I was proud to see that Sean Penn, who was the FIRST prominent American to publicly challenge the Bush Administration's stand on Iraq, was honored with the Best Actor award last night.
Of course, there will be those right wingers who would try to equate Penn's stand on Iraq with that of Jane Fonda, but Penn's actions are fundamentally different from hers:
1) Penn visited Iraq and went public with his views in an attempt to stop the Iraq war BEFORE it happened
2) Penn never compromised in any way any American Service personel during his visit
3) Penn waited until he was back on U.S. soil before fully articulating his position
4) Penn never defended the record of the Iraqi regime, he only questioned what the threat was to the U.S., and what role we should have in overthrowing a sovereign nation in the absence of such a threat.
5) Most of Penn's views on Iraq prior to the war have been proven correct in hindsight.
Penn's stance was the act of courage of a patriot engaging in his constitutional right of dissent, and he did it at significant potential cost to his career. I am pleased that with the winning of the Best Actor Oscar, that he will NOT realize any long term negative consequences for his courage.
This turkey should stick to acting (and badly at that) and keep the hell out of politics.
Like the rest of the Hollywood Glitterari, this joker thinks that his political opinions should be worth more than those of the common man by virtue of some unearned position of supposed power and authority.
If this guy is a patriot, then my dog is an Oscar-winning writer.
Give me a break, another actor looking for more time in the spot light.
Besides, we were right to go to Iraq. We did go to Iraq. We will preempted any threat to America, anytime and anywhere.
BUSH in 2004
Loarthan,
Why don't you go there then?--Seems like you have the right temperment. Mine field sweeping may be right up your alley.
Really now, do you really think you present your view in a persuasive manner?
I say Kudos for Penn. He spoke out whether right or wrong. This is (at least for now) an American right if not a duty!
Why is it that whenever someone posts anything political, no matter how thoughtfuly, intelligently, and benignly it is stated, there is sure to be some venomous, hostile, vitriolic diatribe rant in response.
There were no malicious words or malicious ideas thrown out there, merely an expression of appreciation and admiration for Sean Penn.
You on the other hand, managed to be offensive to sdstud, the acting community, and even your own best friend, your dog!
Please explain to me why it was necessary in your response to sdstud, to attack with such rhetoric and poison? An intelligently worded response would have been so much more acceptable, and given you some measure of credibility.
You do nothing to further your cause by acting so un-like an American is supposed to act.
So, it's Loarthan who's full of "venom"?
MasterZed, you really need to read sdstud's posts. That someone so ill-informed can make such pretensions to authority really demonstrates the continuing strength of the First Amendment, at least on the Internet.
As for Penn's award, which he deserved for his performance (though I haven't seen "Lost in Translation"; Bill Murray might have done better), it's too bad that he marred it by making his moronic political statements, a foolishness that, I was glad to see, Tim Robbins didn't make (he, too, gave a wonderful performance, also very deserving), notwithstanding his equally sterling and idiotic farLeft credentials.
sdstud's intellectual deficiency is that he wants to continue the farLeft propaganda that Bush somehow "lied" about Iraq, notwithstanding worldwide consensus on his continued possession/ failure to prove destruction of WMDs --- where Penn particularly demonstrated his ignorance --- a threat that had to be neutralized before it became "imminent," a word the Administration NEVER used to describe it. Of course, there is Hussein's documented use of such weapons against Iran and the Kurds that people like sdstud want to cast down the memory hole.
As for sdstud's factual assertions, they are every bit as fictional as most of that which comes out of Hollyweird. "First prominent American"?!?!? Puh-lease! Ramsey Clark may be a loon, but he was Attorney General, and there are plenty others that could be named who were just as wrong as Penn.
Penn may be a lot of things as an actor, but as a political observer and analyst, he's still Jeff Spicoli.
I am so sick of sdstud and others injecting the liberal agenda into this board and our lives at every turn.
Yes, I happen to be a conservative, but because of that I am called a neo-con, a radical right-wing fanatic and other lovely terms that just don't apply.
I come here for some relief from the world outside, not to have crap like this dragged in here on a daily basis.
TER should ban political and religious speech on this board for good. Maybe then we could have a bit of peace in a world gone mad.
Just about EVERY other one has been begun by someone spouting RIGHT WING rhetoric that I personally felt the same about as you seem to feel about my own right of free speech.
So tell me again, what did you mean by "we will preempted any attack"? You still have not answered that simple question. It's CERTAINLY not English.
-- Modified on 3/1/2004 12:52:47 PM
>So tell me again, what did you mean by "we will preempted any attack"?
It means he's an idiot, expressed with an eloquence he's unable to demonstrate on purpose. I'll warrant he still doesn't realize that it's gibberish. Anybody remember Archie Bunker?
