I saw that he thought the Cold War was World War III, but I've never otherwise seen it described as such, so I take issue with that and think he should use better terminology. I mean, if I start referring to the Gulf War I as World War IV (because a lot of the world was in on it in one way or another), people would call me nuts. That's not to say others haven't already called this guy nuts, of course.
I guess I should've said that I can't believe I lived through World War III and didn't even realize it. Didn't Einstein say World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones? But if we've already started it, that's not true. I guess he wasn't so smart after all.
I think that this whole affair is going to have to get like the Vietnam War,with that level of polarization before we can stop these guys. Perhaps more likely is that they will attack Iraq which shares a border with Russia and they will bite off more than they can chew, with say Russia covertly aiding them. As Macbeth says it is hard to stop the momentum of this type of thing. A critical next step is to try to prevent Bush and Karl Rove from continuing for the next 18 months to create a "positive issue environment" through constant tlak of terroism and alerts and wars and threats, say back and forth with N. Korea ,so that Bush can be reelected. This will be tough as the Democrats are so cowardly. If they can win the next election through war,and it doesn't look the can cite any other accomplishments, we will have another 4 years of Bush and continual war as they try to maintain a "positive issue environment". This should be about enough to turn the public around and end this mess, but I hope it doesn't have to go that long. Arguing against this hope for ending the neoconservative's war is that we could start seeing more and more terrorist actions against US citizens, including perhaps suicide bombers in the US and we can only look at Israel to see how that has fanned the flames of militarism.
Sinohero, you talk about how removing despots may cost innocent lives, but if they're left in power even more innocent lives would be lost. What if you had family in Syria or Iran or Lebanon or North Korea or China, for that matter. If some were killed while Bush and his people took out these despotic regimes (despotic in one form or another) in the name of "spreading democracy around the world"... would you feel the same? If your grandparents were innocent victims for the "greater good", would that be OK with you? I can't believe this could be a topic for serious discussion. Think about it. Since when was it up to us to dictate to the world? Manifest Destiny carried us to the Pacific Ocean and the odd group of islands here and there. So we now think we can remake the world to suit our interests? This topic is absurd.
Just after 9/11, President Bush made several speeches indicating we would not accept what happened. He clearly warned that the US would be going after terrorists and nations that harbor terroists. How did the nation, and the world, react to the president? With unanimous support. But now, when it comes to put actions where words once were, over a quarter of America and the majority of the world have relinquished their support. Summary - President Bush warned terrorist nations that we were coming after them, and people loved him for it. Now we are coming after them, and people hate him for it.
MacBeth, Do you feel that we should tolerate terrorists. Isn't Hamas a terrorist? Is Hamas any less deserving of destruction than al Queda?
If you get Syria, you also take out most of the support behind Hamas and Hezbollah. Also releases Lebanon. Syria is my # 1 next target. from world factbook : note: Hafiz al-ASAD died on 10 June 2000; on 20 June 2000, the Ba'th Party nominated Bashar al-ASAD for president and presented his name to the People's Council on 25 June 2000 election results: Bashar al-ASAD elected president; percent of vote - Bashar al-ASAD 97.29% Sound familiar? more : http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sy.html
Man, I am thankful we live in a republic, and the majority rules. Also I am thankful that we have fought all these wars to be free so that Glynch and MacBeth can piss and moan and whine about how terrible war is, yet continue to offer ZERO solutions about countries that support terrorists. Ideology is great, but inefficient. DD
What gets to me is the nonchalant way certain people talk about the casualties of war. It's so easy to spout off numbers when you don't see what those numbers represent. Everyday I look at the Images of war section on MSNBC.com, and it gives you a real perspective when you see the grieving families of our lost soldiers, crying families who's homes where destroyed by bombs, dead civilians, people who've lost limbs, or people in complete grief after they lost most of their family from a wayward bomb or accidental fire. When you actually see this stuff, I don't know how you can't get pissed when people say cliches like "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs." That's the way Saddam thinks. He wants to have power, well he's more than willing to sacrifice some people to keep it. There probably isn't another way to get rid of Saddam, but I take issue with people who count death like it's just another statistic. You can find plenty of eggs here.
