BS: Why are you for the war?

Subject: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: GUEST,non trolling guest
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 02:34 PM

I know this will probably turn into a general argument about the war (thoough that is not my intent), but I genuinely want to know - and hope I will find out in some of the posts, why those of you who are pro war hold that view.

As far as I can see from people I have talked to, there are basically 3 groups of people who support the war for the following reasons.

Group 1: I believe the reasons the government have given for this war (ie the possible terrorist threat Iraq posed, the humanitarian concerns about the regime, the WMD's needing to be got rid of etc) are the real reasons and therefore I believe the war to be necessary.

Group 2: I believe the reasons given for the war are primarily bogus and that there are other factors which are more important to our governments. However since the liberation of the Iraqi people from a terrible regime will be the result, I nevertheless support the war.

Group 3: I believe the reasons given for the war are primarily bogus and that there are other factors which are more important to our governments. I believe that these other motives are valid, and therefore support the war on that basis.

So if you support the war, which of these groups would you say fit your views most closely? Or have I missed some other reasons for support that you would like to about?

A non trolling guest

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: mg
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 02:46 PM

I hope it is read as not being "for the war" but for what will hopefully result...at the very least a people free of torture and a more stable situation in the mid-East and a message to tyrants everywhere..when we are ready we are coming after you. And an acknowledgement that you can't predict what a war will bring...trigger WWIII or whatever. So with that said, I am a number one...not 100%...there are certainly geopolitical strategies and strong economic factors that exist..but are copacetic with number one. A steady, secure supply of oil for the now short term while we switch to greener energy is not a bad thing for the mideast or for the west or for impoverished countries who we can help better if we are prosperous.

But some of these slogans bandied about...Bush's thing about his father, we're out to capture their oil wells, a distraction from economic problems...strike me as loony tunes. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 04:15 PM

Good luck non-trolling Guest, but I doubt you'll find ANYONE who thinks they're really "FOR the war".

For me it was simple. Dozens and dozens of simple half-truths, repeated over and over again by the current American administration. I was brought up to question ANYTHING that I thought was taking advantage of people's naivity. I'm definitely not a pacifist, but this carnage was not neccessary....not at this time...and perhaps not ever.

Cheers

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: leprechaun
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 04:23 PM

I was somewhat reluctantly in support of the PEOPLE who made the decision to go to war because I believe they are acting in good faith. I've been party to many decisions made by government officials, and I know that actions of much less import than war are usually made with much circumspection, and analyzed ad-infinitum from a thousand perspectives. The vast majority of people in this forum seem to filter their opinions through a lens that paints those government officials as the epitomy of evil. I see how shrill, petty and vicious they can be, and how angry they are now that the war hasn't gone as badly as they hoped.

If there was ever a chance for a peaceful solution, I believe it was flushed down the toilet when all the loud, obnoxious, speciously anti-war flag-burners convinced Saddam or others in his regime that we in the free world were not committed enough, not united enough, to force him to change.

So here's a fourth reason for being "for" the war. If you can call it "for" the war, I came to that conclusion because I saw what kind of people were "against" it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Sam L
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 06:21 PM

Hitler believed a free-thinking army could never match a dictated disciplined regime, and it's a perfectly sensible thing disguised as a paradox that there is strength in skepticism and discord.

I'm not really for the war, but since the war began, I am for hoping for the best outcome. I am glad to see a brutal dictator fall, whatever the motives. And I doubt the whole "motivation" theory counts for as much as people often seem to think, anyway--it's only in poor fiction and seductive conspiracy theories, not in life, that the future neatly obeys anyone's will.

   I also don't bother about the morale of the troops, since nothing I say or do could possibly undermine that more than the dazzlingly inept diplomacy of Bush, or the undermining of supplies and support accomplished by Rumsfeld.

I guess I'm for the war because it's already happened. Before that I wasn't sure, but doubted it was necesary, or a good idea, because I found the leadership unconvincing, ill-tempered, poor-spoken (by which I mean that it was never for a second a very good idea to frame the question in terms that lent themselves to interpretation as a religious war) and generally muddled-sounding.

I guess I have no original reasons for it, but I do hope it may serve as a deterent to other tyrants who might consider amassing large-scale weapons. I just don't know if it will be seen that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 06:34 PM

in general, I'm for war...

It tends to be good for the economy... it functions on some level as population control... it often provides fantastic advances in medical science...

And well, it give the big boys and chance to go out and play with their toys in the sand...

Which keeps their attention off me and stuff I like...

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Gareth
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 07:09 PM

War is Evil, this war was a choice between an evil, and a greater evil of letting Daddam H continue uncontrolled, and removing his regime.

But you have missed out one major category in your choices, those who are so besotted with hatered of Bush and America that they would find reason to complain whatever Bush did.

Gareth - from the European side of the Pond.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 07:16 PM

Fundamentally, war is an insane effort to change conditions. It usually comes when saner efforts to change conditions fail or when they are asserted to be unworkable by those who feel they will gain from the war.

I am all for a quick and successful end to the war and will be glad of any good that comes of it.

But I am disgusted that it was as ineluctable a choice as it was.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Cluin
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 07:47 PM

It's a fallacy to believe that war is good for the economy. Nothing construction comes of a war. It's a destructive process.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 08:43 PM

The destruction of materials that need to be reconstructed can lead to a temporary boost in local economy...

