with UN inspectors until there was a gun to his head?  What are you finding Saddam like?


First, that's not what you said before.

Second, that's known as "hearsay".  You are relying on just the perspective of few people, who certainly are not non-biased (since they were part of it).

Third, in our day of lawsuits and hand held video cameras, if the police overstepped their bounds, it would be all over the news (the news loves to publish those articles), and in the courts.

I find it much more likely that the opinions of your friends is different then those of the news because they were effected by it, involved in it.  If this was such a big demonstration, how could they know what all the protesters were doing?  How could they now if someone was approaching the cops or not out of their line of site?  It may not have happened right in front of them, and they just saw the cops that were by them start tear gassing (since once that starts, they are committed to dispersing the crowd).  

So, that's one account, how about something better?  You said they have been spouting propaganda since day one, you must have something better, more clear cut, something documented maybe?

I don't think he has any real care for any of those things anyway Loudnotes.  There's nothing stopping him.  There was nothing stopping him last time.  But you want to apply logic rules to what you call a madman.  It doesn't work.  You can't say he's likely to do one or the other.  If he was logical, he would have avoided this in the first place.  You just can't get in his mind that way, he's proven himself to be too unpredictable.


Two small problems with that Loudnotes.  First, once you are drafted, you can't chose which branch.  If that's your route, you have to chose it before you get drafted.  Otherwise, the Coast Guard would have been bigger then the Navy in the 60's.  

Second, resorting to flee the country doesn't match with accepting the democratic application of law, even while trying to change it.  That is violating the law (and one hell of a prison sentence unless another draft dodger gets elected and issues a pardon).

Two things.  One, you don't really know how diverse the stack was.  As far as you know (even if unlikely) the entire stack may have been "pro-war".  That possibility exists.  Two, that's your opinion, but not everyones.  The paper you are talking about has the right to express it's opinion in those editorials, with no obligation to editorialize on the opposite side.  Just as another paper, that fits your thinking, has the right to just editorialize on it's opinions.  

What you are dealing with is that there is no good one source of information.  Everything has perspective.  If you want the complete picture, you have to diversify your sources.  There's absolutely no way around this.  There just is no possible way to have one source give all points of view accurately, because reporters are human, with opinions of their own.  What you need to do is a) find a source that is pretty moderate in it's views and b) find a couple that are extreme (but accurate, not like Rush) and at opposite ends.  It's the only way to get the complete picture.

No matter what, if you rely on one source, you will be missing some of the picture.  It's not censorship, it's human nature.


Leaders lie, that makes it the duty of all Americans to question, not the media.  And I'm not advocating that they follow the government's words blindly, but I'm also not advocating that they question just to question it.  That serves no purpose.  You can do that all day long and get nowhere.  

And I really have to call bullshit on your opinion about the truthfulness of our leaders not being questioned.  I see it questioned every single day.  How you don't amazes me.  You are old enough to have followed the news in this and the Clinton administrations.  You don't remember the media questioning the statements of both Bush and Clinton?  They are all over Bush about his motives, and with Clinton I can just say Star Report, Whitewater, and Monica.  Shit, there was even a vote to impeach Clinton.  How the hell you can say that the truthfulness of the leaders isn't questioned is a mystery to me.  Really, what are you basing that opinion on?

Tasty, editorials are for opinions, news is about telling both sides of the story.

So the news by all means should have given equal time to both sides of that protest.  Your Columbine analogy holds no water, because it's talking about two different stories.  The protest was one story, and both sides should have had equal weight.  If there were a 10,000 person protest on one day, and a 100 person rally on the next, I would expect that the 100 would get less coverage (unless it was a slow day for news).  

But, when interviewing any protesters, any at all, you have to give the other side equal time to respond if they want.  I don't care if it's 1 million protesting against one, if the news gives the 1 million 5 minutes of interviews, the 1 should have 5 minutes to voice his side too.  That's fair journalism.  That's news.  Editorials are something different.  Those are the paper's (or whatever media) own opinions.  Not news, but opinion.  

This is why some news channels get blasted for over editorializing (and rightfully so in many cases).  They give too much opinion while presenting it as fact.


Then read a different paper.  I'll bet a large sum of money you can find one that prints most of what you agree with.  All you have to do is look.  If that's all you want.

But I think what you want is for your opinion to be shouted from the rooftops.  Ok, that's over the top.  What I think you want is for more people to be exposed to your opinion.  If that's the case, publish.  I'm not kidding.  Publish.  Start sending those letters to the editor out.  Start your own media (start a new online paper, it's cheap).  Because that's the only way you'll get it.  That's how it works.  That's why people buy and start papers.  

You can't install controls on the media to make it all perfect, you really can't.  Media will always be imperfect, and even if controls are installed, they'll just be twisted to fit the opinions of whoever has the power, which would make it even worse.

The worst and best thing about the media in America is that it can say anything.  If you expose yourself to enough of it, you'll probably get most of the facts right.  You can't take the responsibility away from the people to seek out information.  They are stuck with it.

And I say, so what?  Is that supposed to bother me?  Our GNP is oh so much higher, and we have been shown to be a target.  And, like I've said before, if other countries didn't rely on NATO, and specifically the USA to back them up if they were invaded, they'd be spending more.


Ok.  And that is supposed to be important why?

One thing you seem to have as an underlying theme.  You seem to think that the rest of the world has to think it's right.  You disregard the soverign rights of nations, over public opinion of the world.  Not only that, but you disregard that governments support it even where public opinion doesn't.

So here is a big question for you.  What makes you think public opinion knows more about this situation then our government?  I'm going to give you a few things to focus on in your thinking.

1) Our government knows a hell of a lot more about Iraq, what it has and what it doesn't then any private citizen.

2) Our government can't reveal all that knowledge, because if it does, it risks losing that source of information.

3) If the USA could give up some sources to the UN, don't you think they have even more that they are still protecting?

4) Do you think anyone else in the world has better information on what Iraq is doing other then the USA Government (and of course, the Iraqi government)?

5) Do you think that other governments would support the USA, in the face of public decent, if they also didn't have more information?

Now, I know that we shouldn't accept anything blindly.  And I don't.  But we endow rights and responsibilities onto our leaders.  We chose them to trust in making the right decisions on things we can't know everything about.  That is at the core of a Republic.  We pay these people to be experts on it.

Short form, I put more faith in our government and some other governments then I do in pure uninformed public opinion.  Especially when some of them would never care what Iraq did, but are just anit-USA or "peace at any price" closed minded fools.

So, while questioning Bush and his motives is not wrong at all.  To have zero trust in our government is just as wrong, isn't it?  If our whole government is evil and corrupt, why wouldn't we be looking to overthrow it?  


Bullshit.  You don't accept differing opinions well at all.  You've attacked others viewpoints and insulted and called names as much as anyone Bondo.  Just get off it.  You are just as bad as anyone about this shit.  You are a hypocrite because you do it, but then bitch when others do.  Get over yourself.  

And stop telling me how to post.  You are nobody to judge, to put it in your own words.  God, you just have to keep it up and keep being the asshole, don't you?  Bring it into yet another thread.  Why not?  Asshole.

How did I take tasty and your argument out of context, I wasn't talking about your argument specifically.  I understand that nationally the war is justified, but I was expanding it to an international level, and Annan has stated that the US war is in violation of the UN charter.  That to me seems like it lacks justification internationally.  Also, the US's rights as a soverign nation don't give it the right to pre-emptively attack another.

Bucc, European intelligence isn't as inferior to the US as you seem to think.  I think the French and Germans know what is going on just as much, they choose the other way.  Plus, there is tons of evidence of the US lying to try and convince the UN to support it, but those lies have been exposed.  As the US has been proven to lie now while others have not, I trust them more.  I don't doubt that Iraq has some illegal weaponry...nor does Hans Blix as far as I've seen, but Hans Blix has built my trust by being truthful in what he's found while not rushing to either side.

As for why it would be Saddam like to disarm...because he hates the US and would love do do something that would damage the US greatly.  By disarming completely now the US would not find anything and the war would look much worse.  Mind you he's shot some illegal Squds off so I guess that isn't happening.  I merely said it was Saddam-like, not that it would happen.

Bucc, no, actually I don't attack people's views that are different then me, I merely defend my position.  You on the other hand take no real positions but merely attack other people's views.  You can say that is bullshit or that I'm a hypocrite, but you won't be correct.

One thing I've noticed, of everyone I know (although a good number disagree) only you attack my viewpoints.  Here is how I see it, either I'm not making bad arguments, or they aren't assholes.  Or in the other side, you are either an asshole or wrong.  And correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that this is supposed to be a friendly forum, so being an asshole isn't acceptable.

For example...I read my local paper every day, you don't, yet you feel the need to say I'm wrong about it.  You aren't doing this out of a position of knowing...no, you do it simply because you are an asshole who must disagree.  For the record, the police did have to go in front of the city council to defend their actions, and while they weren't punished, some council members did say that it was excessive.  Plus, I didn't hear from just protesters, I heard from people who were in the area for other reasons and just witnessed it.  Try not to assume that I don't have a good point because you know what happens to people that assume too much...

Bucc, I read plenty of different sources... The Nation, Adbusters, Mother Jones, Utne Reader, Dissent, etc. The problem is those are all magazines and not newspapers. If anyone wants a lefty newspaper, all there is are shitty propaganda machines like the Socialist Worker that don't represent the views of most liberals. The right has plenty of mainstream news sources, like the Wall Street Journal and cable TV. Don't say that liberals have the New York Times, because I hardly consider them to be liberal. Plus, do you really think that most people are going to seek out other sources to find other types of opinion? No, they are going to read their local paper and be happy with whatever they say.

Also, I don't think the protesters are the same story since they were different people protesting different things in different locations, so your claim that they should have the same coverage does not hold up.

Also, you provided three obvious examples of how the press questioned Clinton, but didn't ever provide specific examples of how they were questioning Bush. I know that they have questioned aspects of his foreign policy, like his lack of multilateralism, but I think there is a lot more that they could have questioned that they did not (especially pre-election), like his corporate ties, his family's ties to Nazi Germany, and his poor job on domestic issues.

I beg to differ. I would rather blame Hussein, because he's the one not taking care of his people, he's the one hiding in his shelters while his people are fighting and dying outside, he's the one setting fire to the oil fields that are their only way of sustaining themselves. He's the one , by refusing to cooperate, who is subjecting his people to this. The Iraqi people have gotten almost nothing but blood from him while he lives in his palaces with his billions, and it's going to go on his head if anyone dies because he didn't do what was best for his people.

Cookie, that's a nice way to rationalize war for yourself.  However, while Saddam bears responsibility for his people's suffering, only the Bush administration seems to feel that he's bringing this on himself.  That's nothing more than propaganda - with most of the world protesting - the UN providing alternatives - and the command of US forces in US hands, even the most ardent war supporter can hardly call war the only recourse.  If the US chooses to kill Iraqis in its quest to remove Hussein, they hold full responsibility for their deaths.

