BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Carping Cybersnipe
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 05:56 PM

At least we understand each other, CarolC. But I don't buy your argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 01:29 PM

What about why? Which of the selfish sordid motives drove Bush to invade Iraq?

I already answered this one in one of my earlier posts. Control of oil, balance of power (world domination), and juicy contracts for his buddies.

As far as how, Bush according to you is such a scary bully and great liar that all those people I mentioned just had to bow to him. Gee they're dumb! Wimpy too!

Britain and Australia helped because they have the same motives. They're not dumb or whimpy... just complicit. The other countries weren't dumb or whimpy... just not in a very good position to refuse.

Or maybe they're all PART OF THE KONSPIRACY! Hmmmmmmmmmm.

I assume you're being sarcastic.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 10:28 AM

when we deem that they contribute to our national/strategic interest.

If it is not obvious by now, it should be: we have been pretty weak in choosing what serves our national interests. National interest is a huge idea, but it can also be used without content to sound compelling, a granfaloon of the first order.

MY national interests have not beens served, I can tell you that much. My nation has been reduced dramatically, thrown into overwhelming debt, portrayed as aggressive and violent, a gunslinging drunkard with bad credit among nations.

I think we need a more specific and more concrete statement of values in maing international decisions, statements which genuinely support our long-term ideals. Unfortunately, Mister Bush's long-term ideals involve dying and going to a heaven where someone else has all the responsibility.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,G
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 10:16 AM

A little humor, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,G
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 10:13 AM

Carping Cybersnipe, they do not have any answers!
All they do is attack and indulge in vague generalities.

I will, however, give Mr. Amos some credit for trying to explain his erred thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Carping Cybersnipe
Date: 01 Sep 05 - 10:13 AM

Sorry, CarolC, you did answer the question of how. What about why? Which of the selfish sordid motives drove Bush to invade Iraq?

As far as how, Bush according to you is such a scary bully and great liar that all those people I mentioned just had to bow to him. Gee they're dumb! Wimpy too!

Or maybe they're all PART OF THE KONSPIRACY! Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Carping Cybersnipe
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 04:12 PM

Just for the sake of argument, CarolC, I grant that I'm the radical and not you. Can you please answer the question though? And answer the questions I asked earlier?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 04:08 PM

"...I...I...I... I...I...I ... me...I..."

That's an awful lot of "I"s in a brief post from someone restrictiong their identity to "GUEST Date: 31 Aug 05 - 07:41 AM"

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 03:56 PM

Bush is the radical, Mr. Cybersnipe. You must be too if you support him and his policies. He and his administration got all of those people to sign off on his war by lying about WMD, using strong-arm bully tactics against anyone who didn't do his bidding.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Carping Cybersnipe
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 03:28 PM

Reasons the radicals say Bush invaded:

To seize oil fields and make himself, Cheney, and oil cronies even richer.

To "finish the job" that his father couldn't.

To "get" Hussein for trying to assassinate his father.

To set up an American imperialist puppet regime.

Because he is a "warmonger" who just likes war.

Just because he's "evil."

Just because he's a fundamentalist Christian.

Because the Israelis and American Jews told him to.

I think that's about all of 'em The last pair aren't getting much play fortunately.

Now, my radical friends, please explain to the rest of us gullible dupes how Bush got both Houses of Congress, plus Tony Blair and Parliament, and the governments of etc., etc., to sign off on these motives. And why not even France, Germany, or Canada have voiced their belief in any of them.

Could they all be PART OF THE KONSPIRACY? HMMMMMMMMM.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 03:11 PM

Amos, thanks for discussing this in a mature and thoughtful manner. We don't agree on all things, but I respect you.

Ron, I think I have answered your questions. I neither immediately accept everything Bush says, nor do I automatically reject what he says. As I stated previously, I believe there were valid reasons to go into Iraq; you are free to disagree (however, I rarely hear people talk about what they would have done to deal with Iraq as an alternative to military action). As for the UN, it is not completely broken. But with respect to Iraq, it showed that it was willing to issue resolutions, but not willing to enforce them. That speaks to a certain level of dysfunction, in my book. Perhaps Bush could have tried harder to lead the UN to be a more effective body, rather than just dismissing it for its failings. But the fact remains that the UN was ineffective when it came to Iraq.