-- Modified on 3/2/2004 2:51:07 PM
... notice how liberals always head directly to the personal attacks.
loarthan said:
This turkey should stick to acting (and badly at that) and keep the hell out of politics.
Like the rest of the Hollywood Glitterari, this joker thinks that his political opinions should be worth more than those of the common man by virtue of some unearned position of supposed power and authority.
If this guy is a patriot, then my dog is an Oscar-winning writer.
Give me a break, another actor looking for more time in the spot light.
Turkey? Joker? Got any more?
If a conservative slings mud and name-calls it is just political discourse. If a liberal points out a conservatives lies it is just a smear job by the "liberal media".
whenever a liberal chooses to question the direction of this conservative leadership.
In the surreal mindset of our conservative brethren, Fox news is "Fair and Balanced" while the rest of the media is "left wing extremists".
Glad to hear you now understand what the rest of us already know.
Most of the media is liberal and biased toward the left.
Fox news is almost balanced, but sometimes does swing too far right.
As for personal attacks, I was referring to those on each other not to those against Sean Penn.
Whew! For a moment there I thought you (sdstud) and Puck were actually flaming liberals. Good to see you were only kidding around and really are good conservatives.
BTW: To preempt is to prevent. Take a look at Websters. I have provided the link for you already (see the 5th listing). Now, I suppose that also means you have to know what the definition of "is" is? Maybe you can look that up as well.
-- Modified on 3/3/2004 6:05:51 AM
sdstud wasn't questioning the meaning of 'preempt' - rather your use of the past tense of the word in the future tense. Makes as much sense as saying "Bush will stopped terrorist attacks".
I think there may well be something in Websters that covers this.
Maybe you can look that up as well.
In any case, he's too dense to know why he was being ridiculed in the first place. Plus, since voting requires a modicum of literacy, I figure that if Loarthan actually found his way to the voting booth, he'd be as likely to inadvertently vote for Kerry or Nader as to intentionally vote for Bush.
Also, BTW, Loarthan, I'm actually a flaming Libertarian. The problem with the Bush administration is that it's ONLY conservative on social issues. As for fiscal policy, it's the most LIBERAL (Which, I'm sure Webster's has a definition for you - something about profligate-spending) administration in U.S. history.
-- Modified on 3/3/2004 9:58:34 AM
.. of thinking you pulled one over on me.
By the way, a libertarian is simply a liberal with a need to smoke pot and complain about a lack of power.
Join a real party if you have the balls. At least as a democrap you have something to discuss. Can you name the last significant (not minor officials) liberatarian politician that was elected to an office in the US? Didn't think so.
And, BTW, Libertarianism is a philosophy. As such, I vote the candidate who is closest to it from a major party. This usually results in about a 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans. But George Dumbya Bush is the furthest individual from Libertarian philosophy that has come down the pike since Ralph Nader. He combines BOTH the profligate spending of the worst liberals, with the reactionary views of religion in government of the Ayatollahs (only the religion is Fundamentalist Christianity, which to me is barely better than Shiite Islam in it's tolerance toward others). That makes him a total loss. Fortunately, only for the rest of this year, however.
Of course I wouldn't expect you to know that.
Don't worry, GWB will be reelected and you'll have another 4 years to complain about.
I have to sign off now, I'ver reached my quota for suffering fools this month.
Yes, I know there's a Libertarian Party. I agree with their philosophy, but I vote in a way that matters - for a major party candidate who can win. Or in this case, for someone who will defeat Bush, for the sake of the nation.
Another flaming libertarian. Blessed be.
I believe that you two are intelligent enough to recognize a typo or misspelled word now and then. Are we going to start bickering over spelling and sentence composition?
BTW, I want to personally thank the Democratic Party for serving up such a slow high pitch in Kerry, (Most liberal voting record in the Senate) for Bush to hit a home run with this November. It just cracks me up that a guy more liberal than Tom Daschle (who would have loved to be on the ticket, but hung himself post 9/11) is the D man of the hour.
Now I really want to know, if the Republican ad campaigns point out Kerry's voting record and flip flopping on everything from the Iraqi war to Gay Marriage, as a gage to his actual lack of integrity and core values, will you consider that mudslinging?
And, as Kerry has said "Bring it on!"
I am quite comfortable that Bush cannot carry Kerry's jock as a man, nor has he even remotely comparable intellect. As for flip-flopping on issues, that's probably a wash between the two, but frankly, it's not something I care about, because the WORLD changes, so I want someone who's got the flexibility so that their viewpoints can change with it. But as for CORE values, I would agree that Kerry's are far more liberal, and far less based on non-thinking religious dogma than are Bush's. I can certainly live with that.
Bush has also flipped flopped on the issue of personal cocaine and alcohol abuse, let's not forget that.