Oh we realize it. I didn’t vote for him but I do trust him because I think he’s doing the right thing. Dam right! However if I thought we were doing something unjust I would stand up and let it be known just like your doing now. No its about enough being enough. Its gone on for to long. It’s time for someone to stand up to these dictators that rule by fear and show no compassion for humanity. You’re right he had nothing to do with 9/11 but how long do you think it would have been before Sadam financed or helped with another possibly more horrendous act than 9/11? No, I believe Bush is on the right tract to wipe terrorism of the face of this planet and I’m going to stand behind him every step of the way. It’s good that they feel threatened. They should. Since your going to put everyone that supports this war into one group and label us war lovers I’ll return the favor. Here’s the most popular reasons tree huggers protest the war. The ever popular No blood for oil, Bush’s personal agenda and We(America) want to rule the world. All ignorant and proven not to be true time and time again. Now that the name-calling is over how about a real debate, the validity of this war. Here’s what I don’t understand about all you anti war people. You think everything can be solved by diplomacy. Do you really think Sadam was going to respond to diplomacy? That’s like saying a rabid dog is going to respond to a hand signal. Do you think any of the sanctions that were imposed on Sadam had any effect on the way he conducted his regime? Do you think adding more sanctions would of helped? It wouldn’t of. He sits is his presidential palace and lives like a king while the innocent people of Iraq suffer for his misdeeds. Then he preaches his anti American propaganda to his people and blames us for their suffering. How long are we supposed to sit around with our thumbs up our a$$es and wait for Sadam to do the right thing? How many innocent Iraqi’s have to die under this evil ruler before its ok for someone to stand up to him? He had his chance and he blew it. Now he’s going to pay for it. He is the example. The rest of the evil dictators better stand up and take notice it’s not going to be tolerated anymore. I’m proud of my country, Brittan and all the other countries that are involved in this war for finally taking a stance against this evil MF. I don’t know what kind of people you and your family are but my grandparents would rather die knowing their children and their grandchildren would be growing up without having to live in constant fear of being drug away by gov goon squads and tortured or killed for something they possibly didn’t even do. If I was going to be mad at anyone it would be the government I lived under for being so evil that another country had to come in and force them out. You make me sick. You want to sit in your perfect little world and just ignore people who desperately need your help because you think its none of your business. This reminds me of an article I read one time. This girl accidentally ran into this guy while driving down the road. The very big guy gets out of his car and goes into a rage. He starts to attack the woman so she gats back in her car and drives away. The guy jumps in his car and starts chasing her. She finally comes upon a bridge that is backed up with traffic and she can go no further. She gets out of the car and starts running, only the guy catches her and proceeds to beat on her unmercifully all the while people just sit in their cars and watch. This girl thinking she had no other choice jumps off the bridge to get away from the crazy guy even though she cant swim and is terrified of the water. She drowned. This is a true story and you remind me of those pathetic people that just sat in their car and watched this girl die. If the strong don’t protect the weak, who will?
I like this, I think we should all take this stance everywhere in the world, including within our own borders. Who's with me? I think I'll put this in my sig, until I find something cooler that is.
1) How do you know? 2) Isn't the point. Canda has killed fewer innocents than the U.S. has...Would Canada then have the 'right' to invade and conquer the US if it had the 'might'? Do you really want to set up a world where every nation can point to it's less powerul neighbour, or one in a far away place,claim it to be less 'civilized', and invade? If so, see Africa, 18th-19th Century, etc. It's a mazing what some people will support merely on the premise that we are better than everyone else...and what a novel idea that is for justifyng invading other nations.
We didn't start the war with Iraq? Or, do you mean, that we see 9-11 as the beginnng of a war we didn't start, but was the natural evolution of trying to bring to justice those Arab criminals who perpetuated it: the invasion of any Arab nation we happen to have an issue with irespective of their having anything to do with 9-11? Yeah, we play no part in starting that war as long as we define the 'war' part beginning where we want it to begin, regardless of the reasoning. In that respect, let's invade Mexico...as evidence for why, I cite 9-11 and the war thrust upon us.
Glynch...read it. A few points. 1) I am unsure of that paper, so am unsure of how credible it is...Not saying it isn't, just not sure. 2) I generally have a problem with accusations of group 'glee', etc. as part of political reporting, and that brings me back to 1) 3) If this is on base, it's frighteing, and reminds me of a bunch of school boys finally allowed to play with the toys they have yearned for for years. It does seem to quote a lot of almost-important sources, but I am not entirely convinced yet. 4) People forget about Wilson and Yugoslavia when discussing our right/ability to re-shape the map for the sake of 'peace'.
'Tolerate'( Hamas,etc.) ? no...Sponsor ( Contras, etc.) no. I am just not convinced about the wisdom or justice of holding geographic regions/nations responsible, not to mention the knowledge that our efforts to do so may very well cost the lives of many more civilians than 9-11. I honestly can't comment on the relative eviles of Hamas vs. Al Queda, or their geo-political basis of support. If someone can provide a neutral link to comprehensive information, I would be gratefull. I don't construct opinions for or against something on as limited knowledge as i currently posses about Hamas....sorry, SM, am not dismissing your question, and will get back to you when I know more.
1) You really don't get it re: me and war. I am taking a stance against this war, but have not taken a stance against war in general...that's called objective opposition. Not quite like the kind of objectivity used to call those disagreeing with you 'pissing, whining, and moaning"., but maybe you'll get me. 2) Offering solutions? I said to go after AL Queda...and you don't have to have an alternative to invasion to say invasion is wrong. Just like, were I to meet a man with a severe headache, I don't have to know how to cure his headache to say that decapitation isn't the answer.
Macbeth, The American Prospect is probably the leading Politcal Opinion Magazine of liberalism in the US. It is sort of like the Nation Magazine, but not as left. Robert Reich and others started it in 1990. Robert Reich is listed as Chariman and Cofounder. Generally speaking it can be somewhat dry as they often deal with the details of such issues as social security, budgetting, the health insurance crisis. They were largely supportive of the war in Afghanistan if I remember.
No we didn't start this war with Iraq. Remember 12 years ago that little think we called the gulf war. Stop acting like everyone that supports this war thinks it is because of 9/11. And while were at it there's a huge difference between Mexico and Iraq. If you can’t see that then you’re just a fancy writer with no brain. Tell me if I'm wrong but if you don’t support this war then in fact don't you SUPPORT the killing of innocent men, women and children? This war is a about removing Sadam from power. If you don’t support this war then your saying Sadam should stay in power. Like it or not that’s what your saying. That means you think he should be able to keep on in his killing ways and innocent oppressed people will continue to die everyday because we don’t have the right in your opinion to be having this war. Who are you to say they should continue to suffer? No matter what you believe is the cause of this war you should be supporting it because of what it will do for the Iraqi people. So who's the worst country? The one that stands up to a habitual criminal and holds him accountable for his crimes at its own expense or the one that sits idly buy and allows this kind of injustice to happen even though they are capable of helping? I’m proud were the former.