McGrath, you raise a very valid point. In recent decades much of American foreign policy has been based on a principle of "realpolitik": a Cold War-era philosophy that basically says we should create, promote and/or support repressive regimes when we deem that they contribute to our national/strategic interest. Based on this world view, we backed the Shah, the Taliban, Saddam, the Saudis, and others that brutally oppressed their own people. As Malcolm X said in a different (albeit related) context, "the chickens are coming home to roost." Oppressed people will rise up against their oppressors whenever and however they can, and when we are perceived to be aligned with the oppressors, we will suffer the consequences. I believe that this dynamic is central to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and other extremist ideologies, and I hope that our leaders (and the people who elect them) are beginning to recognize this and make some adjustments.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 07:41 AM

Ron, I don't like people dying needleesly either. I don't think you get it. I also don't like attacks on posters rather than debating reponses from the posters.

Temper? Nope, and you win. I want to maintain a higher level and responding to you is causing me to drop down. I will make sure you get the trophy.
Ps; Ghost? What is a Ron Davies?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Carping Cybersnipe
Date: 31 Aug 05 - 07:26 AM

Still waiting for answers to my simple questions. Ron, you want to take a crack at 'em?

Talking about planning, what do you expect to happen if the troops are removed right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:51 PM

Whistle Stop--

I have very few questions for you. I would like to know why you accept Bush's sleight of hand in changing rationales for the Iraq invasion as often as he changes his socks, or perhaps, like a Top 10 radio station. This week, up from number 10 to number 3, it's "Bringing Democracy to Iraq". (Thunderous applause).

I would also disagree that the UN is a dysfunctional agency. In some capacities, it functions quite well. As I've pointed out before, without the UN's willingness to act a honest broker between the various Iraqi factions, Allawi would not have been put in, and there would have been no January election. Therefore, to the extent any democratic progress has been made in Iraq, the UN deserves credit.


Guy who thinks--

"Consider India". Fine. Now, which dictator, member of a minority, ruled India recently and tortured and killed many of its citizens? Also, do you have any idea how many people died in the early years of independence for India and Pakistan. when sectarian feeling similar to Iraq's ran high? As for Ulster, you ought to be able to figure out why the parallel with Iraq does not hold.

So you "hope" better contingency plans are made in the event of civil war. I'm sure you do, since hope is all that's left after the chaos Bush has caused. (Sorry, contrary to the Bushite myth, it's not all foreign agitators.)   I'm sorry to tell you that based on Bush's track record, the prognosis isn't good..   By the way, I've read a bit about the contingency plans--a possible idea, according to the Wall St Journal, is that if the Shiites and Sunnis take Iraq down the drain with them, the US would then go with the Kurdish north. So the US would have access to some Iraqi oil. No more Iraq, but oh well. Still we invaded them for their own good.

John--

So "Bushite" bothers you. Perhaps Bushites should now realize how the word "liberal" has been demonized in US politics. You're free to call me a "Kerryite"--you can even sneer as you say it, if it makes you feel better.

By the way, your arguments have in fact been addressed, ad nauseam. Yet again--the US did not have UN authority to invade Iraq. End of story.

Also, what's the answer to my question of why the US and coalition troops will not be in the crossfire when the civil war starts.?

And it was a nice long rant about "Bushite"--but why didn't you tell me I was wrong about no parallel between Iraq and the 13 colonies, or I was wrong about the parallel with Tito? Etc. If I was wrong.


Ghost (you're no GUEST)--

Temper, temper. It breaks my heart that you didn't like my postings. You don't like heated rhetoric. I don't like people dying needlessly-- (and that is what Bush-- and by extension, his supporters-- has caused). I guess that makes us even.