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: mg
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 08:43 PM

They have found Saddam's secret police files. There is a story on the Drudge report right now. Read up on that in the next few days and say again that nothing good can come out of a war. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 09:49 PM

Unlike leprecaun, I don't trust the people who made the decision to go to war. But it's my army, not theirs. Once the die was cast, I supported my army. The publicly claimed goal is worthwhile, no matter what the secret agenda might be.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 10:05 PM

misophist-Supporting the army is very different from supporting the war. No one WANTS our soldiers to be injured or killed. Many people don't think they should have been placed Iraq, and a good portion of them think they should be taken out, but that's not failing to support the troops.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: The Pooka
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 12:29 AM

Guest UnBaitcasting Guest, you did a pretty good job with your Categories there. 1 and 2 overlap a bit re the Human Rights Rationale; but, so what? So do we all.

I think (seriously) that the main category you left out--understandable oversight--is that in which Clinton Hammond tonguecheekily (??) located himself, namely, those who are For the War because they are For War generally. (Hmm "Generally" indeed; lemme rephrase that, Colonel, Ret.) Actually there are lots of people who feel that way. From a distance, usually (though not always). The "USA Kicks Ass!" caucus, yknow. Some of them would overlap into your category 3. However, those folks aren't heavily represented among the Folkie Folks here on the 'Cat.

OK. Me, I'm mostly category 2. I like freedom & so I like seeing murderous bloody tyrants thrown down. By their own enslaved victims if possible; by outside forces if necessary. I think that brutal Arab totalitarians deserve such fate no less than (just for one example) Teutonic ones. I applaud the destruction of Saddam & the supposedly-Muslim Ba'ath for *precisely* the same reasons I would have cheered the ouster of Franco and & the purportedly-Christian Falange, if only somebody had had the nerve to take the Generalissimo down before the Almighty decided it's Time he was Workin' Down Below. (I don't equate Hussein to Hitler only because that denigrates the sheer magnitude of Hitler's evil; his only competitors are Stalin & Mao.)

Can we get rid of all the world's bad guys? No. / But we can start somewhere. And Baghdad was a very good place to start.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:20 AM

misophist, I haven't heard of nor seen any reports of any flag-burning by anti-war protesters. Do you have anything you can cite for that claim?

Rick, well said.

Clinton, this war has done nothing for the US economy but make it worse.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: musicmick
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 03:19 AM

I support any and every strike at Moslem fundimentalism which I consider to be the most dangerous group on the face of our planet. They are intolerant, fanatical and endowed with seemingly limitless funds. They have killed without pity and they are not vulnerable to comprimise or compassion. Their rigid opposition to the existance of Israel has been the unsolvable enigma of the MIddle East. They are no more tolerant of their own "heretics" than they are of infidels or "Great Satans". They were foolish to attack the US, to kill thousands of Americans. Hopefully, we will take these psychotics seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 08:57 AM

Musicmic-Those are some scarily broad generalizations you've made. Muslim fundamentalism takes many forms, some of them no worse than American born-agains. They are by no means united as a single organization than any other religion, and Israel bears a certain responsibility in their conflict with the Palestinians. To paint all of them with the same brush risks uniting all of Islam against us, which is exactly what you are afraid of.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 09:28 AM

Are the people who supported the pre-emptive war against Iraq also in support of pre-emptive war against Syria and then Iran? That's what's next on the agenda.

Anyone here in favor of a more or less permanent state of war until the US, UK, and Israel have completed dominence over the entire world?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 09:36 AM

katlaughing:

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. The only claim I made is that it's MY army. What has that to do with flag burning?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 10:59 AM

misophist, oops, sorry, my mistake....I should have addressed that question to leprechuan. My apolgies.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: musicmick
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 11:13 AM

Forum Lurker, you are a dreamer. These murderers are no different than any other cult assasins. They murder chilren (on purpose). They would kill you in an instant. They would kill me in half an instant.
How many sky-jackings, suicide raids, school bus bombings will it take to wake you up to the frightful danger these groups represent.
Of course, the actual killers are a small percent of the radical Arab world but, without Saudi oil money, they could not operate and, without a sizable support system, they could not hide.
Your transparent shifting of blame onto the victims (Somehow they must be responsible) suggests that your position is not quite as objective as you think it is. America did not deserve 9/11 and Israel did not deserve the ceaseless horrors visited upon them except, as Clint Eastwood says in THE UNFORGIVEN, "We've all got it coming."

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 11:22 AM

musicmic- Who is "they?" Are you honestly suggesting that every Muslim in the world lends support to terrorist organizations? Do you believe even that every Muslim government does so? How do you get the idea that I think ANYONE deserved to be blown up? I realize that there are a number of groups that wish to kill Americans, or destroy the American way of life (whatever that means today), etc., and that many of them use a corrupted version of Islam as the basis for their ideology. That doesn't in any way justify a condemnation of the entire Islamic belief system, which is what it appears you are doing. I'm a lot more worried about the governments with nuclear weapons than I am about any small fanatical organization. Al Qaeda can kill hundreds, maybe thousands. America, India, Pakistan, or China could kill six billion and change.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: TIA
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 11:59 AM

All muslims were somehow involved in 9/11 = All Christians were somehow involved in Oklahoma City.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: alanabit
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 12:10 PM

I think it is easy to forget just how much Islamic fundamentalism has been fermented in the refugee camps of Palestine and Lebannon. The best weapons for fighting potential terrorists (and oddly the cheapest) are food in their bellies and medicines for the sick. Terrorism is the weapon of the weak.
I have said elsewhere that if the US and UK are serious about ridding the world of Islamic tyrants, they could perhaps start by deposing the truly appalling House of Saud.
Now that the US and Britain have made such a noble stand against terrorism and genocide, I look forward to them bringing to book the man who ordered the massacre of the Shantila Camp some twenty years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 01:23 PM

Let me just answer the question for supporters of the war (since they are staying away for the most part):

I am for the war because:

I believe what the national TV and radio media tell me every day.

I believe that "Father Knows Best".

I am a patriot.

The other side is evil incarnate and must be destroyed!