If they speak truth I won't call it mudslinging. Too late for that, though, as evidenced below:
THE CHARGES: "He's voted to cancel weapons programs like the Stealth bomber, the [M-1] tank, the Apache helicopter, the MX missile...He's voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence community."
--ED GILLESPIE, Republican National Committee chairman, accusing John Kerry of being soft on defense
THE CONTEXT: Kerry did fight the MX, voted to cut funds for missile defense and the B-2 Stealth bomber, and proposed cutting the intelligence budget $300 million a year from 1996 to 2000. But it was the first President Bush who halted production of the MX, and Republicans including Senator John McCain have opposed building more B-2s. On intelligence, Kerry says he wanted to scale back money for expensive spy satellites and put more into human intelligence. Another G.O.P. charge: that Kerry voted 10 times in 1990 against weapons like the F-15, F-16, Patriot missile and M-1 tank. Actually it was only one vote — against an appropriations bill that funded all these weapons. Dick Cheney, then Defense Secretary, also wanted to reduce funding for these weapons.
Typical Karl Rove lies and spin.
I didn't mention anything about defense spending, however, since you have brought it up, can you name one vote where Kerry voted in favor of a defense measure?
I was talking about his overall career Senate ranking, which surprisingly both sides give him THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR honors.
As for his flip-flopping, here is an excerpt from The National Review titled, Kerry vs Kerry!
"Kerry, of course, has struggled with his vote in 2002 to authorize the Iraq war. "We did not empower the president to do regime change," Kerry said of the resolution on Meet the Press last summer. Actually, the Kerry-supported resolution specifically cited regime change as a goal, and Kerry also voted to make regime change U.S. policy in 1998. That's two Kerry votes in favor of regime change, but who's counting? The Massachusetts senator has similar trouble with other prior votes, making him the first candidate in U.S. history to run a presidential campaign against himself."
One other thing, don't you think it a bit strange that he will not allow his military medical records to be released? Especially having requested so much from Bush's National Guard records? Three purple hearts in four months of active duty and yet no medical leave until he asked to be released from the Navy 6 months early? I know plenty of guys who were in the Army who often talked about officers receiving Purple Hearts for cutting themselves shaving. Considering that Max Cleland lost so much and wasn't awarded a Purple Heart, it seems strange that Kerry would want to keep his injuries so secretive. I was a Marine, our officers did not put 'themselves' in for Purple Hearts, the Marines teach that honor is more than just a word. For the record, The Marine Corps has the least percentage of Officer awarded Purple Hearts in the Armed Forces, with the exception of the Coast Guard! But are always the first to hit the dirt and always have officers with them.
Oh, and I suppose the truth about Haiti is that Bush had Aristide kidnapped and taken to Africa, as Kerry's moronic daughter claimed yesterday. I suggest that Kerry, his whelp, Maxine Waters, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and the usual suspects all go to Africa and bring him back and waltz him into Port -Au-Prince and see what happens.
What Gillespie stated was neither lies or spin, it was from the Congressional Record. If Kerry wants to respond he is entitled to, however he's got lots of "splaining to do!" He's a underhand softball right down the middle... Bush goes yard with him!
We've been down this road before, you and I, and I realize the futility much earlier on now. You ignore what you don't like and flat make up things to support your right-wing rhetoric. Enjoy yourself, vote your party line, I'll vote my conscience and we'll see what happens in November.
Denigrate Kerry however you will, the glaring fact remains: he went to Vietnam when he didn't have to. Bush took the coward's way out, and didn't even have the integrity to stand the watches required of him, yet his people (Rove et al) start a smarmy campaign suggesting that he wasn't wounded badly enough in combat.
The American people will judge, and it's my fervent hope that even the Republican party (a liesure service of Halliburton) money and Karl Rove's lying manipulation won't be enough to pull the wool over the electorate's eyes this time.
Consider this: if the states vote exactly the same way as in 2000 with one exception, either Florida or Ohio going to Kerry, Bush loses.
Now you have the last word, and enjoy yourself. I'm out.
And how Terry McAuliffe sued to keep their voices silent. Talk about shameful and smarmy!
Now revealing Kerry's voting record in the Senate is "smarmy'! LOL
Not even one little vote supporting our Armed Forces, you couldn't even come up with one in his whole Senate career.
If we can keep the media from calling the elections early, Florida is Bush Country, actually I don't think Florida will fall for that again.
who couldn't properly read their butterfly ballot, and without disenfranchising thousands of poor voters, Bush loses Florida with ease in 2000. And no doubt, he will lose it by alot more in 2004.
And, BTW, EVERY budget that Kerry ever voted for included a military appropriation. So those are votes FOR the military. As opposed to NEW appropriations for misguided weapons systems that even Republicans chose to kill.
Kerry's record is all the MORE reason that I am proud to support him, and Bush's record is all the more reason that he must go, and soon. Our nation cannot stand 4 more years of Bush. Fortunately, it won't have to.