But you get the last word.   I won't waste my time shadow-boxing ghosts. If you want to continue,, get a handle. Otherwise, congratulations, you win.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 10:41 PM

Could be the shrub is answering Cindy's question in yet another "reason" for his war-mongering: (emphasis is mine)

CORONADO, Calif. (Aug. 30) - President Bush on Tuesday answered growing anti-war protests with a fresh reason for American troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields that he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 10:26 PM

Even John Kerry voted to go to war. He thought there were WMDs too.

And why do the opinions of France, Canada, and Germany automatically trump those of the U.S. Congress, the British Parliament, and the governments of Australia, Japan, Poland, the Phillipines, South Korea, etc., etc. They also thought there were WMDs, which is exactly what Hussein stupidly enough wanted them to think.

Did they all "rush to war"? After more than a dozen U.N. ultimatums?Don't tell me, let me guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 10:23 PM

The Bush administration (by your reconning) is afraid that weapons inspectors will prove no WMDs (and thereby remove the reason for war) -- so the Bush administration rushes to war with the full knowledge that there are no WMDs, but using that as the rationale for the action, and they are putting themselves in that position knowing that they will be PROVEN wrong? ...in front of the whole world?

It's easier to get forgiveness than permission. The weapons inspectors were already well on their way to proving there were no WMD (at least none that were not already sealed by the inspectors themselves). The Bush administration knew this. The fact that the administration's actions in Iraq caused the unsecuring of weapons materials that had already been secured by the inspectors proves that the administration didn't really give a poop about the weapons. All they cared about was control of oil, balance of power, and juicy contracts for their buddies at Haliburton and Kellogg, Brown, and Root.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 10:05 PM

"No one can reasonably accuse the administration of a rush to war."


I guess you didn't hear France, Canada and Germany! I guess you don't think that when people protest, you should listen. I guess you think that the U.S. is the only power that matters.


...the Bush administration, actually believed that there were WMDs (as did most of the world at the time)."


I would also to add that the United Nations did not believe there were WMDs in Iraq. Just who do you consider "...most of the world?"

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 09:14 PM

Somebody's funding the anti-Cindy Mom too.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 08:19 PM

"The reasons for the rush to war? Fear that the arms inspectors were in the process of revealing that the excuses about WMDs and so forth were rubbish; and an election timetable in the USA."

That makes really nice copy for liberal and anti-american Blogs, but it just doesn't track logically.

I can't follow this...

The Bush administration (by your reconning) is afraid that weapons inspectors will prove no WMDs (and thereby remove the reason for war) -- so the Bush administration rushes to war with the full knowledge that there are no WMDs, but using that as the rationale for the action, and they are putting themselves in that position knowing that they will be PROVEN wrong? ...in front of the whole world?

The ONLY way the WMD debacle makes sense is if Bush, and those in the Bush administration, actually believed that there were WMDs (as did most of the world at the time).

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 08:16 PM

Good Grief, we have been closing bases for years. This has not to do with the Iraq war but with good fiscal thinking.
Have you checked as to the real reason for the Pawn of the Decade (Ms. Sheehan) to be visiting Brunswick, Maine?

I so hate to see people being used like this. I am sure the reason she left Texas was due to her finally realizing that more people were opposed to her than with her. Wonder who is financing her trip to Maine. And why?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 07:57 PM

"No one can reasonably accuse the administration of a rush to war."

Outside the USA I think most people would have made that accusation, even at the time. Now the indications appear to be that there's probably a majority of people inside the USA who have come round to the same viewpoint.

The invasion was rushed, and a number of members of the invading forces died because of the rush, thanks to inadequate equipment. The reasons for the rush to war? Fear that the arms inspectors were in the process of revealing that the excuses about WMDs and so forth were rubbish; and an election timetable in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 07:36 PM

Cindy leaves Crawford Texas tomorrow on her tour of America. bush will not meet with Cindy because he is a little man afraid of some truth about his immoral war in Iraq. I learned today that Cindy will be here in Brunswick, Maine for the Navy Air Show with the Blue Angels. Brunswick Naval Air Station is one of the military bases in this country that will be closed to support the collosal fiscal and human disaster of the immoral war in Iraq. I hope she brings this point up on her visit to Brunswick, Maine.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 07:22 PM

Bruce:

Like most people, I say what I see.