And Bucc - if it became apparent that I would be drafted soon - i.e. if I were not granted CO status and I had a low number, that is when I would choose the role of a non-combatant.  If for some reason that were unviable, that is when I would flee the country (jail would only be the case if I were caught - which is still the scope of the law, however undesirable).  In a sense, flight is within the law, because that would in effect be a renunciation of my citizenship - in which case I would no longer be subject to fight for this country.  I believe Pres. Ford pardoned the Vietnam draft-dodgers - that's not an unreasonable amount of time to have to live in another country - assuming one would want to return.

Well, obviously I would go to another country because I'd be in another country.  I don't feel an obligation to serve the war effort of the country other than in a voluntary fashion.  Besides, my vision sucks, I wouldn't qualify to fight.

how is it not his fault? sure, the US is the attacker but it's conditional. hussein was given the option to take exile in tons of countries, he refused, and in doing so screwed his country over. where is the logic there? none. he's made the bad decisions in that situation, not us. Lets say, theoretically, the US is a small, devout country full of ethnic conflict and stringent gender restrictions, ruled by the tyrannical and cruel gwb. Large superpower Iraq, headed by democratically elected saddam hussein, is attacking to depose gwb and take hold of the oppressed america. They say in order to avoid attack, however, GWB can leave and a new leader will take office. GWB refuses due to his own egotism and lust for power.. Iraq bombs and there are casualties. Who is more responsible for the nations problems and the deaths of the people, despot GWB or Iraq? Even though it was Iraq that actually killed the people, GWB was more RESPONSIBLE for the deaths.

as for the rest, i understand that right now in the world, propaganda is rampant and exists just about everywhere. however, i really can't say i've been exposed to much. I haven't listened to any bush/powell speeches in great length, at most a minute. I haven't read any notoriously biased sources. I mostly read books of all persuasions, I go to seminars, I like www.realclearpolitics.com, and i try to form opinions for myself. Please stop accusing me of being "propagandized", I merely have different, but not necessarily wrong, views on things.
also, you mentioned the world protesting, etc. Perhaps i've mentioned this before, but I have a problem with people trusting every countries' voice in this matter. For one, not every country is being affected by this, thus we should concentrate on how the important, affected ones feel. Secondly, not every country is right, sadly. The politics of today, the corruption.. they all keep us from reaching a true and just consensus on things (don't interpret this as me saying the US is always right, it's just a general statement) and you have to try and see through the motives of some people. Turkey, for example, has every damn right to not want in on this because they'd have to take refugees, and could be targeted in the future. France, yeesh, we all know the story on whats going on there. Germany.. who knows, perhaps they just don't like us. It doesn't mean they're right, it doesn't mean we're right. - In short, I don't believe that we can trust the "world" to always be right, because even though the majority may be the dominator, it doesn't mean it's the right way to go. I'm trusting my intuition and sources on this, not the world to make the choices for me.

about the UN.. i think most people know my thoughts on it. Basically, I think it's ineffective with inadaquate representation. Sure, they're giving "alternatives" but the fact that hussein has been violating their charters, human rights laws, treaties, etc for about 12 years now without reprisal shows that something is wrong. Their "alternatives" involve giving him more time but what does that constitute? 12 more years? more time to hide the weapons and bulldoze the facilities? They need to seriously crack down and live up to their policies and promises. I like Kofi Annan though, they should keep him if they reform  ;D

Just one thing cookie, when they reinstated the UN inspections, I don't think anyone would expect them to complete their job in 3 months, therefore it's pretty clear that the US never intended to wait...

Iraq has had reprisals.  For the past 12 years, Iraq has had a no-fly zone, frequent bombings, and economic sanctions.  That's a big reason also why Iraq doesn't compare to Nazi Germany.  With all the imposition on the country, I find it hard to see them as a legitimate threat - especially with the inspectors complicating any weapons program.

And sorry, but it sounded a lot like some of Rumsfeld's speeches to blame Saddam for the war.  If Saddam is told unilaterally that he must leave - without any real provocation - it's hard to blame him for not giving up everything in his world.  No matter what Saddam does, the US has never been FORCED to cause Iraqi deaths.  The fact that they are doing so freely cannot absolve them of responsibility.  

Actually, I would have said the Washington Post before I said the Times.  I think the post is actually the more liberal of the two, but that' just my opinion.


People being sheep doesn't make it the media's responsibility to fix.  If people wanted to see nothing but the best efforts in journalism (best being fair and unbiased with all sides represented), then all the news would be in the format of Nightline and Frontline.  It's not the case.  You can't force your opinion of it down their throats.  That's where fascism often begins.

Like I said before, you can't regulate the news, once you start you've limited freedom of speech.  That's a slippery slope.  


When you told me about those, I believe it was under the context that they were related.  That one demonstration was in direct response to the other.  If that's true, my analogy does hold up, if it's not, then we have a miscommunication about it.


Ok, news may suck in the corn fields Tasty, but in the papers here, and in cable news (tv) there were shitloads of stories about problems with Texas while he was Governor there.  His corporate ties and his damage to the ecology were all over the news.  That was all pre-election.  

As for family ties with Nazi Germany, you go too far there.  That's just spite talking because you still hate the fact that he was elected.  Family ties with no direct tie to GWB is nothing but mud slinging.  Mud slinging isn't good journalism.

More, yes, my examples are so obvious because they can be.  I find it hard to believe you don't see where Bush is questioned in the media everyday.  You mentioned that the press/media doesn't question the President, I think you are clearly wrong, since there are so many obvious exceptions.  And you can go back and find them about all of them, Nixon, JFK, FDR, Lincoln.  Even them.  

The press questions the office and person of the President all the time.  I think your statement about them was just colored by your deep lothing of Bush.  You have to face it Tasty, the majority of the country just doesn't agree with you.  I would guess that I know as much bad that he as done as you do (different things to be sure, but as much volume), and I don't have the deep hate you seem to have.  So spreading the information isn't going to change it.  Hell, if the information wasn't there, how would you and I know about it?  

No Tasty, you are making my point about why the press/media shouldn't be forced to report in any specific way.  If you were given control, it would just have your slant instead of another's.  


Then you hear your calling.  Start a leftist paper with fair journalistic practices.  Start it online, grow it to a business.  That's the American way.  I honestly encourage you to do it if you feel that strongly.  While I don't agree with your conclusions, I'd take the time to read it, assuming you do follow those fair and unbiased practices talked about.  If there is a demand for what you assume, it will be successful, if not, not.

OH BULLSHIT.  A hell of a lot more then just the Bush administration seems to think this.  I spent last night at an Arab-American demonstration, lead by former Iraqi (I'm sure this didn't make your news either Tasty =D).  There were a few thousand Arab-Americans showing support for the war.  The former Iraqi were especially grateful that Saddam himself was the target, and excited about the distinction.  They all seemed to feel that Saddam had called this down upon himself, and that it will be the best thing to ever happen to Iraq.  

On top of that, there are other countries involved as well.  So you have to at least lump in their administrations too.  

Look up propaganda sometime.  It's what you are doing with these bold faced exaggerations of yours.  


Like I told Bondo, both sides share in the responsibility here.  Both sides.  Saddam could have avoided this for months, so his hands are not clean at all.


So, fleeing the country after say, killing someone is within the law, since you would renounce your citizenship and therefore not be subject to the law?  Bullshit.  If you believe in the application of the law, as you said before, then you would join the military as drafted, and fight the law from within.  If you run, then you obviously don't believe in the application of the law, or lawful disobedience (since you chose to break the law).  You can't have it both ways.  Either you believe in the application of the laws, and fight them within the system, or you believe it's ok to break a law you don't believe in.  If it's the second, what makes you better then any other criminal that doesn't think he's done wrong?  (and if you say you don't hurt anyone else, think carefully about that).  

Oh, and Ford was not a draft dodger.  Clinton is the draft dogging asshole that gave pardon to the other draft dodgers.  Ford is the guy that brought the American troops home from Vietnam in the end.


Oh?  1935 Germany didn't have those economic and military sanctions place on them?  What great history book did you get that from?  Pre-WW2 Germany was in WORSE economic shape then Iraq is.  Germany was under economic sanctions after WW1, and were hit hardest by the Great Depression.  There were fucking inspectors in Germany in the 30's (doing a piss poor job, I may add).

BTW, your frequent bombing is in answer to Iraq violating the rules and turning on Anti-Aircraft radar directed towards US air assets.  Call it what it is.

Germany lied to inspectors, just like Iraq.  The biggest difference is that Germany got away with it.  


Nor can it absolve him either, can it?  And you say "without any real provocation" as if it were a fact, or that we all agreed with you.  We all don't, btw.  I think there was huge provocation.

not to fix, just to take into account.

Bush's conflicts of interest were not probed very deeply in the 2000 election. I think most people would be apalled if they knew the degree to which people had their hands in Bush's pockets. Also, his grandfather's support for the Nazis (his company played a critical role in their economy) is relevant in my opinion because racism is the type of thing that gets passed down through generations.


Also, I'm not going to start a news source because I don't have the time, motivation, or resources. Obviously such a thing would require me to drop out of school and probably would not make very much money. I don't think it's a very feasible idea. I think the suggestion is a bit naive and idealistic, and that's coming from a liberal :o

You'll be hard-pressed to find people who didn't support the troops themselves, even in Vietnam.  The media, while they supported the way (which was for quite a while, surprisingly) skewed their reporting so that it looked like this.  The fact is, the protests concerning Vietnam had 3 purposes

1. To bring the troops home
2. To stop more troops being sent over.
3. To stop the killing of Vietnamese (North and South)

Now, when 2 of those 3 concern troops, can you honestly say that the protesters didn't support the troops?  How better support troops than remove them from danger.


True, public opinion has swayed, but the strength of dissent hasn't.  I'm sure that thousands of anti-war letters are sent to newspapers across the country.  What is more likely is that the editors have chosen to omit most dissenting opions in order to more accuratly reflect the 70-30 public opinion.  Though I don't support the war, I respect, and tend to agree, with the editors choice, so long as some dissenting opinions are still printed.

The other night, when war started, the Daily Show on comedy central taped before the countdown ran out, and aired after.  As such, they stated the following opinion on the war: (paraphrased) "If the war has not begun, we, with every fiber of our being, urge the president and coalition parties to stop war before it starts, preserving peace in Iraq.  However, if the war has begun, we, with every fiber of our being, support the president's desicion, the troops in the field, and the war itself."

I thought it was an appropriate representation of how stupid people are.  It's very easy to support the troops and not the war, but people don't seem to understand that.  They fear that by attacking the war, they are attacking our "boys in Iraq," and that's one of the stupider assumptions people can make.