I can trust people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfled, George Bush and Colin Powell.

I believe that the USA is the last great hope of the World, and the defender of freedom, liberty, and justice.

It is my duty as an American to support the war.

Saddam is evil and must be stopped. Osama is evil and must be stopped. Chavez is evil and must be stopped. Castro is evil and must be stopped. Everyone who is different from "us" is evil and must be stopped, and we cannot shrink back, appease evil, and be wishy-washy weaklings who won't defend ourselves against evil.


There. As you can see, it fits Nazi (or Stalinist) psychology like a glove. These are the kind of folks Hitler needed millions of in order to run the 3rd Reich effectively. They are well-intentioned and completely out of touch with reality. They are order obeyers par excellence, imbued by absolute faith in their own righteousness and the righteousness of their cause.

Every great conquering empire is served by a host of such conventional minds, fighting imaginary evils while serving organized evil on a far grander scale.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 01:28 PM

there is overlap in some of the reasons eg 1 & 2.
I never found some of the stated reasons particularly convincing, (ie. WMDs, link to terrorism) although I never thoroughly discounted them either. (that Saddam tried to acquire wmds in the past is certainly no secret, building a nuclear reactor in a country with huge oil reserves, using chemical weapons during the war with Iran, and on the Kurds) whether Iraq still had them is another story, although having read of Saddams fascination of weapons Im not sure that he had given up trying to acquire them as after all he was a survivor and the best way to remain in power is to have wmds.
In his interview with Dan Rather he stated that his one regret was not having nuclear weapons when he invaded Kuwait.

I would say that my primary reasons for not being against the war, are humanitarian, Iraqi people will be free from the killing and torture that has gone on for the past 30 years.

probably the most convincing reason that the US has gone to war is the idea that by setting up a democratic state in the middle east will lead to further change in the region - ie. the US new world order - (its certainly risky and) whether this really will remains to be seen. But one can look at the asian countries and its quite clear that the post war growth in Japan set an example for South Korea, Thailand and other emerging asian economies. a Pivotal issue is also the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - as long as that continues it will cause uncertainty in the region and further inflame anti-western feelings.

I dont believe that Iran is next, there is already popular pressure for reform in Iran, as far as North Korea - the threat of nuclear retaliation will prevent any US attack - probably what will happen would be an attempt to blockade NK. NK is close to economic collapse anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:35 PM

Iran's not next. Iran comes after we're done with Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:49 PM

Little Hawk,
   I definitely do NOT believe that people who are "for" the war can be pigeon-holed into the complete description that you've drawn here. You might as well be saying that anyone who agrees with you is a straight-thinking inciteful person willing to think things through to a logical conclusion, whereas anyone who doesn't agree with you is a mindless puppet who can't come up with an entire thought on his/her own. Perhaps that is why you don't get many replies for those who are in favor of this war. Anyone who has spoken up in these threads has been called war monger, puppet and has not been given any credit for just simply having a different opinion.

   I talked to some naval reserves on Saturday night during a break at a gig. I went over to talk to them and thank them for what they do. They looked at me like I had three heads. After talking for a while I realized why. One said, "We're takin a beating...all we want to do is do our job, and all I hear people talking about is how we shouldn't be over there. How innocent people are being killed. You can say what you want about how they support the troops, they just don't support the war and President Bush, but it's what WE are doing that you're complaining about, so like it or not, we're the targets of the verbal abuse and insults." These are people whose job it is to put there lives on the line to protect the rights of those who think what they are doing is wrong. Kinda ironic if you ask me.


Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Sam L
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 03:03 PM

Little Hawk, I find some of your reasoning quite convincing, sometimes, but, sometimes it seems quite a stretch, as above. I do not believe that Bush and co. are the masters of public opinion that you imply, I don't believe Bush's bumbling ineptitude masks a mind like a steel trap. I think you fall into that idea that these people actually control everything, when they really only play their part, and I recomend you read War And Peace, and Karl Popper. If there weren't some valid reasons for action, some fairly reasonable fears mixed into it, Bush could never have launched a war.

I don't believe that all the dangers of inaction were completely imaginary, just because they don't touch me where I live. The war may well be quite wrong, even in the compromised, practical sense in which a war might be considered the right thing. But it isn't wrong like Hitler, it's actually quite different.

Your view of people who support the war is a cartoon, and though it does sound a bit like Bush's ill-chosen and potentially disasterous terms, it doesn't sound much like the people I know who do support the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 03:13 PM

Well, Frank, you're right in what you say. I appreciate what the soldiers are facing, the pressure they're under, and all that. I understand how they must feel. Soldiers have a tough job, and part of that job is maintaining loyalty to and belief in the system they fight for.

I'm just saying that an aggressor always counts on that portion of the population who tend strongly to trust in the existing authority structures that they are most familiar with. The kind of people who go into police work, military service, and that sort of thing are psychologically most inclined to follow existing authorities.

The kind of people who go into the Arts and academia are more likely to question existing authority structures and oppose the official line.

There are always individual exceptions to these general rules too.

I was drawing a general character sketch of a type of thinking I see a great deal of, that's all.

I was not implying that all those people who disagree with me are stupid. They're not. You can be VERY intelligent and still be wrong about something. Or not. As the case may be.

Take any issue, and you will find plenty of highly intelligent and capable people on both sides of it.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Beccy
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 04:04 PM

TIA- While I see the point at which you are driving, there's one basic problem. Tim McVeigh was an avowed atheist. You need to change your argument to "...all atheists were involved in Oklahoma City."...

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: TIA
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 04:35 PM

Beccy - I did not know that McVeigh was an avowed atheist. That is incongruous with his association with the Militia and Christian Identity Movements and his emulation of "The Turner Diaries". Can you steer me to any references? (Not doubting you, just fascinated -- Thanks.)