I speak from my own point of view and do not expect anyone to receive it as anything other than what I have found.

I don't demand that you accept what i say as fact. It is simply the description of what I find.

If you have found otherwise I am open to hear about it, and have been.

Amos

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 07:05 PM

Amos,

WHere is your call to Saddam to comply? Have you looked at the postings I put in this thread yet, or are you still presuming your OPINION is better than anyone else's?

You are entitled to your own opinion, as I am. If you state something as a FACT, please try to have some support for it- NOT just your own statement that it must be so.


B

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 06:59 PM

No one can reasonably accuse the administration of a rush to war.

I can, and I do, and reasonably as well. It was a rush to war because it was not necessary. It was a rush to war because the facts it was asserted on were false and deceptive. It was a rush to war because the planning was immature. It was a rush to war because the inspectors were beginning to succeed. It was a rush to war because Saddam was a lying braggart. It was a rush to war because the situation called not for war but for a better answer than war, one suited to a moral high ground that Bush had already sold out to commercial development, and an honor for the principles of law among nations that he could not understand.

Amos

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 06:30 PM

It's always possible to claim that war could have been averted with just one more try at a peaceful settlement, just one more diplomatic mission, just one more appeal. Just when war must be resorted to is always a judgment call.

No one can reasonably accuse the administration of a rush to war. The issue (Hussein's presumed WMDs and work on missiles and a nuclear weapon) had been debated for years. The U.N., paralyzed by what now appears to be corruption and lethargy, passed resolution after resolution demanding Hussein's compliance with earlier resolutions, but only the U.S. and a number of its allies had the determination and ability to enforce these measures. That was done militarily.

Had Hussein opened up his military labs and warehouses earlier to the scomplete comprehensive inspections demanded by the U.N, over a period of years, this war would not have begun. Hussein would still be in charge, too, a situation few "innocent Iraqis," not to mention innocent Kuwaitis, Israelis, and, yes, Iranians, would seem to favor.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 05:23 PM

Just a reminder, the time when Saddam was doing his main killing of Kurds, and involved in his main war of aggression, against Iran, was a time when his government was being given support and assistance by the USA. Including Donald Rumsfeld's notorious visit to Saddam.

Of course it was possible to use that as an argument for war, on the grounds "We created this monster, it's our responsibility to get rid of him", and I remember Clinton making a well-received speech to a Labour Party annual conference making that point.

But it's also worth remembering that that was not part of the actual reasons given for going to war by the White House, and that it would not have provided any legal justification for an invasion. (After all, how many other other "monsters" about which the same could be said are sitting in presidential palaces around the world?)

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 05:22 PM

Donuel:

I am genuinely touched by what you write. Thank you, sir.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 04:50 PM

Amos, it is fortunate that your reasoning is now becoming the mainstream view by those who best informed in America.

3 cheers and respect for your perseverence and adherence to your admirable moral compass and imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 04:01 PM

Thanks, WS, for a good exposition.

I believe it is necessary under extreme duress when all imagination and all diplomacy have failed.

I believe in the present case they were forced to failure prematurely by a collision between two psychos, one of whom was Saddam Hussein.

On our side, a better man could have drawn on the resources of the nation to find new ways to deal with the old problem of the intrasigent dictator. Any mother who has to deal with bratty young and does so well could have contributed more than Wolfowitz and Rove with their ancient reptilian mindsets. Deeming other avenues as failed and unworkable, to me, just means they were not searched for seriosuly enough.

That's my view.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 03:06 PM

Well, we're back to calling each other names now, are we? I will not do that to any of you, and I hope you will not do it to me.

For the record, since I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, I don't think I meet anyone's definition of a "Bushite." Gore was not a player by the time we went to war in 2003; Kerry was, and he supported the decision. It is possible to have real objections to how Bush has done his job, and still believe that we needed to take military action in Iraq. That's where I am at, and I have a lot of company.