Really?

In talking about American and the American media I said this:

Bondo, you responded with this:


"As for the war support issue"  hmm.  Sure sounds like you were responding directly to me.  Like you said, you expanded it to an international level, which wasn't the context.  You disagreed with me (which was within my context), but all your reasons were out of it.  


Really?  I think you are wrong.  I think that it does have that specific right.  I hate to quote a book/movie, but the phrase "clear and present danger" is real.  There are reasons that give a nation the right to go to war.  I don't care if you agree with the application of it on Iraq or not, the fact is, nations still have that sovereign right.  Otherwise, there would be no wars, and no need for rules of war.  That may be the goal of the UN, but it's still fiction today.


Really?  They have all the resources we do, even when we spend more then the rest of the world combined on Defense?  (that budget does include a bunch on intelligence, after all.)  No Bondo, I don't think that German or France has the spy satellites, or the way to get into communications that the US has, just because the US spends the money on it.  What intelligence have they brought to the table, btw?


Iraq has been proven to lie, Hans boy has said as much himself.  Now, where it this proof that the US is lying that you are speaking of?  You said it, I want to see it.  What lies have been proven?


WOW, what a difference a word makes.  By disarming NOW.  You didn't say that before.  You just said by disarming, which is what he's been supposed to do the entire time.  NOW was a key word Bondo.

Wow, even bigger.  Illegal SCUDS that weapons inspectors like Hans never found.  They have been there for over a decade and weapons inspectors didn't find them.  Now that should say something to you.  (to be fair, I haven't brought them up yet because the reports from different news agencies are confused, so I don't find that as reliable proof yet).

BULLSHIT.  And I'll prove I'm correct.  First, you insult me, often.  That's not just defending.  Second, if you think I take no real positions you are either blind, a complete moron or a fucking liar.  How many positions have I taken.  Hmm, my position on American media?  My position on abortion?  My position on the Draft and dodging it?  My position on Iraq?  Which position haven't I made a stance on?  I've clearly said I was against abortion in all but health cases, do I need to go quote myself?  I made it very clear that I felt American media was impartial, since you can find all the views if you look.  So bullshit Bondo.  You are talking out of your ass once again.  Which is it, btw?  Blind?  Moron?  of Fucking Liar?


I correct you.  If that were so, you and Loud and Rapid would be just as guilty.  You have insulted just as often as I have.  Not always in the same ways, but you have.  And Rapid is the king of it.  So, if this is unacceptable behavior, then moderation has a way to go before it gets to me.  I'm acting well within the limits I see of others here, including you Bondo.


FUCK OFF, I didn't assume anything, I based my opinion on what YOU PRESENTED.  You bitch about me presenting too much, well you don't present enough.  

And notice that you don't say the city council found them at fault, just some members thought it was excessive.  You represent it as fact that they acted excessively, and that the paper mis-reported it.  Yet, every fact about it you give doesn't point to that fact.  They weren't punished.  Tell me, what was the actual City Council's final ruling?  Not the opinion of some, what was the actual ruling, in the books?  If the city council ruled that the police acted justly, regardless of any discention on the council, that's it, and the paper reported not propaganda as you claimed, but what the city council found to be the truth, no?

I asked for proof of propaganda that you claimed, but what you have supplied isn't proof.  I don't care what you think of me, I think you are an asshole, so what.  You still use the word propoganda, and supplied as fact something that even contradicts your claim.  

BTW, talk about assuming too much, you think I didn't look it up on the web?  There are plenty of leftist articles about it, calling for action with no real details at all, want a link?  (those are my favorite, I print them to wipe my ass with).  There are also the AP and other clippings out there from more reliable news sources.  One thing I also found, that you glossed over.  Even in some of the ones that called it excessive, they agreed that the demonstrators were, indeed, blocking an intersection.  They were blocking traffic, and also disrupting others civil rights, who were trying to enjoy the use of the park that day (according to two reports I saw).  

But, since they don't agree with you, that's all propaganda, isn't it?

Bucc, you go and look at news stories to go see what happened after I tell you that the news stories lied?  If they are lying as I claim than your news stories saying otherwise don't mean a thing.  Like I said, I have eyewitness accounts not only from people involved but those not involved that the crowd had obeyed the police and left the street.  Thus the use of tear gas was excessive.  I never said the protesters did nothing at all wrong.

Also, just because the city council doesn't punish the police doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong, just not blatantly wrong to the point where punishment is needed.  They did feel it was an overraction although not outside what was legal to use.

And I wasn't talking about the coverage by the paper later on, just the day after the event when the first coverage came, the coverage that twisted the truth to look unfavorably upon the protestors.

And Bucc, there is a difference between having a position because you oppose an opposite position and actually having a position.  I haven't seen you post a comment that wasn't directly in reply to someone else's comments.

Bucc, you can correct me, but I'm not wrong that this forum is supposed to be friendly, it isn't in practice but it is supposed to be.  And Loud and I aren't being assholes like you are Bucc, we are trying to make the community better by allowing for freer debate and less hostility, but you are too thickheaded to see that.  You are the one insisting on choking the free debate and making the place more hostile.

By saying "As for the war support issue", I in no way commit myself to directly replying to your context of the argument.  I merely mention that it is the general issue I'm talking about.  So I did no wrong to post what I did about it.

As for the now thing, I always meant that he would disarm at this point, rather than earlier.  It isn't my fault you assumed I was saying he had disarmed already and still brought on the war.  I also never said Saddam never lied, and that the inspections had found everything.  You assume way too much...which seems why you constantly misinterpret my arguments.

And yes, the US lied.  It forged a document saying that Iraq would get nuclear material from Niger.  That much has been confirmed by the UK even.  The US has actually forged lies to try and condemn Saddam.  And you wonder why I think Bush is suspicious for his reasons for the war.

Not so hard pressed as you may think.  I have five Vietnam vets in the family (Covering Navy, Marines and Air Force).  All of them have stories of being shit on by Americans after they came home.  People did spit on them, and call them baby killers.  They wouldn't wear their uniforms while home because too many people, American people, would give them shit about it. American protesters did not support American troops, especially those that weren't drafted into service.  American media didn't help either.

Back in the 60's, many anti-war demonstrations didn't stop at policy, but included the participants.

So, it's not so hard pressed as you seem to think P-roy.  I'd be interested to know why you think it though?  Where the information comes from?



I agree with most of this, and will add that for every media that completely excludes the "anti-war" editorials, I'm sure you can find an equal amount that exclude the "pro-war" editorials.  Moreover, I'll bet you can find a pretty equal amount that print great editorials on the side they agree with, and shitty ones that represent the opposite point of view.  



I couldn't agree more with you.  But that's double edged as well.  There are just as many stupid people out there (not many in the forums here though) that think it's ok to attack our troops as being part of the war.  Sad that this level of stupidity exists, but it does, and it cuts both ways.

Even the ones that called it excessive lied Bondo?  Can't have it both ways Bondo.

And hell yes I went and looked for myself.  What, you think I'm going to rely on your opinion alone?  That's a laugh, you don't have a good track record for using data to support the right conclusion (I often wonder if you've ever even heard of the scientific method, let alone know what it means).


Ah, the heart of the issue.  In your opinion, the use of force was excessive.  Not in the general opinion, but in yours.  It wasn't found to be excessive by the law or by the local government, but by you and some others, in your opinion.  So, since you disagree with that judgment, the paper is, of course, printing propaganda if they don't see it your way (even though they see it the same way the law and local government do, plus others).  Yes, of course.  It must be propaganda if it doesn't agree with your opinion.  

Bondo, in what you have said, and what the papers wrote I can so no lie that you accused them of.  All I see is that you have an opinion that isn't held by most, or supported by law, and isn't what the news reported, but you call it propaganda.


I read the archives.  I saw what was news.  Tell me the lie?  Point out the truth that was twisted?


Ah, chosen "fucking liar" I see.  Good.  First you say I never take a position.  Now you say it doesn't count because it's done is a response.  Next I'll just point out the threads I do start, and you'll dismiss those because they aren't frequent enough for your liking.  That all makes you a fucking liar.  Every time you accuse me of something like that, I give you examples that show you are wrong, so all you do is change the criteria.  ENOUGH OF YOUR BULLSHIT.  I make a stance on issues, where it happens makes no difference.  Is it a bad boxer that is a counter-puncher, or is that just his technique?  Just give it a rest already.  You don't like my style, TOO FUCKING BAD.  YOU DON'T HAVE TO BRING IT UP IN EVERY THREAD YOU MORON.


Pardon my ass for disagreeing, but first, you and Loud are being assholes to me (in my opinion) and are being plenty hostile towards me (again, in my opinion).  So if you are trying to make it less hostile, you are doing a piss-poor job.  And, even more to the point, if this forum is supposed to be friendly, please define "quarrels" for me.  While you can have a "friendly quarrel", it doesn't say that.  It says, simply, "quarrels".  Quarrels, by nature, aren't friendly.  If they were, you wouldn't need to separate them with a term like "friendly quarrels", would you?  Third, like I've asked Loudnotes, where are the rules or guidelines?  I see the practice, but nothing, other then your opinion, that it's supposed to be different.  I see the word "quarrels", but no rules or guidelines saying it is supposed to be nice and friendly.  So all I hear is YOUR opinion Bondo.  And an opinion I don't see you follow half the time.  So, if you have something else, let me know.  Until then, I'll stand by the evidence.

You are so full of shit, it comes from talking out of your ass.  Your post was directed at both me and Tasty.  Moreover, we were talking about it being democratic.  So I find your "plausible deniability" to be contemptuous, to say the least.  You know you were replying to it, and so do I.  I showed how you pulled it out of context of where it started, and now you deny it having been related.  You double talk more then Bush ever imagined he could.  At least be honest enough to admit a fucking mistake.


Bondo, I don't care what you meant, it's not what you said.  It's not an assumption to talk about what you say, when you leave some details out that change it's meaning.  Yes, leaving out the word NOW completely changes the meaning of what you were saying.  Maybe if you spent a little more time being clear, your arguments wouldn't be misinterpreted.  You think?


Where does it say that the US forged the document?  Who said it?  I read the Newsweek article, and I don't see that being confirmed by the UK.  I see the USA saying it was British intelligence in the first place, and I see the Brits saying the USA implicated Niger, while they just said "Africa".  So, what's the truth?  I hear you accusing, but I don't see the proof Bondo.  Link me.


Now, I don't know why it does, but it still surprises me that you have never actually seen my stance on Bush, no matter how many times I post it.  I'm sure this will make no difference to you again, but maybe someone else wont just take your word for it if I don't refute it.  I know Bush's motives are skewed.  I've always said as much.  And I don't care!  I've always said he can be doing the right things for the wrong reasons.  Way to continue to put words in my mouth that never existed Bondo.