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: SeanM
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 04:36 PM

The point is still there - to equate "Muslim" with "Terrorist" is to equate:

"Catholic" with "IRA"

"Catholic" with "Mafia"

"Buddhist" with "Yakuza"

"Baptist" with "KKK"

"Protestant" with "Branch Davidian"

"Any branch of Christianity" with "Nazi"

Or any given religion with "Serial Killer".

The list goes on. Racist profiling and logical fallacy is a dangerous place to live. It's a road that leads to Auschwitz and other apertures to hell like it.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 04:51 PM

How can anyone say they are 'for war'? It's like saying they anti-life. We are sending our own over there to fight for a cause, and some may not return. How can you be for that? However, you have thousands of people living in poverty and persecution and a dictator living in glamerous palaces and a possible threat to our own countries safety...and I believe that is a cause worth fighting against. Just make sure we do it right so we don't have to go through this again.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 05:03 PM

Just make sure we do it right so we don't have to go through this again.

What, in this case, would you say "do it right" means?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Beccy
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 05:07 PM

TIA- Give me a little bit to hunt that one down. I am forgetting my source.
I remember the first time I heard he was an avowed atheist was during the talking heads coverage of his execution where they discussed why he refused to consult with a clergy member.
Let me look around a bit to find where I read further on that subject.

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 05:32 PM

The "do it right" thing, that didn't come out right. I mean, history sometimes repeats itself, lets not let someone take over Iraq that will be just as bad as what we are trying to get rid of.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Beccy
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 05:44 PM

Okay, here's some stuff to start. I recalled that the person who started my whole interest in Tim McVeigh's religious persuasion was Paul Begala. I heard him say that McVeigh was an atheist and did a bit of research. That research is long since gone, but this is what I found in a quick google search:

Short reference to McVeigh's religious persuasion

I'll have to spend some more time on this later as I have to start on dinner. I promise I'll do more...
Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 05:59 PM

Uh-huh. But McVeigh was very likely only one of a number of people involved in the Oklahoma City bombing, so I think his religious leanings are rather unimportant, whichever way they went.

It doesn't say much, whether or not he was an atheist.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 09:50 PM

Well danged! I just read that 116% of the Americans are fir the war so I holed up with my Wes Ginny slide rule for a couple of days and we figgured that with 114% of the American people being fir then war then we had better get with the program. Heck, ya' never know when they are gonna quit takin' applications... Right?

So I figure, seein' as I'm now part of the 114% majority that I couold just throw in a few countries that need a good whuppin'! Well, Virginia is at the top of my list. Bunch of terorists and they got WMD's to boot.

And how about Latin America? They send these folks up here to work fir peanuts and drive down the satndard of living of good old American workers? Yeah, how about a a few thousand sorties being flown over Mexico and El Salvidore? Yeah, now that I'm on the wagon, this is getting real fun.

And how about all them homo's in France? They gotta go. And them arraogant Germans. Nuke the crap out of 'em! Boy, this is easy!!!!

And North Korea. Nuke 'em! Syria? Nuke 'em! Egypt? Nuke it! And Jordon? Nuke it! And Palestine? Nuke.... ahhhh, foget it, Isreal has them, And California? Nuke 'em! And Indonesia and the Phillipines? Nuke em! AQnd Canada?............

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 10:39 PM

AP/Yahoo: "Sharpening the Bush administration's rhetoric, Powell said, "They should review their actions and their behavior, not only with respect to who gets haven in Syria and weapons of mass destruction, but especially the support of terrorist activity."

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), in a parallel thrust at Damascus, said Syria's support for terrorism and "harboring the remnants of the Iraqi regime" were unacceptable.

But she indicated the administration was not contemplating military action.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 11:20 PM

Uh-huh. It begins with threats, accusations, and innuendo...emotional blackmail. And it proceeds from there. A certain amount of hate propaganda must be spun through the media prior to making any actual attack.

This is all marketing. In America, they sell a war the same way they sell sneakers and fast food. They do saturation advertising to Joe Public. Advertising manipulates the viewers with quick, snappy visuals and short, spiffy sound bites. The viewers react like Pavlov's dog and respond in a predictable fashion, and the next sale is soon made.

Count on finding out all kinds of terrible "revelations" about Syria and their leader (the next "demon" of the corporate media) in the next few weeks or months, while the country with the most WMD's, the most violations against the UN, and the worst record of aggression sits righteously by like a sacred cow, holding its 400 or more nuclear weapons quietly to its bloodstained breast, and running its dirty little apartheid regime.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 12:26 AM

Little Hawk-Since when is America apartheid? I don't know about worst record of aggression, since Britain has a much longer history as a continuous political body, but we certainly have the most nuclear weapons, and probably biological and chemical too.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 12:48 AM

I was referring to Israel. America has many, many thousands of nuclear weapons, not just 400 of them.

Israel, you see, is so sacrosanct (due to past horrific injustices against the Jewish people by the Nazis and others) that to merely mention their name in a critical way in public is unwise, as it arouses extreme reactions in people who tend to react first and think later.

It's kind of like being in Iran, and criticizing the Koran. You do it at your own peril. This is not what's supposed to happen in a democracy, which is why I'm pretty cynical about the moral pretensions of our society.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 12:53 AM

I have yet to see any credible evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein's regime and organized Islamic terrorism. To the contrary, I believe that Saddam Hussein was at least as fearful of Islamic terrorists as he was of G.W. Bush.

What do the Islamists want? They want temporal power to be vested in the Church, just like it was in Europe in Medieval times. Saddam was not an Islamist. Yes, he was a Muslim, but he was not a devout Muslim and he damn sure never wanted the Church to exercise any temporal power. He wanted all the temporal power for himself. He effectively kept the Shiite majority, from whose ranks any Islamist movement would be most apt to sprout, under his thumb.