War is an ugly business, Amos; there's no denying it. The only legitimate justification for war is to prevent something worse. The belief that a lot of us had when we supported going to war was that there was a worse outcome likely if we did not depose Saddam; and since deposing him through either assassination or promotion of an internal uprising was not feasible. Hence, military action was necessary.

I wish our current President had been more artful in how he went about it, in working more closely with prospective allies to form a more broad-based coalition that would have had greater claims to legitimacy (probably outside of UN auspices, as the UN was and is clearly a dysfunctional agency), and in paying more attention to how one fights the type of war that we were obviously getting into, where the real test comes after the initial large-scale assault has captured territory. There is much to criticize about how this was handled, and I am not shy about doing so.

But I continue to believe that the status quo before the war was unacceptable, and military action was necessary. That doesn't make me a "Bushite," an "Osamaite," or any kind of "ite," in fact. It just means that I am a thinking person who believes that war is neither always necessary, nor is it never necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 02:50 PM

Bruce:

I do not feel superior with those I disagree with.

But I sure as hell feel different.

I am afraid I have not read all thelinks you have posted, no.

I suppose I owe you an apology for that.

Have you read the whole "Popular Views of the Bush Administration" thread?

And I also feel I should apologize if I have made you feel insulted. I don't recall what I said that was a direct insult to you, but if so it was not meant personally, and I hope you will consider it withdrawn. My views on the issues have not yet been much changed, aside from agreeing that it is a good thing Hussein is out of power.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 02:16 PM

beardedbruce, which innocents do the people you are describing have the blood of on their hands?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 02:03 PM

Amos,

"Don't you presume to tell me what my standards are, sir. Your remarks are insulting."


I have found yours to presume far more, and be insulting as well. THAT is what you seem ioncapable of understanding. Those who stood up and said the US shoul NOT take action , without calling on Saddam to comply with his obligations, ARE GUILTY of encouraging him to not comply, and have the blood of innocents on their hands. I have never stated I have felt the EXECUTION of the war was well planned- But the reason for being there is valid, and worthwhile.

Did you bother to even read the references I have posted, or is a look at how the anti-Bush people had stifled dissent and prevented ANY call for Saddam to comply, and avoid any bloodshed, beyond your world-view of being a superior being than all those who disagree with you?

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:54 AM

BB:

Unless of course they are Iraqis, being killed by Saddam. Then it is ok, by your standards.

There are differences of opinion as to the best methods to save the most people- and I feel, IMO, you have chosen a path that leads to far more death and destruction than any that Bush has done. I am entitled to my opinion as much as you are to yours, and I resent your statement that those who disagree with you DO believe that violence and slaughter of humans is NOT abhorrent. I have stated my reasons why I feel those who encouraged Saddam NOT to comply with the UN and cease-fire terms have blood on their hands- yet none of you seem to even acknowledge that ohers have the right to disagree with your assessments.

Don't you presume to tell me what my standards are, sir. Your remarks are insulting.

I have not chosen a path, and your assumptions about the amount of destruction my "chosen path" would lead to are speculative.

I do not know who you mean as having encouraged Saddam in any course of action; if you imply that the exercise of open debate led him top believe the United States would not act, and therefore we should have suppressed open debate, than I am sorry for you.

Hussein was a psycho; he deserved the destruction of his power base, and his imprisonment. If his own people had risen up and cast him off, he would have deserved the same treatment. That said, this does not mean that a large scale, unilaterally selected military invasion was a wise course of action. Nor does it mean that in fact freeing Iraq from his clutches was any part of Bush's rationale for invading. At least what he insisted at the time was that he was responding to a lethal threat. He orchestrated this line to be spouted from every orifice of his many-holed PR machine. Remember "the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud" (Condeleeza)??