And that's taken into account by different sources.


I disagree.  I saw plenty of it in the news.  People were appalled.  Just like some people were appalled in who was backing Gore.  Just because you didn't see the reaction you expected, doesn't mean that people didn't know.  Smart people are on both sides of the issue, and some people don't put as much weight on the same things you do.  But I sure as hell saw plenty of dirt on Bush, both before and after the election.  Hell, I saw so much dirt on him before, I was surprised he won the primary.  There was a very strong campaign in the media back then against him.  So I really don't know where you are coming from saying that they don't question him.  I get that you don't like him, but face it, they printed dirt on him, and a lot of it.  You can't blame the fact that people voted him into office on a lack of coverage, because I saw more dirt on him then any other candidate, and they all have dirt.  Now please, get over the fact that he was elected.


Tasty, that's just mud-slinging, it really is.  If racism was always handed down through the generations, we'd all still be racists.  Because it's in the past for all of us if you look back far enough.  You have to judge a man for what he is, and what he has done, not for what his grandfather is, or what he did.  The sins of the father can't be cast upon the son.  Or, in this case, grandson.  

Now I look at Bush, and I see a black man as Secretary of State, and a black woman as the NSA.  If he were really racist, or a nazi, I highly doubt he'd put the "token blacks" in such positions of power.  I have a very high level of respect for Colin Powell (remember you democrats, you really wanted him in your party too), and I don't think he'd play the token part.  Bush has probably brought America closer then anyone to it's first Black President, as I'd vote for Powell over most any other candidate I've seen in the running.  Is that the act of a nazi or racist?  

Bringing up his grandfather to use against Bush is just petty and wrong, in my opinion.  I'm glad the press and media chose not to.  There is plenty to blast GWB for of his own doing, blasting him for something he was never involved with is actually more then wrong, it would likely backfire, as people would likely see it as being petty, spiteful, and irrelevant, and then discount some of the good, real points against the man.


You can think that, but it's not "obvious" to me.  Or naive.  I don't think you'd have to drop out of school.  On the contrary, I think school would be the place to start.  Did I imply otherwise?  Because I didn't mean to.  I think, if it's that much of a passion with you, and it seems to be, you should do it.  Many men don't ever get to do the things in life they find as a passion, not as a job.  

And yes, you could start now, with limited resources, publishing online.  Hell, I'd front you the web space even if you really can't afford it.  Start small.  Get a blog of your own going.  Then grow it.

What's naive about that idea?  What about it means you have to drop out of school or cost you too much.  Everyone has to get their start somewhere, and everyone needs a goal (if they want to be successful, unless they are counting on the lotto).  If you want to have a Paper or TV News station of your own, you have to start somewhere, right?  You could write for the school news, you could start your own, you could try to get a job with the local paper.  Hell, you could just send in articles to the editor all the time in an effort to get published that way.  All if it works, and none of it causes you hardship (unless you chose to make take it to an extreme).

So, what's really wrong with it?

Scientific method Bucc?  Fuck, this is a forum, not a labratory.

As for putting words in your mouth, I said nothing about your opinion about Bush, I said you wondered about why I was suspicious of Bush, you have accused me of being anti-war for no strong reason, I'm showing that I have a very good reason to not support Bush's word compared to that of those that oppose him.

As for the bit about the US forging the documents, I've seen that in a handful of places, all confirming that they have been deemed forged documents.  I don't need to have a link to know that it has been said and thus say it here.

As for me trying to be careful so my statements can't be misunderstood.  That is the problem with language but it can always be misunderstood, and you particularly look for places that you can misunderstand what I'm saying, and misunderstand it, and then you yell at me for not being clear enough.  Well how about this, you stop being an idiot who can't understand anything I post.

Also, you say you will continue to pressure me to change the way I post (in your opinion weak opinionated arguments), yet you say you won't change the way you post and think we are wrong to say otherwise.  Ok, I'll be you and call you on being a fucking hypocrite.  You are trying to change other people's way of posting (and what is worse is that you are creating the problems from posts that don't have any specific problems) but sticking adamantly to your post style (which has obvious problems as has been documented by Loud).

Once again I state: THIS IS A FUCKING FORUM AND ONLY A FORUM.  STOP BEING A PRICK AND MAKE A POST THAT DOESN'T RELY ON QUOTES AND BASHING OTHER PEOPLE'S ARGUMENTS.

Buccaneer, look at what you just wrote.  After all we've been through, do you really expect anyone to read all of that?  

Yes, this is off topic.  However, not a shred of your last 6 posts has to do with whether Saddam might launch WMD now that he is cornered, which was the initial topic.  So, yes once more I'll question your quoting.  You don't have to respond or give a damn.  But you're out of your fucking mind if you think anyone can read and respond to all of that.  If that's your debate tactic - you win.  Hands down.  There's no point in reprisal.

Ah, why would I expect anything more from you?  Scientific Method isn't about a labratory, bonehead.  


Accusing you of being anti-war for weak reasons isn't the same as wondering why you are suspicious of Bush's motives.  So that means you are putting words in my mouth, since I not only didn't ask the question you said I did, but I've stated my own opinion on the matter quite often.


But that's not what you said before.  You said (and do you need me to quote?) that it was proven that the US lied.  I read a bunch of articles on it, that determined that the documents were forged by the UN, however, they didn't say the US lied, or that the US was the one that forged them.  I actually saw more to suggest that it was the Brits (and those only suggestions).  So, you claimed it was a fact.  I want to see it for myself, please.


Bullshit.  I don't look for places, they are just there.  I'm a good reader.  I read what you wrote.  Way to try and avoid the issue there Bondo.  You and I both know that the placement of the word NOW was key in that message.  But instead of just saying, "ok, ignore that, my bad, i meant now", you have to go on and on about poor Bondo, and how big bad Buccaneer should know what you mean, and not pick up on mistakes, or misunderstand because it wasn't written the way it was meant.  


Where?  Where do I say I will pressure you to change the way that you post?  Please, show me?


And once again I'll have to respond with: GET OVER YOURSELF AND STOP BEING SUCH A COCK!  YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY IN TELLING ME TO CHANGE MY TECHNIQUE, AND HAVE GIVEN ME NO REASON I FIND WORTHY.  BRINGING IT UP IN EVERY THREAD ISN'T GOING TO CHAGE IT, IT'S JUST YOU BEING A COCKSUCKER!


I just went back.  Took me all of under two minutes to read all that.  Is two minutes all that much?  I don't think so.


No, not WMD's but there were talks about a Nations Rights to go to war, and about the treatment of Vietnam Vets.  Both of which were very on topic.

Now, if both you and Bondo would stop dragging things off topics, with attacks on my style, I wouldn't have to respond to the bullshit as much, making the overall posts shorter.  Ever think of that.  No, because you are another fucking idiot.

To use a famous phrase, "I call bullshit"

1)  2 minutes my ass.  Plus, you wrote it, so you already know what it says - that makes it a lot easier to read :o

2)  You don't have to reply to anything anyone says.  The problem is that you respond to EVERYTHING.

I'm not fond of dragging things off topic either - but whether you like me or Bondo or the way we're saying things, recognize that no one is going to respond to your entire postings.  If someone does respond to all 6 pages you just wrote, I'll be damned and I'll shut up on this issue for good.

Bullshit yourself.  Time it and tell me how long it takes you.  It's not my fault if you are a slow reader anyway.  It took me all of under 10 seconds to read this worthless post.


Same old fucking same old.  I don't have to.  I CHOSE TO.  MY CHOICE.  I've heard your opinion.  Enough of it already, eh?  Trying to shout me down in every thread isn't going to change it.


Funny, Tasty has been doing a very, very good job of it, in the threads we've been discussing.  Now, I don't expect Tasty to respond to the parts like this, because they aren't meant for him in the first place, and he's said his piece in the second, and he knows how to let it go in the third (it seems).  So while he and I are not, by any means agreeing with each other on the topics, he's responding to the points just fine.  And, like I said, if you want less to respond to, don't post this kind of shit for me to respond to.  Look at the quotes.  That's me responding to something someone else wrote, right?  So someone must have taken the time to make all those points.  And I bothered to read them all in the first place.  So, it can be done.  You don't want to do it, don't.  You don't have to debate with me.  Or, you can just debate the topic with me, and ignore my responses to Bondo.  You've chosen to ignore the topic, and only concentrate on my style.  More's the pity.

Fine, we can judge Bush by his racist actions. Such as the racist application of the death penalty which he supported across the board but especially in Texas, where as governor he pushed for rules making executions easier to push through. Or his vendetta against affirmative action when he went on national television to lie about the University of Michigan admissions system, calling it a quota system when it blatantly is not. His support of Bob Jones University, an institution that still has a ban on interracial dating? His support of the confederate flag in South Carolina? Bush is supported by white supremacist groups all around America, and for good reason.

For the press argument, it seems our chief disagreement is that you think the existence of alternate points of view is enough, while I maintain that they must be exposed and respected in the mainstream. There is no way to force my desires from happening, and that's not what I'm proposing. Once again I'm just lamenting the system that's in place. To prove my point, Clear Channel Communication (the largest media conglomerate in the world) is sponsoring pro-war rallies around the nation where attendees are receive literature and hear speeches condemning France and the Dixie Chicks. While this is perfectly within Clear Channel's rights (The CEO is one of Bush's biggest donors), since Clear Channel already has a virtual monopoly on our airwaves I think it's easy to see how biased the media can be. Please tell your congressman/woman that you oppose the pending FCC decision to deregulate the media even more than it already is. Not only does it increase bias, it decreases quality, the individual autonomy of stations, and most of all variety while providing a boost in advertising time.


As for starting a blog, that market is already so saturated? the list of prominent liberal blogs is already over a thousand big. To get recognized in that sphere you need to blog all day every day and have a doctoral degree from a prestigious institution in either political science or history. So while I could make one, I have serious doubts that anyone would read it.

For the conflicts of interest thing I've seen studies about it, but to back that up now would require research that I'm just too tired/lazy to do, so I'm just gonna let it go.

While not agreeing with the death penalty myself, I also don't see how him pushing for it makes him racist.  What am I missing?  That the courts apply it unfairly?  I blame that on the courts in those states.  But, like with gun control, the fact that the laws aren't being applied fairly doesn't make me think that we need more or a huge change.  It makes me think we need to fix how they are applied.


Tasty, you hit me close to home now.  First, while not a racist myself, I'm very much against affirmative action.  To me, affirmative action is just another form of racism.  I think the admissions policy should be color blind, period.  Nothing should be based upon race.  So, while not being a racist, and actually being a legal minority, I don't think you have to be racist to not agree with affirmative action.  And, what makes you say it's blatantly not a quota system?  UofM has admitted to actually having some quotas, according to the Detroit News.  They clearly admit that they have much lower standards of admissions for minorities.  UofM just sees nothing wrong with it.  I don't agree.  Doesn't make me a racist.