Furthermore, I firmly believe that if Osama Bin Laden had been given an opportunity to assassinate Saddam and see an Islamist government put in his place, he would have done it in a heartbeat, fellow Muslim or not.

Now, back to the original question: "Why are you for the war?" I'm not. I was not opposed to the '91 Gulf War. I was not opposed to U.S. intervention in the Balkans. I was not opposed the ousting the Taliban in Afghanistan. But, to borrow from your own reason #1, I believe the reasons the government have given for this war (ie the possible terrorist threat Iraq posed, the humanitarian concerns about the regime, the WMD's needing to be got rid of etc) are the real reasons. I believe that they are noble goals. But, I believe that the benefits to be gained are outweighed by a tremendous number of possible, even probable, negative consequences. I would gladly be proven wrong in this belief, but only time will provide that proof.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 12:58 AM

Little Hawk-Yes, Israel probably has more nukes than Iran. America has more nukes than every other country beside Russia and China combined. Yes, Israel violates a number of UN resolutions. Once you strip away the loaded language passed by anti-Semitic Arab nations and their allies, you'll find that Israel's human rights record and record of aggression are not nearly as bad as that of such nations as Sudan, North Korea, China, and many others. If war is to be the solution, Israel shouldn't be near the top of the target list, and if it's not, why bring it up?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: musicmick
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 12:58 AM

I resent my position being skewed into a condemnation of Islam or the entire Arab world. I'm sure that I never said any such thing. I said that a sizeable and fanatic horde make the Moslim radical right as dangerous as they are. Another point you might consider before labling me as a bigot is that Timothy McVeigh did not act in the cause of Atheism, nor does the IRA purport to represent the values of the Roman Catholic church. (The IRA, in fact, is a military orginization, nationalistic in purpose and, whether one agrees with their cause or not, they dont blow up American buildings because America does business with the UK).
It is not me who claims that the terrorists represent the Arab peoples. It is the crowds who cheered in the streets of Amman, Gaza and Bagdad to celebrate 9/11. They thought it was just dandy that thousands of Americans were killed. Is ir possible that you missed those outbursts of joy? Gee, it was on all the news stations.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: leprechaun
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 02:12 AM

Katlaughing - yes I saw flags burned by anti-war protesters. People, admittedly in splinter groups, burned them in New York, in Paris and in Eugene. (big surprise)

And some of you folks need a few lessons in profiling. You talk about it like it's a bad thing, but not if you do it right. You gotta have skills.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: alanabit
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 04:18 AM

I hope you did not interpret my post that way, musicmic. I had intended it to sound polite and temperate. My point was that unreasonable circumstances give rise to unreasonable movements - and even terrorists. I like the terrorists about as much as you do, but I see the struggle against them as being a very long term project. Bush's empty rhetoric is concerned with nothing but the symptons. If people feel they have no redress against monstrous injustice through the international law courts or through international law, they are likely to observe only their own laws. The suicide bombers feel that they have nothing more to lose in this world and that they have no hope of achieving justice through the United Nations. The recent cavalier disregard shown to the UN Security Council will not improve the situation either. For me, terrorists are essentially the Orcs of this world. They simply have to be eliminated. However, there is no long term solution in killing terrorists if new ones are being raised daily. That is why it is so desperately urgent that clean water, medication and food gets into the worst deprived Arab areas as soon as possible. It is cheaper than fighting wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: InOBU
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 08:00 AM

Well, I am for the war, because, with two million people in jail, one out of every eight American Black people in jail, it is getting lonely for the vets of past wars who live in card board boxes, so many homeless vets are now in jail, so now, soon there will be lots of other new vets to keep them company. And new guys on the street need teachers, so, for example Bobby, (see my song Bivouac of the Forgotton post - a music post) who was awarded a silver star in Viet Nam can feel useful again. Bobby was a sargent, so he organises the guys on the street, so it is like getting new recrutes for him.
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: alanabit
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 08:55 AM

I should add that I did see those crowds cheering the WTC massacre on television and felt the same disgust as anyone else. I should also add that the Afghan government and Yasser Arafat condemned the attacks immediately.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Sam L
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 09:44 AM

No offence to anyone, I hope, but I can't help finding the discussion of Timothy McVeigh's faith funny. Because even if we agree that it doesn't matter, we can't help picking at it.

I once heard a Jewish comedy writer say the only thing he'd done that really offended his mother was his bit "Jew, Not a Jew" in which contestants answered questions about celebrities, like "Penny Marshall--Jew, Not a Jew? Buzz! Not a Jew! Correct" and so on. It was based on the writer's family dinnertable discussions, but his mother was offended by it.

She said "I can't see how you could do something like that, and think it's funny".

Then she said "And I'm SURE Penny Marshall is a Jew".

                              *

LH, still, don't you think you tend to exaggerate the Orwellian thing? My buddy who went a coupla years ago to study in Israel and who is American, and Jewish, doesn't have much trouble criticizing Israel, especially the current leadership. Critics of the war are not guiltless of trying to promote their message, also. Other Nations aren't wholly without vested economic interests in their positions of opposition. When and where is it ever different? Who doesn't try to "sell" their position, put it in it's best light, as best they can?
And why wouldn't they?
    My complaint is not that a case was made to "sell" the war, but that it was made poorly, in terms that surely helped to alienate potential allies, and may yet very much undermine any real "success" in the purpose. Battles are won by soldiers and the military, wars are won by diplomacy and government. I doubt the leadership, but hope something worthwhile can be salvaged.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 10:09 AM

Fred, your buddy might not have had any difficulty criticizing Israel, but have you noticed what happens to politicians in the US if they try to criticize Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 11:08 AM

Yes, Carol, that really was my point. There is a conspiracy of silence regarding Israel, and it is maintained through fear. Great fear. The kind of fear that was typical of the McCarthy era. "See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil."