Enjoy your relocation to France. Bon Voyage!
I'm surprised Bush didn't put in for a Purple Heart for barfing his guts out while binge drinking as a member of the National Guard. Probably because he'd have needed a witness to state that Bush was actually there, and he couldn't find one. Kerry can be proud of his war record and his voting record. It's the record of a thinking man who has nuanced views and is not beholden to anyone in knee-jerk fashion.
Frankly, Bush hasn't demonstrated the strength of character to warrant a job as a municipal sewer inspector, let alone President of the United States. The simple fact that Republicans even voted for him over McCain is clear evidence that they don't give a hoot about character, but simply wanted someone who's easily corruptible in pursuit of their special interests in the position.
So if he cut his finger three times opening his pull tab beer, how would that be?
I know, the guy could fuck a 6 year old while sucking on Bin Laden's dick on worldwide TV and you would have some bullshit Bush did coke in his youth. I'm a vet and you have just begun to hear from us about "Hanoi John"! Stay tuned, the protests will be wide spread and very well attended by those of us he betrayed with his lies.
His war record is very shady, 4 months in country and then released for his third Purple Heart. Well for what, I would like to know the extent of his injuries, since he won't release his medical records, I have no choice but to believe he is ashamed of them!
And for what its worth, "Hanoi John" is the one who has made his VietNam service an issue, everytime he opens his mouth he reminds us of his Veteran Status! It was not brought up the the Republicans, he wants to tout it, he can fucking prove it!
Come on "Hanoi John", show us the scars! Release your Navy service medical records!
Basically, he got minor shrapnel wounds. 2 out of his 3 wounds were treated by being dressed and bandaged and then he was up and walking and didn't miss any duty. The 3rd, to his thigh, was slightly more severe, and he was laid up for a week.
But the severity of Kerry's wounds is NOT an issue. The issue was, Kerry got them from enemy fire, not from opening a beer can. BTW, Kerry was ALSO exposed to Agent Orange, and as a prostate cancer survivor who was so exposed, he automatically qualifies for VA benefits for Agent Orange exposure, but Kerry has never filed for the benefits - See Time Magazine this week for documentation.
Bush never saw enemy fire nor Agent Orange in Texas or Alabama, although, his exams at Yale and Harvard, and the occassional field sobriety test after a DUI stop were certainly the gravest threats he ever had to face.
If their is a sliver of truth in your statement as to his injuries, one has to wonder why he refuses to allow those records to be made public!
I know that is what he told the author of his book, but if it is true, let us see the proof! If it is true, he would release the records, not releasing the records allows him to let his comments in the book stand as some kind of a record to those like you who "want" to and are gullible enough believe in him.
"Hanoi John" will not meet with the same gullibility with the Viet Nam Veteran community and we will be loud as hell about it! Count on it! He is a disgrace to the uniform he once wore and now wants to base his candicacy on!
You leftist have made a big deal about anyone remembering Bush's attendance on the base in Alabama, I want to hear from someone who can attest to Kerry's injuries! NOBODY HAS! And nobody will, they are self proclaimed commendations, shit not even one superior officer has come forth to attest to the PH's!
Most guys who did "serve" in Viet Nam and survived at one time or another dragged a brother out of the line of fire (saved a life) and carried wounded back to safe LZ's limiting their ability to defend themselves. The great majority of them did not receive medals for it. Officers rarely missed an opportunity to self promote, and Kerry is just another of a long list of them!
Your incessant juvenile attacks on Bush are so fucking dumb! I wonder if you had the same comments about Bill Clinton a real (proven) draft dodger or if you voted for Bob Dole a real War Hero?
-- Modified on 3/4/2004 12:21:07 PM
So what the hell was your point?
You can't say with a straight face that Bush has more character than John McCain, can you? In any case, What evidence, other than a willingness to spread false B.S. do YOU have that Kerry didn't actually have his wounds. Of course he has no superior officers who witnessed his wounds, he was the COMMANDING officer of the boat he was on. He DOES, however, have people who were too glad to say that he saved their lives.
Now it IS possible that BUSH got some type of repetitive stress injury from REPEATEDLY opening beer cans during his days as an alcohol abuser, but that's neither here nor there. He CERTAINLY couldn't have gotten any WAR wounds, cowering away from it has he did.
You libelous piece of shit, you make me want to vomit all over you, you chickenshit, throwing out lies about a war hero who saved men's lives in battle. I suppose you were too busy sucking on your mommy's tit to go fight the war yourself. What a fucking pussy you are. Posting shit like this under an alias because you have no guts to even let people know who you are.
Kerry's medical records are his own business, just like yours are. Maybe he got the clap in Nam - it's not my business, nor yours. In any case, he has plenty of medals, and he earned them. Just because you're too much of a coward yourself, and need people like John Kerry to protect your ass, just go shut the hell up, before you nauseate everyone who comes in smelling distance of you.