I support UofM, an institution I clearly have just said I think has a racist policy that I don't agree with.  One issue doesn't make for support or non support.  He may (may, because who really knows) hate that policy, and support the university on other grounds.  I don't know.  But supporting a university that has a racist rule doesn't automatically make someone a racist, does it?


Bad choice, but again, doesn't have to be a racist choice.  I disagree with that flag on completely different issues, not the issue of race at all.  But, the only thing I ever heard Bush say about it is that it wasn't the Federal Governments place to approve or disapprove of a State Flag.  It crosses the line of a states rights.  So, if there's more, I haven't seen it yet.


Ah, but does he support them?  That's the question.  He has little control over if they support him or not.  Just like he had no control over his grandfathers actions.  Those groups typically support conservatives, and Bush is more conservative then Gore, that's for sure.  But, how do those white supremacist groups feel about his choices for his cabinet?  Do you think that Powell and Rice are tokens?  

You've given a good number of examples, but nothing that really says racism for sure.  And like I said, I hate Bush.  Very much.  I think he's a terrible example in many ways to lead our nation.  But, I can't call someone a racist just because they support a states rights to chose it's own flag (yes, some people find it offensive, but some people, somewhere find everything offensive, and it's not the Federal Governments place to step in on all of them).  Or because he doesn't believe in affirmative action.  Or because he supports a university that has an old racist rule on the books that he may not agree with, or even know about.  

And none of that would be a good excuse to bring up his grandfather either.  You don't judge a man because of his family, you judge him because of his actions.  Even if he was a complete racist, I still don't think the grandfather comments are important.  My grandfather was a war hero with six medals, does it mean a damn thing about me?  NO, not at all.  My other grandfather was an alcoholic.  That also means nothing about me.


But, there is no better system, is there?  There is no solution to your problem that I can see at all.

Ok, you seem to really be missing the spirit of what I meant.  You seem disappointed and passionate about the fact that your opinion isn't in the media enough.  When I mention the internet, you tell me it's saturated (so your opinion must be out there quite a bit I imagine).  So it's only the mainstream media (and specifically, in your area) that bothers you so (if I have this right).  So, there are the other suggestions.  Get your opinions out there if it's that important to you.  I'm not mocking you, I'm not being naive.  If it's important to you that your side is hear, you should make efforts.  Thinking that a thing will change for the better without effort, that's naive.  So I'm honestly encouraging you to do something.  Letters to the editor, all the time.  It can't cut into your time that much.  If you do it well enough, who knows, you may get a career out of it.  

There are plenty of ways to make a difference.  More then I've mentioned.  You shouldn't just dismiss the idea out of hand.  Give it some thought.

The death penalty is racistly applied almost universally. Poor and minorities that are convicted of murder are executed at staggeringly high rates when compared to white and rich people convicted of the same crimes. When Bush was governor of Texas, he favored a "kill em now, ask questions later" policy regarding the penalty and at least one innocent man was executed under his term. Read the book Dead Man Walking by Helen Perjean and you'll know what I mean. Short of a national amendment making the death penalty illegal (which I favor), the system needs a lot of reform, reform which Bush opposes.

I'm not going to argue affirmative action here, if you want to argue its legitimacy than it needs a seperate thread. The U of Michigan undergraduate system uses no quotas. In fact, their system has more rewards built in that specifically benefit white people than they do to benefit minorities.

Supporting Bob Jones University in any way does in fact make someone a racist. They are well known nationally for their racism. They have several known white supremacists on their faculty and has been a bastion of attempted academic defense of racism for years. This school has had all federal funding cut for their racist policy. It has been the tradition of the Republican presidential candidate to speak here for years to demonstrate to southern racists that they can be counted on to enact covertly racist policies. Frankly, if you're running for president you should be telling white supremacists that you don't want their votes. I don't care if its smart campagining or not, it's just the right thing to do to not cater to these people.

Black people see the confederate flag as one of the primary symbols of the pain and suffering their race received in the past as a result of slavery. Southern pride can kiss my ass, that flag is a racist symbol. In actuality, this is a state issue and there was no real need for Bush to weigh in on it. But he decided to come out in support of it. Campaigning in the south supporting "states rights" is tantamount to saying that you support the white of majority whites to enact racist laws and policies. It's more of the veiled racism that the Republican party has become so well known for. White supremacist groups that supported fringe candidates in the past like David Duke and Pat Buchanan because the Republican nominees were too minority-friendly for them have lined up behind Bush. And yes, Bush does actively try to seek the votes of these groups. Its the double-edged sword that the Republican party always tries to play, the line they try to walk between pacifying these groups and looking racially neutral to the rest of the nation.

Tasty, I read the book, and I agree with everything you say.  Like I said, I do not support the death penalty either.  However, nothing you said automatically makes the other side a racist.  The courts show racism in the application, yes.  But that doesn't mean everyone for the death penalty is a racist.  They are separate issues.  In places where the death penalty is allowed, they should fix the racist application.

You can believe in the death penalty, and support it, without being a racist.


First, I'm going to kill two birds with one stone.  Here's a link to my old local news.  Notice how it demonstrates both sides of the story pretty well.  And yes, we can argue affirmative action in a different thread.

http://www.wotv.com/index.php?goto=story&RecordID=690

Second, I'll post this for your reading:
Michigan Law maintains a two-track admissions system; one for ?regular admits? and one for ?diversity admits.? The testimony of Michigan officials emphasized the effort to enroll a ?critical mass? of underrepresented minority students (who are defined as African-American, Hispanic-American, and Native American). According to officials, ?critical mass? means some number of minority students sufficient to eliminate feelings of isolation and discomfort expressing their views in class (you know, like being a conservative). During the 1990s, ?critical mass,? in practice, turned out to be 11-17% of the entering law school class.

  So ?critical mass? is clearly the functional equivalent of a quota. But Michigan officials maintain that it is not, because they refuse to name a precise number; it varies from year to year. The trial court recognized this for the fallacy it is; but the appeals court agreed with Michigan.  from another local paper.

This is the UofM case I am talking about.  I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but this is what I'm talking about.  

And, much more to the point.  I don't agree with the two track admissions policy.  I think that's racist!  So, again, I point out that disagreeing with it doesn't automatically make him a racist.


That's your opinion, and that's fine.  But not agreeing with you doesn't make me, or anyone else a racist.  And you can still support a place if you don't agree 100% with it, or I wouldn't be supporting UofM, now would I?  I don't support their racist admissions policy, but I still donate to them, since I went there, and do agree with much of what they do.


So much for liberty.

Fine Tasty, you have the Liberal mantra down cold.  But there's just not much meat here.  He supports State Rights, so that means he must be racist!!  OMG, that's the only conclusion you can come to.  All I'm hearing from you is the typical Democratic Party campaign leaflet crap.  What has the man actually done?  Has he had unfair hiring or firing practices in his business life or government career?  Has he worn the white sheet and pillow case himself?  Has he taken away the rights of any minorities specifically?

All the things you've brought up are circumspect at best.  He's got two minorities in positions of great power, and that's a fact.  I haven't seen any hard and cold facts to address him being a racist either.  

Hell, I could point out that Gore went to the Vanderbilt University School of Religion.  Does that automatically make him a religious nut case?  No, it doesn't.  

So yes Tasty, we all see how much you hate Bush, but it should really take more then the normal campaign hoopla to call someone a racist, shouldn't it?

These impositions you speak of are on account of US action, not the UN taking it into their own hands.

Also,  you say he isn't being provoked to leave... but what do you call all these ultimatums and troops? sounds like provocation to me. and also, you say you cant blame him for not wanting to give up everything but is it so much to ask the guy to take his family and some of his stuff and go into nice, quiet exile in one of the many countries willing to take him? Plus, provided he were a good leader, he would realize that what he has to give up in material wealth is dirt to what the people will suffer as a result of his actions. The guy is filthy stinking rich, he practically builds his palaces on the backs of his people... and you can defend him for not wanting to sacrifice what .0000001% of the world population couldn't even dream of having?

Mostly cookie I just don't think it's the US's role to demand that of him.  However much he deserves to give up his cushy life, I still haven't seen a good rationale for why the United States should force that from him.

Also, while I'm complaining - there's obviously nothing I can do to improve the quality of Buccaneer's debating.  But one thing I've noticed a lot lately from all of us - IMO spurred by the quoting technique, but that's irrelevant - is disconnect in these threads.

This thread and others turn into several private conversations - we're not hardly conversing as a group any more.  It sucks.  I can PM or email Bondo, tasty, cookie, or Bucc anytime - why do it in a public place?  But this thread, for example, consists of several separate individual conversations at the moment:

Bucc vs Tasty
Bucc vs Bondo
Bucc vs LoudNotes
Bucc vs anyone else who dares to dissent
Cookie vs LoudNotes
Cookie vs Bondo
Cookie vs Tasty

This is getting pointless. . .

What, you do much of anything else around here?


If it's irrelevant, why bring it up?  Oh, to be an asshole, I see.


What's pointless is you always telling us we are debating incorrectly.  Drop it already.  You are just a fucking broken record.

Do you have to bitch about it in every single post?  Do ya?  Maybe, posting and debate would go much better if you just droped it, and left just the topics and hand be argued.  No, you'd rather keep making this personal, and dragging it off topic.  Way to make it better!  WOOHOO!  Nice job.  

Hmmmm....Doctor Py prescribes a spirit lifter to relieve the stress in this thread.
http://homepage.mac.com/pyrex1/radio.mp3  Enjoy!

it's not pointless that we have debates, thats what forums are about. Plus, the people you listed are just about the only really active, serious posters on here.

the rationale is that he is killing his country and his people, and poses a threat to us and other nations around him. what more do you need, the man is psychotic! plus, if we don't do it, who will? and preemptively, if you say it isn't our place, who would be just in removing him? what makes us wrong in desposing a despot, and what makes someone else right? the UN couldn't give any better or different reason for removing him than the ones we're giving now. plus, any guy who sets his own countries oil fields on fire and throws the money of his own starving people away doesn't need to be in office, anyhow. Like i've said before, he lives in luxury and utter decadence while his people suffer and live in fear... how you can defend his position in any light or form i don't know.

PLEASE!! I BEG YOU!!