Lurker - Oh, I was not suggesting war as a solution. Not at all. The only war I have regarded as a useful "solution" to anything since, well, 1960 let's say was:

Vietnam's invasion and bringing down of the Khymer Rouge in Kampuchea. Those maniacs simply had to go, and Kampuchea has been far better off without them, and the Vietnamese handed power back to the locals who are now running things far more sanely than the Khymer Rouge did, that's for sure!

And that's about it. The first Gulf War could have been avoided simply by the USA telling Saddam not to do it before he got started. He asked them, and their ambassador basically gave him the green light to go ahead and invade. Therefore, I'm skeptical about the whole thing. It stinks.

As for Kosovo, I'm sort of neutral on that one. It's a tangled mess there. It's a damned shame that Tito's Yugoslavia was ever allowed to fall apart, as it was a country with great strengths and possibilities for progress.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 11:46 AM

Little Hawk, Yugoslavia as a political entity was doomed to fall apart from the start. "During World War II an extremist Croatian movement, known as the Ustashe, began as an interwar terrorist organization. It then adopted fascist guidelines and aligned with German and Italian occupation forces. The Ustashe, which means "rebellion",
performed acts of genocide against Serbs, Muslims, Jews, and other minorities in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina."

The divisions and hurt in that cobbled together country, went back to the War, if not before. The only thing that could keep the mess together there and supressed was a dictator like Tito.

When the Berlin Wall was brought down, while I rejoiced, my first thought was "Oh oh, now the 'fun' begins".

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 12:00 PM

little hawk, interesting that Vietnams invasion of Cambodia was a just war. When I mentioned (in another thread) that no one protested on the streets, when in fact it was a totally illegal invasion of another sovereign country (certainly not sanctioned by the UN)

- of course we cant go around getting rid of dictators everywhere, - the response I got was that no one heard about it.

I happen to think it was justified as well, for humanitarian reasons, but certainly the vietnamese did not go in there for humanitarian reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: GUEST,Peeking Duck
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 12:15 PM

Little Hawk, again and again you back up your opinions with facts. Yes, they are often contested, but they show a strong commitment to at least trying to see an issue from as many angles as possible. I certainly don't agree with you everytime, but you rarely do the "here, read this (biased) article I've just dug up on the net" So many good people with very little actual "historical perspective", to call on.

You must get frustrated, but know that some people notice.

Peeking Duck

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Troll
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 01:29 PM

I felt and still feel that the war was necessary, not only to free the Iraqi people and stop Saddam Husseins WMD Program, but to send a message to the rest of the world that we would do what we said we would do militarily.
You may not have noticed, but Kim Jong-Il is now asking for multilateral talks instead of insisting on one-on-one talks with the US.
Hafsan Rafsanjani, the hard-line ex-Iranian President, is now talking about a referendum on restoring ties with the US. Heres your link. http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003338
For those who oppine that war never solves anything, I give you Slavery, Nazism, and Fascism; all of these evils were gotten rid of by war.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 01:57 PM

I'll agree enthusiastically on the Nazism and Fascism part, troll. It's a pity the Fascists won in Spain, but Franco was a clever bastard, and he stayed out of WWII (much to Hitler's rage and disgust).

As for the slavery thing, I think that war could definitely have been avoided, with a little more goodwill and common sense on both sides. Slavery would have died a natural death for economic reasons within about a generation of that war, according to much material I've read. It had already died in most other places (including, most notably, the British Empire). However, it was a very evil institution, and certainly deserved to go....but I think getting rid of it in America's most terrible war (in terms of human loss on both sides) was a very, very stupid thing to do. For that, you can blame utter intransigence, arrogance, and pigheadedness on the part of both the North and the South. They dug a huge hole for themselves and jumped right into it together. And millions of perfectly ordinary people had their lives ruined as a consequence. Not what I call a "good solution". It was a gigantic tragedy.

Peeking Duck - Thanks! I appreciate your comments.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 02:18 PM

And, as any American history teacher will tell you, the American Civil War was not about slavery, but rather state's rights compared to the Federal government. If it weren't for the Civil War, we might not be heading towards the authoritarian state Dubya wants.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: TIA
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 02:33 PM

Of course, which right in particular were the southern states extremely concerned about losing?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 10:58 PM

Well, I thought I'd try to think of things that war solves.

I certainly believe in war as self defense, & I have always thought WWII was a just war, but while it got rid of a Nazi government I don't think it got rid of Naziism. We used to some just up the road a few miles, though they didn't use the word "Nazi;" They liked to say "Aryan Nations."

We didn't need a war to get rid of Russian Communism. And I don't think every country had to have a war to get rid of slavery. And again, some countries are free of slavery, but the world is not. It's hard to win a war against an abstract noun. Fascism, drugs, poverty, terrorism.

War makes some people better off economically -- I remember a farmer in my childhood who wanted a good war to bring up wheat prices -- but the world as a whole is poorer by the amount of wealth destroyed.

I guess war does solve the Fearless Leader's problem of how to get the people to back him. So it works for that and self-defense, if the self-defense is successful.

And just to be clear I believe a pre-emptive war is not self-defense, for the same reason a pre-emptive punchout in a bar is not considered self-defense.