-- Modified on 3/4/2004 2:48:23 PM
What a sanctimonious asshole you are! You spread all kinds of libelous bullshit about Bush, Cheney and Ashworth and then comeback with your brain numbing sanctimonious bullshit!
If you had served in the military, you would know that some superior officer would have signed off on the PH's! Where are they? Kerry was the commanding officer of 8 seamen, not all that fucking important!
FYI, while as you have already admitted, were sucking your momma's tits, I was serving in the Company D, 75th Regiment, Rangers, U.S. Army on the ground in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia - asshole!
If every fucking minute of Bush's National Guard Record have to be revealed, then it would only be fair to ask Kerry to reveal his! Of course he won't because he is a traitorist asshole who did his best to turn America against returning True Mother Fucking Veterans, most of which wouldn't walk across the street to piss on Kerry if he was on fucking fire!
When the vote comes in from the Military this November, we will see who they think wins the character contest, as for me, Bush wins in a heartbeat over a junior senator/Traitor who can't keep his story straight on his votes on the Iraqi war! What a stupid, sanctimonious fuck you are!
It will certainly make this country a better place. Kerry GOT his decorations. Which means that a superior officer DID sign off on them. That's all I need to know. You chickenshit douchebag. Any SOLDIER who would vote for George W. Bush is not only an imbecile, but a hypocrite. You wouldn't know personal courage if it fucked you up the ass. You'd simply mistake it for your boyfriend.
I'm sure we'll be reading about you on in the Darwin Awards!
"Hanoi John" will be proven a self promoting liar and already proven traitor! Bush will carry not only the current enlisted and officer vote, but most likely 85 -90% of the Vets in this country!
Given a choice between a decisive president and a traitorist junior senator from arguably the most leftist state in the country who can't even stand on his reputation, a reputation of flip flopping more than a dying tuna, the swing vote will landslide him!
For a asswipe like to you who never bothered to serve your country to make any comments on courage is absolutely ludicrous! Probably for the best, a sissy shit like you couldn't hang in the Service. At least you're good for an occasional chuckle!
That's the only possible explanation for your vitriol against him. You actually committed the war crimes he described in Vietnam. No wonder you're so full of anger. He called you out for the scumbag sub-human that you are, and you hate him for it. Too Bad. You really SHOULD do the right thing, assuage your conscience and end it all. Swallow the gun barrell. Come on, you can do it. It's the only way to actually regain the honor that you once had, before you shamed and desecrated the uniform you wore and the flag you fought under. Oh, I get it, you're too scared.
-- Modified on 3/5/2004 11:27:16 AM
And I pledge to you that I will follow you all over this board everytime you continue to do it against anybody else!
And I do hate "Hanoi John" for putting that seed of lie in your little, narrow, fucked up brain.
I am very open-minded. I simply despise hate-mongering bigots like yourself. Feel free to follow. But really, swallowing the gun barrell will feel so much better, if only you could muster the guts to do it. It's the single biggest contribution you could make for humanity.
BTW, assuming that you can't muster the guts to suck the gun barrell, you'll like France. They are arrogant and self-important, but underlying this, they're basically cowards, so you'll fit right in there.
-- Modified on 3/5/2004 11:43:34 AM
Still not got the guts to suck on that gun barrell I see? Too bad, it would certainly improve things around here.
Yeah, let's give some context.
Kerry was against most major defense systems when it most counted, during the Cold War. He favored a nuclear freeze when Reagan was staring down the Soviet Union. He voted to cut intelligence spending when it was needed most, right out of the Liberal playbook that gentlemen don't read one another's mail. And his post hoc explanations have no credibility, since he certainly has done nothing to expand or advocate better HUMINT (a good idea, BTW).
When it was time to stand up against the greatest threat to the world in the latter half of the 20th Century, Kerry was at best an AWOL appeaser, and at worst, simply unwilling to stand up for freedom.
And I fail to see how one vote to gut a lot of defense spending is "lies and spin" in pointing out his lousy record on the military.
Perhaps Kerry was a better man 35 years ago, when he went to Vietnam. But GWB is by far the better man today.
I speak and write English, but I am not familiar with the language you used in your reply. Perhaps you could translate it for me.
You are such a coy bastard sdstud, nice to see you have the liberal touch. Your personal attack on me is typical of the standard liberal tripe we see each week from the left.
It's English. Maybe you are the one with the comprehension problem? Could it be your liberal bias against the current administration that is clouding your ability to comprehend?
As was stated earlier in this posting string, using this forum for political commentary is horse crap. I am sick of liberals foisting their agenda everywhere they can.
Your side lost in 2000, get use to it.
America went to war for good reasons, sorry you don't approve.
Its not a matter of WMDs not existing, its a matter of not being found yet.