Cookie (my sister) is god damn right! That bastard doesnt give a f*** about anyone else but him. These democrat bastards have thrown themselves into a state of denial , forces their eyes not to believe the missles fired were scuds. They still say there is still no proof, when in plain sight on the side of the missle scraps there is a huge 5 x 5 label saying, "Danger, highly toxic material airel missle." Seriously, have you seen this new protest in California where they puke for peace? Some other protesters were on the Golden Gate Bridge, blocking it when some idiot fell to his death hanging a stupid banner. Kill Saddam then move on to Iran... those terrorist supporting bastards. :-[

That girl on py's mp3 was really bad at supporting her position. She made all liberals look pathetic. I wish I could have been on the show instead of her. I still have to pack my stuff tonight, but tomorrow I'll respond to all the other stuff when I actually have time, like the U Michigan stuff. Only thing I'll say now is that I think Bush recognizes that these things (death penalty, states rights, etc) are not directly racist but have racist applications, and for him not to address those applications is wrong. BTW Bucc, are you a libertarian? You seem to hold the libertarian view on most (not all) issues.

Sadly, many of the people, on both extremes of the issue, are just that pathetic.  And really bad is an understatement Tasty.  I think my dog could make a better argument then that.


Ok, not to address them is wrong.  I'll give you that.  Like I've maintained, I don't like the man or his stance much either.  But not addressing some of those issues does not make him a racist either.  It just makes him shallow and a bunch of other things =D.  


Haven't you asked me this a few times?  No, I don't follow any political party, and I never have.  I'm too independent for that.  I do agree with them on most issues more then any other single party, so if I were forced to pick based on my political preferences, they would be in the top 3.  I fall somewhere between Green, Libertarian and Reformist Parties.  They all make a hella lot more sense to me then Republicans or Democrats, but they are all a little too narrow and focused.  But, like I said, I'm a GDI.

Headline Bucc, liberals are pathetic.

Headline Wuggles: Name calling is the fastest way to show your own ignorance.

Also, loudnotes: Welcome to democracy! I hope you enjoy your stay. ;D

Wuggles, no one is defending Saddam, his rolemodel is Stalin, you CAN'T defend that sob. BUT that doesn't mean you should attack Iraq outside the boundaries of the UN, I believe that's what the democrats object to.

*sigh* kami kami kami.... the democrats could care less about america. they dont care about war they are just anti-bush, looking for something to point fingers at him for. ill write more later but please dont get me wrong i love alot of democrats for who they are and i hate democrats themselves!!!!!!

Just one question, how can you like Bush when he ruins your economy?

becuase he is my president and i stand firm by his side and i take chances and dives in econimy its kids stuff with econmy when war rages

Alaric - I think I'm personally more in favor of an enlightened despotism, perhaps with an advisory republican Parliament.  The only problem is when the despot isn't as enlightened as desirable. . .

Whatever the case, I can no longer effectively debate with Buccaneer (although he would argue that I never have ;))  I mentioned it was a problem for me, he decided debating with me wasn't important enough to do anything about it, and that about covers it.  

Kami, I ask myself that every day.  And the economy is only the beginning. . .

The bottom line is the bully is gonna keep bulling ppl(Saddam), Until someone punches him in the nose(U.S.). I hope the war ends soon and "So Damn Insane" dies. ::)

our economy was going to go into recession/depression anyway, there wasn't much bush could do about it.. sure, he certaintly hasn't helped it but you can't blame it all on one guy.

and also, maybe some people don't hate their president for "ruining their economy" because money isn't everything  >:(

Looks like i only have the support of my sister.... :(

Headline Wuggles, so are conservatives.   ;D

Anyone out there on the frindge of opinion, far right or far left, are in the same boat as far as I'm concerned.

Sadly, money is one of the cornerstones of civilization, anyone who doesn't care about their economy should live in a cave. You can blame it on Bush because who would in their right minds lower the taxes as much as he does, and then mostly for the rich companies, when the economy is falling, and then on top of it, engage in a war.

Only problem with that statement Kami.  War has historically been very good for the economy.

Headline, Bucc -

That's because you're a centrist.  If you leaned toward one side or the other, you wouldn't see that extreme as being quite so extremist.  If you're a liberal, a communist isn't as crazy to you as a facist.  But if you're conservative, a facist probably isn't as crazy to you as a communist.

You have the enviable viewpoint of thinking that virtually everyone is crazy  ;D

[Thanks Bucc ;)]

Meh.... as you have guessed im conservitave. ;D

I think centrists are pathetic. Make up your damn mind already! ::)

Note: this is a joke.

Heh well I agree. . .

The war will cost a lot of money, you're lucky if your economy goes up as much as you might wish, it doing so is far from certain.

Well its a basic of capitalism, what goes up must come down. No matter what administration there is, those effects are here to stay. However Bush has enhanced the effect. He has cut taxes right before a war. He has let corruption become more rampant (it has been going rampant since the days of Andrew Jackson).

Tasty I agree, the centrists are pathetic, the reason being, is that Bucc is one of them.

Tasty, that would have been funnier if moderates actually were the same as fence sitters.  =P

Yes, I took it as a joke.  But, for those that don't know, a conservative is a guy that wont touch a drop of alcohol.  A liberal is a guy that is an alcoholic.  A moderate is the guy that has a glass with dinner each night, and gets hammered a couple times a year  ;D  (take that as an analogy, not literal.  Literal and the conservative would be the alcoholic, the Liberal the pot head, and so on.)

Kami, I'm counting on nothing.  But, like I said, history says you are wrong.  War has always proven good for the economy, not bad.  You made it sound bad for it.

Vietnam, Afghanistan (in the 80s), and Gulf War 1 is my awnser that Bucc.

ww1 & ww2 are my answers Coss.

Civil War, War on Tripoli. My point was that war is not always good for the economy.

Cossack, Vietnam was good for the economy, so was the Gulf War 1.  Look at the Amerian Economy at those times.

Afghanistan (of the 80's) wasn't an American war, so it has nothing to do with it.  Civil War, that's a good point.  It was good for half the economy, bad for the other half.

Just look at the American Economy at times when it was in a war.  It's an honest trend.

Not their aftermaths, the Gulf War left us in recession, the recession of the 70s was an effect off of Vietnam, Afghanistan lead to our (USSR's) collapse. You may feel a slight shot of Bull but the Bear will come back shortly after this war. Remember after Gulf War I that factories were closing all over. Remember how George I lost? Its the economy stupid!

War boosted the economy.  Without the Gulf War 1, there wouldn't have been any relief from the first Bush's economic policy.

Also, I don't agree that the recession of the 70's was because of Vietnam.  Start with OPEC, follow with an auto industry that was not prepared for it, ans stir with forign competition.  

"Read my lips - no new taxes"

AHAHAHAHAHAHA die Bush.

I don't know if it's good or just sad when people want higher taxes ;)

Bucc, I'm not sure this war will have any positive effect on the economy because of all the tension and political chaos left in it's footsteps, and as everyone knows, a good economy isn't just about your own country, it's about export and import as well, which is done largely with countries that are pissed off at the US at the moment.

Wow. . .

Who cares whether it's good for the economy?  That's no reason to kill hundreds or thousands of people.

Besides, war only helps the economy because it activates the military industry, creating jobs too.  However, that industry has already been fairly active, so I doubt there will be much net gain from this war.  The only other benefit I can see is that the federal government will spend $75 billion. . .but since that's all going to be debt. . . :P

Shit, with the trade deficit the way it is, maybe people will stop importing as much too.

More to the point, I'm just talking history.  Like I said, I'm not counting on anything.


Anyone here say it was a reason to go to war?  We are just discussing the effects on the economy, why should that be off limits?


Someone wasn't watching the news tonight, with Congress changing the proposed tax cuts.  Checks and Balances at work for all you people of little faith.  

As for the industry being active, damn, someone has to replace all those bombs, missles and parts.  That may sound flip or glib, but it is also the truth.

I don't think anyone is directly going to state that its a reason to go to war, but I think its impossible to claim that the reasoning didn't at least cross the minds of the Bush administration when deciding to promote this war. Everyone knows about this reason in the back of their heads and everyone takes it into account. With a failing economy and considerable domestic concerns that have gone unanswered, there is no doubt in my mind that Bush is desperately hoping this war boosts the economy. However, conservative economists like the Cato institute have condemned this war on largely economic grounds. The long term effects will remain to be seen, honestly I hope this war kills our economy so people will scrutinize the possibility of war more closely next time the opportunity arises.

Said it before Tasty, right things for the wrong reasons.  I don't care what shitty motives Bush had in the back of his head.  I didn't vote for him before, and I highly doubt I'd vote for him next time.  

Saying that they may have been in the back of his head doesn't change any of the real, hard facts.  It doesn't change many of the soft opinions either.

All I'm saying is that I hope people don't believe Bush is some great economy fixer when its election time in 2004, when he never really took any positive steps to fix it. His economics are fuxxored.

Right Reasons wrong motives Bucc? So you are accepting "facts" from an adiminsrtation whose motives you question?

I accept some facts from them, not without question, but with.  Just because I can't stand Bush doesn't mean that everything the whole administration says or does is automatically a lie.  I have a lot of respect for Colin Powell, and I don't think he'd just go along with lies.

But, more importantly, I look at the UN's facts too.  And facts from other countries and sources.  Saddam should have been taken out long ago, long before it came to this.  I'm operating under the "better late then never" clause right now.  I think Saddam has still been violating the rules, and is still a threat, and I don't see any reason to wait until he's better armed, better prepared, or he kills more innocents.  He's already been convicted, he needs to now serve out his sentence.

Bucc, I feel like he ought to get a little time off for "good behavior," to continue the jail reference.  These past 12 years, he's been relatively contained. . .only acting up now and then to assert his sovereignty.  I find it hard to blame him for violating a few rules.  It's not as if his weapons program comes even remotely close to the scope of the USs, and probably isn't even near to that of his neighbors in Pakistan, India, and Israel.

But for the most part, he hasn't done anything.  I suppose some might see foreboding in that, but I see someone who's been well beaten and punished after the Gulf War, and can finish out his tyranny to his death.  I don't really see any legitimate present-day reasons to have attacked Iraq again.  Lots of dictators are cruel to their people. . .This campaign seems like its based mostly in the past though.

Also, to continue along economic lines:

Anyone else find it ironic that we'll be willing to spend $75 billion on the poor people of Iraq in a short amount of time?  That's great, but what about the poor here?  Wouldn't that money be enough to reform Medicare, bail out social security, or build subsidized housing for OUR people?

I'm all for helping Iraqis, but shouldn't Americans be the first priority?  Another big issue in this war, since it's one we initiated, is that we're sacrificing domestic issues to combat international ones.

So, the chemical attacks reported in 1993 counts as contained?  Too bad the UN didn't follow through on those any better then they did the previous ones.  No way to know for sure about them now.

And I don't consider him never destroying his stockpiles, that he admitted to having as "good behavior".  Like a criminal on parole, if he has an illegal weapon, he should be punished.  Well, he's already proven to have them.  