Clint

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 12:16 AM

TIA-The right to determine their own internal economic affairs, according to the majority of southern political thinkers. The war was not begun to force the South to abolish slavery, but to keep it in the Union. Lincoln said that if it were necessary to keep slavery in order to preserve the Union, he would have done so, but he felt that it was necessary to eliminate for the good of the country. The rights of non-whites was not the primary issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Sam L
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 09:53 AM

CarolC I have to admit I don't know what happens to politicians in the US when they criticise Israel. And though it doesn't really address my point I'd like to hear more particularly about it. I'm guessing they aren't tortured and killed.

    Part of the rationale for war with Iraq seems hypocritical in regard to Israel, but that does not make it the same. We were not previously at war with Israel, and have terms of a cease fire.

It really amazes me how rarely freedom of speech comes up as a basic value among liberals, except in paranoid rants about big brother watching them. It may actually be a new reason here for supporting the war--I was assuming it was in there among humanitarian concerns, but maybe it's a little different. Maybe properly a humanist concern. It seems to often turn up missing in some of equations and parallels people draw. It seems not to weigh anything. Among artists. On an arts forum.

It's all well and good to talk about media manipulation and thought control and Pavlov's dogs. There's some truth in it. But Bush was elected in the first place by a very narrow technical margin, and some people believe the process should change, and that the margin was illegal. I don't know for sure about that, but I still prefer it to anyone elected by 99 per cent of the vote, and all that that entails.

What about the revolutionary war, US and UK, did that do anything? Anywhere? For anyone? Am I so arrogant to think that I know what's better for a culture that I don't begin to understand, that doesn't seem to want or know how to live more freely, without Pavlovian obedience and mindless idol worship? Do I suppose that there's something intrinsically worthwhile somewhere in this seedy rancid stink of sickening western culture? Yes, and yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 12:42 PM

hey Little Hawk, I asked in another thread, why no one objected to
Vietnams invasion of Cambodia, (after all - it was an illegal invasion of a sovereign country, not sanctioned by the UN, Cambodia did not pose any threat to Vietnam, they also went in for their own
interests, not to stop genocide or get rid of any nasty dictator - after all theres plenty of those around)

the only response I got was from Forum Lurker
'thats because none of us heard about it'
(do some reading FL)

now Little Hawk, stated that he saw this as one of the few
'just' wars. (human rights groups believe that under Saddams brutal dictatorship, 2 million Iraqis have died - while this wasnt genocide
carried out in a matter of days or months - it is still a huge number of people - there are few Iraqi families who havent lost someone to the regime, or one of Saddams wars.)

The UN policy formulated since the genocide in Rwanda and Yugoslavia,
does call for intervention in the case of genocide - (of course the UNs record in these cases is totally pathetic, they stood by and let it happen)

Im interested in how Little Hawk reconciles the differences betn the
action in Iraq or Cambodia, and let me just say that I dont buy the official AMericanline anyway, Im sure that there is an agenda perhaps - the new (American) world order, setting an example in the Mideast etc) however my decision to support this war, was more from a humanitarian standpoint - (also not an easy decision by any means - as the costs were and are still unknown.)

petr.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 01:21 PM

petr-When was this war? It seems kind of silly for me to object to a situation that was resolve before I was born.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Troll
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 02:18 PM

Lurker, I'm well aware of the reasons behind the American Civil War and of the common opinion regarding Abolitionists at that time. But it makes a damn good bumper sticker.
troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 02:57 PM

Because it has been a necessary evil to remove a completely unnecessary evil. I'm Group 2 basically. My fear has always been that America will manage to lose the peace (winning the war was never in doubt).

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 03:07 PM

Well put, Fred.

I think the only important question is what other paths might be available to acheive the simple goal of "bringing about a more amenable frame of mind on the part odf the enemy" (Klausewitz). It is true we rapidly convinced Hussein he had no more power in Iraq. Three cheers for a fast, direct solution, eh? But, the question not addressed is what other means might have produced the same effect without violence? IF we agree the citizens of Iraq were more to be pitied than censured for living so long under despicable conditions of tyranny, surely that applies to the poor sods who, in the same hypnotic state of mind, stood against the advances of the U.S. Marines because the Iraqi government sent them out, and ended up paying for the mistake with their guts and lives.

An alternative remedy might have (a) gone down more smoothly (b) saved thousands of lives (c) prevented the loss of the national library and archaeological museums and (d) brought about a more gradual assimilation of the New IDea of personal freedom without the explosive suddenness of warfare and its current sequelae.

I think there is _serious_ research and funding needing to be done on the social inventions that have brought successful change to large groups of people without violence, to try and isolate how they work, what makes them succeed, or not, and how to apply that insight into improving human conditions.

I do not believe that violence is the only answer to authoritarian/dictatorial fascism. Seems to me that its the most popular one, though.

As a hypothetical, what would have happened to Iraq if a local Gandhi had appeared on the scene there?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 03:26 PM

As a hypothetical, what would have happened to Iraq if a local Gandhi had appeared on the scene there?

He'd have very quickly been just another one of vast number of "Missing" & very probably WAS!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 03:35 PM

CarolC I have to admit I don't know what happens to politicians in the US when they criticise Israel. And though it doesn't really address my point I'd like to hear more particularly about it. I'm guessing they aren't tortured and killed.

When politicians in the US criticize Israel, powerful organizations like American Israel Public Affairs Committee get after them and make it difficult for them to get re-elicted. So although they aren't tortured or killed, there does tend to be a dampening effect on open and free public discourse on the part of US politicians with regard to the subject of Israel.

Foreward published an interesting article about these kinds of political dynamics in 2002:

Leftist Rallying Behind Georgia's Rep. McKinney

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 03:36 PM

Sorry: "re-elected"

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 05:53 PM

Lurker - I wouldn't exactly call the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia (Kampuchea) a "just" war. The only war effort I think I would ever refer to as "just" is outright self-defense against an exterior attack. Once a war is underway, all sorts of things can happen, but I'm talking about the initial assault that kicks it off. An initial assault is aggression, and I don't call aggression "just".