Rant all you want, but the current administration is in power and there is nothing you can do about it until the election.
As for the election of 2004, let's just see what happens, shall we.
-- Modified on 3/1/2004 1:00:13 PM
Amen to that, Loarthan!
No one is a patriot but you. No one is entitled to an opinion unless it agrees with yours. No one may question the actions of the government. No one may express sympathy for those you've decided deserve extermination. No one may ask that we examine our nation's behavior and culpability for shaping the world we deal with today.
Does that about cover it?
Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, I am just getting sick of having liberal cram theirs into every corner of the world.
Sean Penn may be a good actor, but his politics and methods are questionable at best and treason at worst.
No one would have paid attention to his trip if he were thee or me.
The fact is, this is a favorite, and particularly nauseating ploy of the the reactionary right, and it is one that Bush and Cheney and Ashcroft have been using throughout their time in office, whenever they have felt that the criticism of their policies was hitting too close to home
We don't live in Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, or under some Moslem Fundamentalist regime (although, at times it appears that we presently live under a Christian fundamentalist regime). We have something known as the 1st Amendment which guarantees us as Americans the right to exercise dissent with the policies of the administration. And more power to someone like Sean Penn, who IS able to marshall media access for his viewpoints. One of the beautiful things about this country, Loarthan, is that even if you or even a majority of others don't like my views, or Sean Penn's views, you have no right to shut them down, as they are granted fundamental legal protection by the 1st Amendment. You can challenge them, or ignore them, but you cannot shut them down.
And if you don't like that, Loarthan, why not go live in a totalitarian regime, where the tolerance for other viewpoints matches your own.
>Sean Penn may be a good actor, but his politics and methods are >questionable at best and treason at worst.
Hmmm. I would say exactly the same thing about GWB, Cheyney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and the rest. They have crammed their beliefs down the throats of millions worldwide - fortunately many don't say anything about it, being dead now, so you aren't subjected to their whining.
These are opinions you're objecting to. I suggest you don't read them.
I'm not American, I'm British and we are also heavily involved in the situation in Iraq. I have to say I agree with what you say. I love the US but I'm dismayed by the 'you're either with us or against us' attitude that has gained ground in the last couple of years. Speaking out in the present climate takes a lot of courage and whether or not you agree with Sean Penn I think you have to acknowledge he is a principled and courageous man.
I had a long talk yesterday with a friend whose childhood schoolfriend died in the war. He supported the war but now feels bad that his friend was sent there and died under false pretences (ie WMD, imminent threat to the US/UK).
Thinking the war may not have been the right thing to do certainly does not equal supporting regime which existed previously.
A very simplistic view...I guess it's always easiest to do absolutely nothing.
We had no business doing anything in Iraq that the Iraqis themselves wouldn't do on their own.
...as if the Iraqis had the power to do anything on their own.
Someone recently asked on the LA Board what happened to so many of the interesting posters. Well, I'll tell you what happened to me- I've posted for about 5 years using an alias other than this one. I finally got so sick of a few people trying to use this forum to inflict their political OPINIONS on the rest of us, that I just quit bothering to log-in.
There are plenty of political sites on the internet where you can reinforce each other's opinions about how brilliant and how right you are. This site is dedicated to another purpose. And while some of you may welcome this constant attempt to politicize this site, you should be aware that you've driven-off many others that don't wish to get a daily does of your version of reality (we talk too, but now we have to use back-channels).
Please people, this site used to be interesting and the people here had worthwhile insights as to the nature of this activity. More importantly EVERYONE WAS MADE TO FEEL WELCOME. Do you realize how offensive this constant drone of your politics is to some people? I can go for days without checking in on TER, then when I do, it's the same old shit again, nothing has changed.
About a dozen people can be counted on to use everything that they see, read, or experience during the course of the day to justify another thread on their personal political views. You can always find people who will agree with you, but think of all the people you drive-off this board in the process. Please... give it a rest people.
-- Modified on 3/1/2004 10:58:55 AM
It's exactly the type of response I would have expected, and is symptomatic of what I'm talking about. You can't think beyond your own desire to see your words on the internet.
I didn't say what my politics were, I never have and never will. You ASSUMED certain things because I made a post about not wanting to see this board politicized. When you assumed my politics were different than yours (whether they are or not), your response was basically, don't let the door hit you on the way out. That is the source of the divisiveness.
Your dismissive response to my concerns for the effect this is having on TER is exactly the type of attitude that is making this board unwelcoming to a lot of people, and pulling down the quality of the discourse in the process.
I can't even remember a political thread on this board for the first three years I was a member of TER, now it's been hijacked by a small number of vocal people intent on dominating the discussion and a day doesn't go by when there isn't some sort political commentary.
For a lot of people the purpose of TER is to leave all of those issues behind. That's why we review service providers rather than political candidates for every congressional race. If that subject doesn't interest you, then perhaps it is you that should find another board.