You are correct that there are opinions; I have argued mine, and you have argued yours. It offends you in some way that I argue mine enegetically, because I believe what I believe, and you assert I am unreasonable in my rhetoric because I don't just throw up my hands and say. "Well, it's all opinion anyway." But I don't think it is all just opinion. Thousands of dead people are in the balance. Bush KNEW perfectly well there would be thousands of deaths and maimings if he chose as he did and proceeded in blatant disregard of that cost. For him it was nothing more than an unfortunate policy call, not to interfere with his vacation time.

Taking catastrophic decisions on the basis of _speculative_ possible catastrophes without determining the facts is bullheaded and, in the present case, murderous. IF it was ACTUALLY the product of the coolheaded reasoning you like to imagine was involved, it woudl seem to me, a viable post-invasion plan would have been in place, and realistic troop assessments and adequate armory would have all been in place.

In addition his repeated attempts to force the association of his miltary adventurism with 9-11 is just plain fraudulent, knee-jerk jingoism, and I think you know that.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:35 AM

Amos, some very good posting on your part and shows you have a good grasp with regard to reality. Seriously!

Which, I might add, is exactly the opposite of Ron Davies grasp.
Mr. Davies, why can't you attack the opposing issues put forth rather than attacking the posters.

Here, allow me to align with you, okay?

You are a Jerk!

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:03 AM

John:

I apologize if you have been named Bushite erroneously by me. And I dislike resorting to labels and categories in place of intelligent discussion. You will, I hope, agree that this offense -- resorting to ad hominem labels and knee-jerk phrases -- is as much a fault of the vehement right as it is of the vehement left. Thanks to spittle-sprayers like Ann Coulter the very word "liberal" took on a sort of overtone of disgust and was made to sound vaguely fecal, as if it were a synonym for treason and leprosy combined, instead of its actual meaning. Sound-bites have been slung much more vigorously and viciously (in my observation) by right-wing Tory types than they have by the "liberal" contingent. Anyway these labels are useless, really. They were only slightly useful to begin with in describiong the classic political spectrum, and there has been so much PR by redefinition of terms and slanging and semantic chopping and glueing that it is not easy to see what they really mean. It is as if the map of the territory is not only not the territory but has itself been cut up and sewed and pasted together until it isn't even a map!

I don't know how often I have used the word Bushite, but I don't intend to use it to mean other than I indicated.

As for poor logic, I think there is more than that enough to go around without piling any further rhetoric on top.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 11:02 AM

"First, the term Bushite is usually used to describe someone who uncritically parrots phrases and policies promulgated by Bush, or his clones."

"What's really intriguing is that Bush voters somehow take exception to being called Bushites."


There is a difference. Many of us who DID vote for Bush did so as the perceived lesser of two evils, and we do NOT agree with all or even most of what his administration supports. Just better than the other choices we were given.


Amos,

"Some people believe that violence and slaughter of humans is abhorrent"

Unless of course they are Iraqis, being killed by Saddam. Then it is ok, by your standards.

There are differences of opinion as to the best methods to save the most people- and I feel, IMO, you have chosen a path that leads to far more death and destruction than any that Bush has done. I am entitled to my opinion as much as you are to yours, and I resent your statement that those who disagree with you DO believe that violence and slaughter of humans is NOT abhorrent. I have stated my reasons why I feel those who encouraged Saddam NOT to comply with the UN and cease-fire terms have blood on their hands- yet none of you seem to even acknowledge that ohers have the right to disagree with your assessments.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 10:17 AM

My point regarding South Korea is simply that U.S. troops have been stationed there for decades with little opposition from the American public. In principle, if troops are required to help maintain security in Iraq, there is a precedent for keeping them there indefinitely.

Whether they, in fact, can help maintain order is a matter of practicality rather than principle.

If civil war does break out, the entire situation will have changed and new hard decisions will have to be made. I only hope that there are more and better contingency plans in Washington and London for that than there were for post-liberation Iraq.

Naturally no two geopolitical situations are identical, but consider India, a stable democracy despite its large number of ethnic and cultural rivalries and even some anti-government terrorism. Closer to home, consider the factions in Ulster, which seem to have put aside violence at long last.