So I don't feel there was any real "good behavior" or any reason to let him off the hook.  The guy is a mass murderer.  Killing his political rivals like a scene from a hollywood street gang movie.  Using chemical weapons many times in the past.  Burning the oil fields of Kuwait and releasing oil into the Gulf.  All crimes that there should not be a statute of limitations on.


When have Pakistan, India or Israel used WMD's though?


No, not punished.  That is the heart of the problem.  He starves his people while living in opulence.  The punishments that were met out were not only week, they were never really enforced.  Until now.


This has always been a balancing act, even without war.  Look how much aid we give to foreign countries every single year.  It's not just war, it's all the time.

Should we be isolationialists once again?  Or do it for a few years until our finances are all in order?  That's a conservative argument, and I only hear liberals pull it out in a time of war.  Well, I ask you, should we pull all aid from all the other countries in the world to?  Cancel the shipments of food throughout the world too, until we are sure that every American is in a subsidized home first?

And if we do all those things, what do you think the world will say about us then?

Spending money to rid the world of Saddam's rule in Iraq is just as important as the money we give Isreal, Egypt, or any other country out there.  As a world power, I think we have to do both, it's in our best interest.  It's good to show the world American generosity, since we really are very, and it's good to not ignore the threat that is Saddam.

No, I don't think we should withdraw foreign aid or become isolationist.  But I do think we should focus on our own problems before we increase our aid abroad.  

Also, I got my dates a little off - 1993 was still 10 years ago.  To use an example though, the US used chemical weapons during the first world war, and a massive WMD in the second.  Obviously we justify it from our perspective, but it is the past and it's done with.  Likewise, Iraq hasn't shown any real intent to use WMD that I'm aware of for a decade.  Also, chemical weapons are bad, yes, but they aren't nearly as terrible as nuclear, which leave lasting effects for generations.  A chemical attack kills a lot very quickly.

I guess I feel like simply being a mean or evil dictator isn't enough to warrant removal by the US.  The UN, perhaps - if it wished - but not just the US.  And being evil and wanting to have enough weaponry to maintain power doesn't strike me as excessive.

Furthermore, the inspections monitored Iraq sufficiently to be sure than any "illegal" weapons Hussein has/had would need to be kept hidden, thus limiting their potential scope and buildup.

I can agree with that.  And I think the cost of the war should come out of the over $200 billion in financial aid we give out annually to other countries (that was being increased as well).


But still after the first Gulf War, and while the UN was supposedly keeping him in check.  The UN hasn't done a very good job dealing with him at all.


Huge differences though.  The USA didn't use mustard gas extensively in WW1, and sure as hell not exclusively.  It was already in use before the USA joined the war.  More, the geneva convention prohibiting it wasn't until 1925, long after WW1.  Germany still violated that in WW2, and Nippon tested many biological weapons on the Chinese in WW2 as well (also breaking the Geneva convention rules).

As for the A-Bomb, hindsight is 20/20.  Back then, it wasn't a WMD, it was just a huge freaking bomb.  The after effects of a nuclear blast were not really understood, just the destructive power of it.  And as for it's destructive power, and the targets chosen, it was well within the norms for that period (collateral damage was not avoided then like it is today, and most countries targeted civilian populations in their bombing).


Now that's subjective as hell.  It all depends on the chemical.  Chemical and Biological weapons are also known as the poor mans nuke.  Some chemical weapons don't kill at all, but leave people blind, or crippled for life.  Then talk about biological weapons.  Those scare me more then chemical or nuclear.  A bad bug could spread all over the USA, not just be confined to the battlefield.  


You don't need chemical and biological weapons to stay in power.  You don't need offensive weapons.  Those are what was prohibited.  Defensive weapons were not (or he wouldn't have all those SAMS, AA-guns or the rest of it).  


And that's where I disagree with your conclusion.  He used chemical weapons after the UN took charge.  The inspections were a complete joke until the last few months, AFTER he started to cooperate some with them, which he didn't do until AFTER the USA started to threaten war.  The UN inspectors never had full access to many areas.  They were kicked out more then once.  They were told where and when they could go places.  They gave lists and schedules to Iraq of where it would inspect.  You really think that's effective?

The UN was turning a blind eye toward Iraq, just like the League of Nations and rest of the world, fucked up with Hitler.

All those tanks, planes, warships and u-boats Germany made were all in the name of defense too, until they were turned against other countries.  People really need to learn from their mistakes.  Saddam has proven himself to be just as evil as Hitler was, just without as much military might (proportionally) or brains.  The same mistakes were being made.  The UN was at the heart of the mistakes.

Tell me this.  If the USA, or England, or Russia had gone in and kicked Germany's ass in 1938, even though the rest of the world didn't see the threat back then.  Wouldn't it have been better?  Use that hindsight not to blame someone for past actions, but to map out future actions.

The UN may not have been effective, but I still feel like it's an organization that needs to be supported - if Iraq is important - the UN should really be the organization to impose force on it.  Not the US alone.

Also, I'm not sure the US and England could have kicked Germany in '38 at all.  Russia was it's ally up until Germany attacked them too. . .and as far as I can tell from history, Germany might well have won if they hadn't tried to invade Russia.

Saddam on the other hand probably feels a need for at least some offensive weaponry - I don't really fault him for that even though it's against the armistice and UN regulations.  National security is about more than just defense, as the US is demonstrating at the moment.  If it turns out after this war that we uncover huge stockpiles of WMD, maybe I'll feel differently - but his limited rule breaking still seems just that.  Limited enough not to be a huge threat.

Point was, if the UN doesn't, someone should.  And the US isn't alone.  There are three countries actively fighting against Iraq, plus many others that support it.  (why does everyone forget the Aussie troops?)

But again, if the UN fucks up, someone has to cover for them.


Could you miss the point any further?  Or are you trying to drag it off point?  The question was, wouldn't it have been the good and right thing to do?  Wouldn't it have been better?  Not if you think they would have won or lost.


He already was a huge threat.  He shouldn't be allowed to break the rules, even in a limited way.  You seem to be ignoring that he used chemical weapons AFTER the UN was supposed to be watching him.  How is that not a threat?

You think mass murders should be allowed out of prison after 10 years as time off for the good behavior of not killing more then 3 other people while they were serving time, and only being caught with knives, not guns, while in prison?  Because that's what you are talking about here.

So you don't fault him, good, I and many others do.  And for good reason that I think you are not even looking too hard at.

I think the war situation has really hidden from view exactly how fucked up the US is right now.  About half the states no longer have dental as part of medicaid, same goes for vision and hearing care in many as well.  Nearly all the states are having huge budget crises and are cutting back loads of programs, not the least of which is education.  Less teachers are being hired so classes are bigger, making them less productive which isn't helped by shorter school years and days to further reduce costs.

The US has so many problems, even compared to two years ago...a point at which I personally think there was much to do on the home front.  But no one in their right mind can deny that we are falling short of even the minimum social services we should have.  And yet the goverment is cutting taxes and paying hundreds of billions of dollars to fight wars and give humanitarian aid (the latter actually being of significant importance).  What is worse is that the US is making a stink about letting the UN help after the war is over.  This think-headed position will possibly prevent other countries from easing our burden.

Anyway, Bush just has no idea about economics apparently and is too obsessed with fighting wars that he isn't doing anything to help Americans (why bother saving us from terrorist attacks if we are just going to starve (figeratively) in preventing them).

Bondo, we want the UN to help GOVERN Iraq after the war, not REBUILD it. The way our administration sees it, the contracts for rebuilding should be given to American and British companies and that in turn would help our economy and increase the taxes that are paid.

The major stink comes from the thought of France or Russia being able to profit off of something which they wanted no part of.

If we are truly going to believe the altruistic arguments of most war supporters, than the only people that should be profiting from this war are Iraqis. Why not give the rebuilding contract to Iraqis... they should know what's good for Iraq better than Halliburton would anyway. The Iraqi economy will need building too, at least if you want it to be the democracy you say it will be.

well of course this war is only for the good and freedom of iraq, it has  nothing to do with profit interests or whatsoever.

its just that bush couldnt sleep anymore witht the thought of the poor iraqis on his mind... he is such a good and honest person, who only acts because he fights for human rights.

yeah and france and russia suck bc they want a piece of the pie too... well, what pie? remember, its all just for the good of the poor iraqis.

oh and yes, this war is going to be short...no doubt...

and the iraqis cheer when they see americans... only here and then they pull out an ak... but thats just a little minority, has nothing to say...

dont u believe?

The Iraqi's would rebuild Iraq if they had the means to. But the fact of the matter is that they have nowhere close to the necessary means to rebuild their own country - their equipment is dilapidated and they wouldn't know where to start.

Silverblade, cut it with your crap, honestly. I really doubt most of the Iraqi regulars would be fighting if they knew that Saddam was going down and if some Fedayeen didn't have a gun pointed at their families heads. Also, this war is about the Liberation of Iraq - if we were aftr their oil like many anti-war retards say we are, we would have attacked Iraq as soon as Bush took office.

Oil a reason?  No.
Oil an incentive?  Most definately.

While the war isn't BECAUSE of oil, the prospects of having control over that much oil sure makes it that much more attractive an option for Bush doesn't it.  You don't think that is at all part of his consideration.  To not have it be part would be to have an incorrect benefit cost analysis of the war.  Then again, I suspect the analysis they did use was flawed (subjectively) on account that Bush has some real fucked up values.

What Silverbane said was not crap, try awnsering that without saying it is crap. How can you say that oil has nothing to do with it? Condolezza Rice is an Oil Executive from Exxon, she even has a tanker named after her, Rumsfeld was also an oil executive, he was never even in the military, what is he doing as Secratary of Defence? Penis Cheney was CEO of Halliburton! Bush himself ran an unsuccessful oil company (no big suprise there). The whole war council with the exception of Colin are ex-oil execs! They have no intrest in oil, that is bougous!
As I have said many times before, Iraqis according to interviews from a few newspapers (I dont use Iraqi, British or US sources on this) see this as an invasion by a foreign army.

sure, and how u know that? right, u only assume it. but is that enough to send some b-52s over? and i say what ever the fuck i want, so su and go play with ur gi-joe dolls...

well iraq is like 80 % desert, i dont think they shoved it down the ground there while being watched by 1000 espionage sattelites. sure he could have hid his wmd somewhere in some bunker 200 meters under the surface. but u cannot just assume and launch a war.

the proof mr. powell presented us was more or less a joke.

and saddam is with his back to the wall, why shouldnt he use his wmd now? if he is the crazy bastard u say he is, he would have launched everything he has got in the direction of israel by now, wouldnt he? mb he will, lets not hope that, my point is just that i havent seen proof that he has wmd, have u?

btw, evil rumsfeld himself said this war was already planned 6 months ago, if not longer. i dont think the usa ever intended to solve this conflict peacefully...