-- Modified on 3/1/2004 1:14:43 PM
which happened to be political. If you have no desire to engage in political discussions, then you are free not take part, or to leave entirely. It's your right, and I would not begrudge it of you. Just as it is MY right to bring up a political topic on this GENERAL DISCUSSION forum.
I strongly dispute your assessment that these threads are divisive. Perhaps there are strong disagreements among the participants, but disagreement need not be divisive. Dialogue is a necessary aspect of reaching agreement.
-- Modified on 3/1/2004 1:02:50 PM
The Oscar was given to Sean Penn for his terrific acting in Mystic River, NOT for his political beliefs. Indeed, I think it's to the credit of the Academy that they honored Penn with the Oscar despite the fact that many undoubtedly disagreed with his political stance. So let's be correct about this - the Oscars honored Penn as an actor, NOT as an American hero and patriot. Whether or not Penn is a hero or a patriot is open to conjecture. Many will agree - many won't, but I think all will agree (or should) that he's a great actor.
...just to read through at times. Although I don't shy away from taking the opportunity to offer a countering view on these political threads from time to time I understand some may have no interest in political debate in a forum such as this. The obvious course of action is just to avoid reading through posts that address politics. I'm not aware of anyone holding a gun to your head insisting that you read through what you may choose to view as political drivel.
There are any number of topics that are presented here that are perhaps of little or no interest to one person or another. Some of what is presented here is just plain frivilous and silly. Some can be downright insulting and crass. In a thread a little lower on this board a poster, apparently in jest, thought it was worthwhile to hold up O.J. as a man to be admired.
The National Board is open to a wide range of topics. Some have more interest and relevance to people of your viewpoint, some are of greater interest to those who think political debate is never more important than it is today given the high stakes of the upcoming election when the American electorate is perhaps as polarized as it was back in the late 60's early 70's. Yes the political debate can deteriorate into nothing more than mudslinging at times, but then politics in this country is simply not pretty much of the time.
Carrie of London, a woman whom many would agree is a beautiful, intelligent, much sought after provider made a post to this thread, and a thoughtful post I might add. So even some of the women have an interest in the political debate and understand its relevance to our lives without being threatened with some "imagined" loss of the relevance and worth of these discussion boards.
Partake of what interests you here and skip over the rest. Spend more time on the regional boards where the discussion tends to be more "on topic" with respect to the activities we engage in, in this community.
Hmm, I wrestle whether to post political comments here for the very reasons you mention. However, I have tentatively decided to post on these topics because there is such a diverse cross-section of perspectives from people who have all crossed a similar threshold of rule-breaking - meaning we have some moxie in life. The very reason I think this is better than other boards is that they tend to have a much narrower range of perspective. But I do wonder if it's appropriate.
Check the number of reviews on the ones that are tethered the tightest to their leashes.
Sorry boys, I know I have to deal with you because it's an election year, but reading the same stuff that is on other political boards just rehashed to better reflect your true sense of character (I would never insinuate that you would plagarize) is getting not bothersome but, {ahem} mind numbing. Don't worry, I always vote, and will guarranteed cancel one of your votes, lol, but please, some of us here are trying to make some money for that slice of quietude away from all of this madness. If you ain't buying, stop touching the fruit. Move along little doggies. Some of us have bills to pay. Go ahead flame away. I have my fire retardent black bustier on, and the day just started.
-- Modified on 3/1/2004 3:53:25 PM
I find smart, thoughtful women extremely sexy. And I am MUCH more likely to contact someone for a date who's thinking I admire. So tell me, do YOU ever visit San Diego?
The main reason that I first contacted Nicole of SoCal was that I found her posted viewpoints to be stimulating. Although she is certainly even more stimulating in person, no doubt about that!
-- Modified on 3/1/2004 1:44:16 PM
Next time I make a beeline for the border I will pull over to PM you dear. You know you must make Em.V. very jealous, as he is obviously missing out and you are my near future.
Disclaimer:
No animals or illegal substances were abused in providing this post. I promise to drive the speed limit when we meet...LOL....I'll give you something really extraordinary to write about. I love to pamper things that start with the letter "P", and help you momentarily forget about the other things that start with "P" as in politics. Forgive me, its raining, and I am full of mischief today. LOOK OUT!
(.)(.)
This is one exchange that I will be winning without opposition. LOL!
I'm not done with you yet. I have my ways.
Get well soon. You'll need your rest. [Evil smile]
Today, the beverage of choice is Scarlet O'Hara Vodka on the rocks. Be afraid, very afraid. [Evil twitch of glee] Your days and nights are lonely, but numbered. [Thunder]
###OMG I am way to good at this.###
And its not Wallmart, its Walmart
Come on Im curious, what is a Ramen?? Is that west coast lingo for idiot?