There's more hope for Iraq with coalition troops there, now anyway, than if they were to be pulled out, or if some arbitrary date were set now for their removal.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 10:00 AM

"You are mistaken, badly. First, the term Bushite is usually used to describe someone who uncritically parrots phrases and policies promulgated by Bush, or his clones."

No. He is not mistaken whatsoever. The term "Bushite" is commonly used to refer to anyone with whom those here on the left (those who use the term) disagree with.

It is shorthand for:

I get my information from various well-informed sources, and I am correct in my analysis of the news and current events, but you.....YOU Bushite (said with spittle of disdain flying from the mouth as the word is expleted) ....you listen to limited news sources and do not have the intelligence to be able to analyze those sources and discern truth from lie.

AND it is used as a "last word" arguement, thus:

Here is my arguement. You are a Bushite, therefore, I need not even read your opinion to know that you are wrong.

AND it is used time and time again to argue against those who don't even care for Bush, much less vote for him. This I know. I did not vote for Bush but I am CONSTANTLY being shouted down here as a "bushite".

That someone might finally get SICK of it and strike back with equal venom is not laudable, but it is understandable.

It is weak arguementation (weak point? shout "bushite!!!!!!!" even louder). It is poor logic -- an attempt to weaken an opponent's point by unfair and illogical linkage.

And it is so god damned worn out. If it is meant as humor, get a new joke. As my mother always told me, "It's only funny the first time". If it's meant as derision, get civil for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 02:10 AM

I'd have to disagree with you a bit, TIA, Larry may have learned the theory of the Rove approach, but his mastery of the technique, as I indicated, is less than perfect.

OK Bushites, the next postings we should see from you should be from Iraq. Your cheap pious mouthings about democracy in Iraq should be backed up with action.

We have now reached the stage where, as some posters have already indicated, the question is "who will be the last to die for a mistake?"

Because that's what the Iraq war was, from start to (a long way from the) finish. A far better idea would have been to take Pat Robertson's "Christian?" approach and fund assassination squads on Saddam. Which is in fact what I was advocating at the time of the war.

As we told you then, you Bushites were duped by a classic campaign of demagoguery into suppporting the war. Then you were again duped by a similar campaign--hate and fear being the Bush team's unquestioned strong suits---to vote for your boy in 2004. It's no wonder that if the US were to split on the basis of red and blue states, the red state US would be an immediate basket case.

Guy who thinks-- why don't you try being a guy who reads? If you don't realize there's a huge difference between South Korea----- (with virtually no sectarian strife and powerful incentive to stay united--i.e. North Korea and China)-----and Iraq, you need to do a lot more reading.

There's also no parallel between the 13 American colonies and Iraq. There would have had to be a period when the 13 colonies were ruled by a Catholic faction which burned a lot of Protestants at the stake. Please enlighten us, Bushites, as to when that was.

And as far as civil war, if you don't think Iraq is headed for civil war, consider what happened when the US was forced to postpone consideration of the slavery issue (in order to have the southern states sign on to the Constitution at all.) These issues (in Iraq, federation, oil distribution, and the role of Islam) don't go away when they are not dealt with.

A much more likely parallel to Iraq now, as others have pointed out, would be an attempt to put Yugoslavia together, post Tito. Remember what happened after Tito?

"Why should America's sworn enemies not join forces?" Because, until Bush drove them together, Osama despised Saddam. Use your head and read something other than the NY Post and the Wall St Journal editorial page. Try reading the actual articles in the Journal.

Whistle Stop---your list of reasons for invasion puts "establishing a democratic model for other Middle Eastern states to emulate" last on the list. With reason--it was an afterthought to the apocalyptic rhetoric the Bush regime used to manipulate public approval of an unnecessary war.

Now, for some reason, it's the only thing we hear--this continues an unbroken pattern of Bushite duplicity.