I hate to say this, but you are an ignorant piece of eurotrash, Silverblade (this is not directed at all Euros, just Silverblade)


Alright tard, where did I say anything about the justification of war? Your line about the b-52's and playing with GI-Joe dolls is some of the most ignorant shit I have ever seen on these forums, and I have seen a lot. All I said is that the Iraqi's don't have the means to rebuild themselves, but you would rather twist posts into your own liking so you cant spout of your ignorant slogans.


In this post, you showed your ignorance once again. The Iraqi's KNOW when a spy satellite is passing over them, and they cannot take detailed pictures of the entire country at the same time. So whenever they know the satellite is overhead, they simply stop operations and hide their activities.

They could clearly hide anything they wanted to. You seem to take a lot of random quotes from my other posts, you would see the whole picture and wouldn't be asking these questions. Most of my answers are contained in previous posts. Look below where I show my original quote that you ignored.


How exactly was his proof a joke? Try justifying some of your assumptions rather than saying random statements.

Again, if you bothered to read my previous posts (and not butchering them for quotes), you would see my explanation for this. But since reading obviously isn't your strong suit, I'll repost it here.


The only other reasons why he hasn't used them yet is that they are getting destroyed along with hie Republican Guard, or they are using their tactics from teh Irq/Iran war when he lures the opponent to former Iraqi fortifications, uses them, then the Iraqi's charge ont he crippled battle force with protective equipment.


Possibly, we will never know. BUt the fact that we were planning 6 months ago doesn't mean shit. You have already shown you know absolutely nothing when it comes to issues like this, because if you did, you would know that wars take a long time to plan and refine. We were probably preparing for the expected and having Saddam stonewall us if we were ever close to finding WMD. There is a reason why he DID NOT cooperate with the inspectors until we moved out troops into the region - another classic attempt by Saddam to save his own ass at hte very last second.

So before you think you are smart and post, read over your argument and posts by other poeple...then formulate and argument. I don't attack all who disagree with me, I only attack people who make ignorant swipes at me with no justification.

i didnt read all of our posts, ass. i dont have time for that. i read the posts next to mine, and quoted the stuff i thought was wrong. u go on think whatever u like, im not here to give u lessons. i dont think u have a clear picture of whats going on in the world. u say im ignorant, but u live in an ignorant country. u say i butchered ur posts, but u sliced mine into pieces as well.i have no motivation to reply to all off ur shit, i just wanna say this much:

-its not up to the americans to launch a war or not.

-america has killed much more civilians than saddam and bin laden together in past conflicts(including the use of biological and chemical weapons in he korea conflict, under direct orders from rumsfeld, ever heard of "codename artichoke"?)

-the us media supports bush and gives u wrong information (although u pretty much seem to know about all sorts of weapons, ever wondered why i called u gi-joe?)

-the iraqis look at the this war as an enemy invasion

-u think its doesn mean shit that rumsfeld and cheney are jews? dont u think the arabic world MUST SEE this as a war about religion? and what will be the result of that? dont u agree that there will be 100 bin ladens after this war?

-americas economy is going down, shouldnt bush mb focus on gettin food and education for his own people? from what i read here, a little education wouldnt do any harm. gettin the money from iraq seems cheap to me, i mean his father did the same thing already...

-only in africa there are like 4 dictators killing citizens.all over the world there are far more countrys ruled by a dictatorship. what is your argument for not launching a war against those countrys? u think its justified if america continues to attack countrys all over the world, preferrably arabic or muslimic countrys, to stop the "errorist thread"?

im to old to fight with u here, if u dont agree - fine. doesnt bother me.just refrain from telling me to "cut the crap" or anything like that pls.

I love how you modified your post after I was about to rip your old one apart. However, it is now two in the morning and I need sleep...I will rip your new modifications apart later today.

ur right ass, i modified it. bc first i was pissed. on a second thought, it came to my mind that its not worth it. im not into endless discussions in internet forums. doesnt lead to anything. when i look at ur number of posts i see what ur opinion is about this. u must have lots of time...

well, go ahead "rip" my post apart, lol. what in the world could u say to rip my arguments apart? im curious...

Silverblade:

1) kindof an ambigious statement. im assuming you mean the american public by "the americans"......they have as much (if not more) say in their foreign policy as europeans do in their respective country, so this is more or less irrelevant.

2) This is 100% pure and uncut BS. Ever hear of the iran-iraq war or the anfal campaign? The US had offensive bio-weapons programs during the cold war......so. The russians did too, only after 1991, instead of destroying or storing them, they dumped all the toxins in the aral sea. also, how was donald rumsfeld giving orders during the korean war in the early 50s??? again, this is irrelevant and your 'info' is bs.

3)....and the iraqi information ministry only propegates pure and unrefutable facts, eh?? gimme a break. yes there are a lot of lies and dis/misinformation, but the US are pretty prudish about it compared to saddam's little propaganda machine.

4)hmmm, and the kuwaitis just saw the 1990 attack as a "reannexation" of the "long lost iraqi province" that was their country. also, if you looked a little closer at what saddam has done to iraq since 1979, its pretty easy to see why people inside iraq would feel the same way. youre obviously watching too much al-jazeera.

5)Neither Rumsfeld nor Cheney are jewish as far as i know. Are you thinking of wolfowitz maybe? also, i think the implication you are making here is kindof moronic and, to me, offensive. Are you gonna tell me how jews control all the money around the world next??? schmuck. there will be 100 bin ladens no matter what, so we should at least make sure they dont get wmds.

6)***sighs***

7) Actually, apart from N. Korea, Iraq has probably the most oppresive and ruthless totalitarian regimes since nazi germany or the ussr. in fact, the iraqi regime is even worse than both of those in many ways. this is a far cry from the "4 dictators in africa". besides, the reason we are going after saddam is not that hes a threat to iraqis, but that hes a threat to us and to our interests.

Bondo: Thats the first reasonable thing ive heard you say in a long time. Welcome back to the realworld from ralphnaderland.

Well, my response was so long that breaking three different posts still didn't work and I subsequently lost the material due to it being too long. I'll try to rewrite it after classes.

ape...

-i didnt say it was  up to europeans to decide, no way... the UN should make that decision. but its not americas job to play "world police".

-project artichoke was no bs, and rumsfeld has more dirt on him than u would wish to know. i believe the reports about project artichoke will come to us tv soon.

-im not saying al djazeera is better than fox. what i meant was, dont believe everything they say on tv.

-saddam is cruel, never said the opposite. there are lots of people suffering on this planet though, in various countrys, under various dictators.

-i admit i only heard they were jewish.

-i think its the other way around, compared to hitler saddam is like an orphan.


talking to u war supporters bores me. its like talking to my little brother. if i wanna know ur arguments i turn on the tv and watch a speech by bush or rumsfeld.

Silverblade, you really overlook the obvious.  How about the hidden stockpiles that were under the desert and already found?  How about the chemical plant that was found hidden in the desert, underground, that wasn't on any inspection list?  

Stop your exaggerations about 1000 espionage satellites.  There isn't good satellite coverage over the middle east, and you can be damn sure they know when it is (just like most countries do).  This is why the US wanted U2 over-flights to help the inspectors years ago (yes, years, not just months).


Is that your expert opinion?  Because what you have presented is a joke.


Yes, I have.

Have you even bothered to read anything prior to the last few months about this Silverblade?  Maybe notice that Iraq admitted to having tons of chemical and biological weapons, which they agreed to destroy and prove to the UN (and never did).  Did you happen to notice that the last chemical attack Saddam used was in 1993, two years after the Gulf War?  While the UN was supposed to be "watching"!

As for your flawed logic about him already using them if he had them.  He had them in the first war, and didn't use them against the USA then either (and that was proven).  As ruthless and evil as the bastard is, he knows that he can't get away with using them on the US forces.  Not only are the forces prepared for it, unlike his own people and the Kurds, but it would kill his only chance of public opinion stopping the USA (which is his only chance of anything).


Planned, yes.  You have to plan these things in advance.  It takes months of planning to set up for something like this.  But planning isn't doing.  If nobody taught you that you plan for all occasions, both the good and the bad, then you need a lesson in planning Silverblade.  But planning is doing.  This could have been avoided for years, not just months.

I'm sure it could have been avoided if some European nations with a history of overlooking the sort of crap that Iraq has pulled for the last decade had stood up and  and force the issue when they had the chance (like over a decade of it).

For someone calling us "dumb americans" you sure aren't to up on the facts yourself Silverblade.

At least Bush or Rumsfeld will get more facts correct then the stupid protesting trash that thinks argues things like "they are jews" without knowing shit about it.  And I'm a guy that hates both of them.

Ignorant protesters are just as bad as ingorant supporters.  

Like I said before, Europe let Hitler get away with this bullshit in the 30's, when they could have avoided it.  They turned a blind eye.  The UN was doing the same with Iraq.  Think how much better the world would have been if someone had done to Hitler what the US is doing to Saddam now.

yah, whatever. aint got time for this. i bet ur dads are in the army....

peace

It figures that Silverblade is this dumb.

did i hit the spot bucc?

well, id like to participate more in your little discussion here with u military nerds, but i lack the time, bc i have work to do. keep attending class and then we can talk in 10 years mb, when u little dumbfucks have pubes and got a clearer picture of the world. till then...su

ps: i heard gi-joe dolls are on sale at toys-r-us, its a good buy, for anyone interested. i got a dozen myself....

Silver, you missed the spot so far, you have no idea.

Nice to see that attitude, but I'm probably older, better educated, and have lived in more countries then you have.  I am old enough to have been in the last Gulf War.  

My father and uncles were in Vietnam, my grandfather in WW2, and my great grandfather in WW1 (with the Canadians).  But only one of them (an uncle) was in the military as a career.  

So take your narrow views and "they must be dumb and not worth listening to" attitude and shove it up your ass.  Maybe you should actually read a little, and not just be another liberal sock-puppet.

And it figures that you play with dolls.

Slingblade......

Wtf is your problem?? You insult everyone who disagrees with you, especially those who make reasonable arguements. i never insulted you and addressing me as "ape" was kinda uncalled for. But what can you do with ignorant trash like yourself? Go watch the next special report on ARD or quote us some pages out of the spiegel why dont you......i follow those as well, so stop acting like you know somthing i dont. Also, why dont you try reading ppls reply and answer to what they are saying instead of what you think they are saying.


 >:(............I wish assholes like you would spend one day in the shoes of an iraqi.

hmm, i wanna apologize to everyone, i didnt mean to insult anyone in person. i had a bad week, and it kinda smelled like weapon-fetishism in here, and this war is pissing me off. but i kinda over-reacted, so sry for that.

have a nice day

silver


ps: bucc, wanna be my dad then?