I wouldn't call it an "unjust" war either. I would call it a war that I supported, though, for a number of reasons...

The Khymer Rouge had been massacring their own population at a rate that almost has no rivals, and it was getting worse.

The Khymer Rouge had been attacking Vietnamese border areas for some time, not in terms of what could be called an actual "invasion", more in terms of sporadic raids and incursions. Why they did so, I have no idea, but nothing they did was very rational.

The Khymer Roughe were being funded by Chinese Communist and American (CIA) sources. Both of these were sources inimical to Vietnam, to put it mildly. Therefore the Vietnamese considered Cambodia to be a hostile and dangerous presence on their flank. They were correct. It was, under the Khymer Rouge.

The Vietnamese were in great fear of being attacked from the north by China, and simultaneously from the west by the Khymer Rouge. They saw the Khymers as an agent of China and (rather indirectly) America, and they were again correct.

In bringing down that regime, they did a tremendous favour to the stability and future peaceableness of the whole region, and especially to the people of Cambodia (though, of course, they did it for their own self-interests, rather than out of any altruism).

Therefore, for purely practical and rational reasons I supported that attack by Vietnam and wished for the utter defeat of Pol Pot.

And it remains the one unilateral aggression of its sort that I have given such support to. It was a most unusual and extreme situation in Cambodia under the Khymer Rouge. A holocaust, in fact.

The remnants of Pol Pot's people (now based in Thailand) are still getting comfort and support from the same shadowy groups that quietly funded them back then, and that is a disgrace. It's not the first time that China has assisted in genocide nor probably the last.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Sam L
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 09:11 PM

Amos, well, thanks. I do believe that other means were preferable to war, and that ideally, and ultimately, liberation only really comes from within. I hope for that. Groups that exist to kill Saddam Hussein would not fight with us. That's not good. But--however much anyone cares to doubt the motives of the war, it's leaders have positioned themselves so that they have to try to make good of it's end. I hope they do, or that other leaders do, whichever. But I'm happy with this discussion. I found my reasons.

CarolC thanks. Sorry to take a tone about it, but I'm like that, sometimes. I'm trying to sort things out for myself, is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Troll
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 11:23 PM

The Second Amendment guarantees protection of the right of free speech. It does not guarantee protection from it's consequences.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 01:13 AM

Troll- The first amendment is what guarantees us our right to free speech. You know this, and are probably trying to make a point regarding the defense of that right, but I don't see the need or the reasoning behind its placement. It's also possible you misspoke. Either way, when it says "Congress shall make no law . . .," it doesn't make any exceptions whatsoever. It is unconstitutional to make any law restricting the freedom of speech at all. While I certainly think that the "'fire!' in a crowded theater" example is a valid argument on a moral basis, it's still not covered in the constitution. It would be meaningless to say "You have the right to say anything, but we can jail you for it." The constitution guarantees protection for the exercise of the rights enshrined therein.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: TIA
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 09:02 AM

troll - you seem to be saying that the Constitution allows for people who disagree verbally to shoot each other. Are we talking about the USA?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Sam L
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 09:14 AM

I took Troll to mean merely that you can say what you want but you may not be re-elected.

I somehow missed what makes a good bumper sticker.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 10:12 AM

We should do a thread on the US Constitution...

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 12:31 PM

I took that to be troll's meaning, too, Fred.

On the subject of people not getting re-elected if they piss off powerful lobbies, I think that's yet another very good reason for getting PAC (soft) money out of the election process. It's just another case of money equaling votes. That's not democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 12:37 PM

The $ySStem is not about democracy. It's about financial clout and market share.

But that's not what they tell the kids in grade school...they tell them about democracy, while selling them Nintendo and stuff like that and preparing them to be consumer drones for life.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 12:43 PM

The US Armed Forces are using video games as recruiting ploys, to, LH. I saw a recruiting commercial for one of the Armed Forces on TV the other day, with someone playing a video game and then that morphs into a soldier operating a remote control drone aircraft. The message is: "See what fun you can have with our toys here in the Army (Navy, Air Force, Marines)?

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 02:46 PM

LH:

Temper yourself, buddy. Both forces are very much in play.

Carol, if you were trying to recruit people from the current generation into the armed forces, wouldn't you use their video-gamer backgrounds? It's not that the recruiters think war is a game, it's that they are trying to appeal to kids raised on information toys like video games and iChat. Anyone who thinks war is like a video game changes their POV very quickly when they find themselves in a fire-fight, I am sure.

An interesting dissertaion on what this feels like can be found in the very well done book "Blackhawk Down" which details the Mogodishu firefights.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 07:04 PM

The ad I saw was definitely trying to make war look like fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: Troll
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 09:45 PM

Sorry. I meant the First Amendment of course and what I meant was precisely what Fred said. To expand on this a bit, I would oppose ANY governmental interference, as in , you can say what you like but we'll jail you for it.
By the same token, I'll defend anyones right to NOT buy a Dixie Twits -sorry, Chicks- CD or to refuse to attend a Tim Robbins movie. Or to vote for George Bush.
There is no guarantee of protection from the consequences of your speech unless those consequences involve someone else taking the law into their own hands to register their disapproval. Put another way, I can call Tim Robbins a slack-jawed idiot and refuse to invite him over for Bar B Que but if I go after him with a baseball bat, then I have stepped over the line.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why are you for the war?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 10:49 AM

So if the national Labor lobby didn't like one of your local candidates because he or she said something bad about Labor Unions, and they pumped a lot of soft money and other forms of support into the opposing candidates' campaign, you would have no problem with that.