When the civil war starts, exactly why will US and "Coalition" forces not be in the crossfire?.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 01:54 AM

erm... bb, you may have noticed that I don't accuse you or anyone else of being a "Bushite". I prefer "Bushit" :)

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 01:30 AM

I've never called anyone a "Bushite", and I don't really intend to start doing so now. But it seems to me, in terms of strategic and tactical styles, as well as the big picture underlying agendas and family backgrounds, GW Bush has far more in common with Osama than any of the people here in the Mudcat and elsewhere who have criticized Bush have with Osama.

Things in common... being from wealthy, powerful families with connections in the highest places, killing large numbers of innocent civilians to further agendas, terrorizing people to further agendas, ambitions of world domination, using extremist religious doctrine to shape and to further agendas and ambitions, hating democracy. There's probably more, but I think that's enough for a start. They're flip sides of the same coin.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 01:20 AM

Larry K has learned well the Rovian technique...morph a picture of triple-amputee-decorated-Vietnam-veteran Max Cleland into a picture of Osama. It is a barely evolved but digital-age version of simple playground name-calling. Morph all liberals and progressives into Osama acolytes. Well, you're a stinky-poohead.

Now, as a liberal or progressive (but not Democrat), I invite you to take as long as you like, go read any and all of my posts, and please present me with my "point of agreement" with Osama. Note - editing or partial quoting out of context will be swiftly revealed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 05 - 01:08 AM

What's really intriguing is that Bush voters somehow take exception to being called Bushites. Those of us who voted for Kerry, I suspect, could easily live with being called Kerryites. It would be no problem to defend most of Kerry's policies. But Bushites seem to realize that it's really not that easy to defend the wonderful deeds of their boy. Fascinating.

Amos is also right in his use of the term "uncritical" to describe Bushites' (non)-thinking---since indeed to be a Bushite requires suspension of critical faculties. That's fine with them, it seems, since they're perfectly happy to have the necessity of dealing with shades of gray removed--they respond primarily to appeals to hate and fear, in which the Bush team has proven its mastery.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 11:37 PM

BB--

For instance Bushite would certainly describe anybody who voted for Mr. Bush. Your own good self possibly?

Osamite?--somehow it's doubtful that many of us voted for Osama. That doesn't stop Larry K (sorry, Kevin, it is the very person--his fingerprints are all over the posting) from trying to tar the opposition as unpatriotic, to say the least. But Larry, your attempt to do so is singularly inept, even for you--and you set a high standard in such matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 10:58 PM

You are mistaken, badly. First, the term Bushite is usually used to describe someone who uncritically parrots phrases and policies promulgated by Bush, or his clones. An Osamite, accordingly, would be one who pushed ideas like the satanic evil of the West, the justification for eradicating Americans anytime and anyplace, and the moral imperative of purifying Islamic territory of other beliefs and groups.

Not one of these policies has been espoused by any of those who criticize Bush or who refer to those who parrot his PR as Bushites.

This sort of absolute black and white thinking is completely unworkable.

Bruce, there are opinions and there are opinions. Some people believe that violence and slaughter of humans is abhorrent. Others think it is merely a diplomatic tools, right up there with letters of protest and the dispatching of ambassadorial representatives and similar mechanisms of diplomacy. I consider, and I think most thinking people agree with me, that it is the resort used when diplomacy has failed completely.

This was not the case with Hussein's regime. Yes it was frustrating and he was dragging and avoiding.

But that is not the same thing.

To use the machinery of war when you do not need to, in a premeditated and intentional fashion, and to falsify the rationale for it, to lie about it and cover it up -- surely these are the actions of betrayal of trust. Ask the brothers, sisters, parents, wives and children of the un-necessarily dead.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 10:27 PM

Ebbie,

If one can be called a "Bushite" if one has even a single point of agreement with Bush, then it seems fair to call someone with at least one point in common with Osama an "Osamite". As I do not like the term Bushite, I refrain from using either- but it is neither dishonest nor slanderous, as you have never complained about those here calling anyone who disagrees with them "Bushites".

Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan: A Mother's Love
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 10:05 PM

Well, I guess... she says sulkily.