You are not done with me?? I never even let you start Regardless, Im afraid! Very afraid!
NISSIN, Top Ramen, Oodles of Noodles, Cooks in 3 minutes, Net wt. (85g) Total fat 8g, 900mg sodium, 25g of carbs, 4g of protein. 190 calories.
Basically its a fatty salty fried cake of noodles that the 99 cent store claims to count as nutrition, but I beg to differ. This consumate dietary fiasco has been around since 1970, and keeps me truckin. Well its not racing fuel, but it does the trick to fool my stomach into thinking it was actually getting a tuna albacore melt on rye.
As far as typos, the more I type badly, the faster TER gets a spellcheck, and oh, maybe a political board.
I am getting warmed up baby. Look out.
Life is not going to be the same as you know it.
Thank you for telling me what Ramen is, all you had to say was Oodles of Noodles. Why you have to get all fancy on my undeucated ass
Don't say life is not going to stay the same. Thats too drastic and it scares me
Don't worry about the political board, I will not be posting much on this board once I get better and have to get back to business as usual Until then its fun. I read other boards as well but only on this board can we talk about Iraq and Garter Belts at the same time
Countdown...
When, where, how.
Tattoo me into your calendar, pens are forbidden. We're in too deep.
I can't spell remember? I have to take responsibility for all of my clever posts at one time or another.
Yes I am a provider in LA. I served many years in the military in the after math of the first gulf war.
My only advice is to those who opposed the war to go live in these countries see for yourself the suffering and genocide that is caused by Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Lauden and many more like them.
Then tell me it is not our place to interfere.
Until you see for yourself your opinion mean shit to someone like me who actually cares. Yes Though we do not live there it affects us and our every day living. Saddam should have been taken out 12 years ago I for one we have a president with the balls to stand up to the stupid asses and say this problem is going to be taken care of now not wait till it gets much worse.
Look out, my sister has spoken. Dang, I love it. I bet she looks just like Angelina Jolie with a Beretta. You go girl! Show them whose boss! Can I watch? Provider with attitude. Nice!!
who me_could not be,
Thank you for your service! Choosing the soldier's life is the most selfless act to ones nation and society!
I don't agree with you on "until you see for yourself part."
Yes you have seen the suffering with your own eyes and no douby your heart goes out to them. Other people who have not been on the ground have compassion for them as well.
You say in 91 we should have gone in and taken him out which is fine because he was a horrible tyrant, supported, financed, supplied with WMD's by the US until then. When he gassed women and children the US gov't not only overlooked it but continued to give him money and support.
Do you know why soldiers had to fight the 91 Gulf War?? What very few people know is that our Commander In Chief at the time, Bush Sr. send ambassador Glassby to Iraq to assure Saddam that if he invades Kuwait the US would not intervene on behalf of Kuwait. Thats right, the US govt from the highest levels assured Saddam we would not interfere if he invaded Kuwait. Why would we tell him its ok to invade Kuwait and then the very second he does invade, we start preparing for war??
There is more to gov't policy than meets the eye. Every soldier serves with honor and courage, that doesn't mean the people who make the decision to start wars are also honorable and courageous people.
Why do you think Saddam was chosen this time?? We stupid asses don't think the problem will take care of itself, we want to do it the right way. Kennedy in 63 could have nuked Cuba and Moscow when there was a real imminent danger. But he did it the smard and eventually Reagan defeated the Soviets without firing one single shot.
There is a right and wrong way of doing things. Just because Bush sends in troops to Iraq doesn't mean he has balls. Any commander can send troops anywhere. The question is was it the right thing to do and was it really for the right reasons. All of us debate that as a society, and thats what the soldiers die to protect.
To pay your respects to such a fine veteran you could at least give her some DATY for Christ's sake.
Sdstud,
It reveals that Bush signed off on the order to go to war in March of 02. War was agreed upon and to be had at any cost.
Im surprised it didn't take 15 years for that piece of information. Most people don't know this and those who know this will never open their mouths about it. Before the 91 war, US Ambassador April Glassby told Saddam that the US would not intervene if he decided to invade Kuwait. We knew he was amassing forces on the border so Glassby goes over there and reassured Saddam that Bush Sr would not intervene should Saddam take any action against Kuwait.
Saddam the idiot fall for it, I mean after all the US and Saddam were best of friends at the time so why would a friend lie. Sure enough the day he moved in, all the cronies got on TV, decried Saddam, and acted shocked, appalled, and surprised.
HMMMMNNNNNN why would Glassby tell Saddam the US would not intervene if he invaded Kuwait and then the very moment he invades Bush Sr. starts preparing for war??
Like father like son!!
has anyone seen The Fog of War directed by Errol Morris? It won the Oscar for best feature length documentary last night. I found the movie quite interesting and at times confusing, because I was born significantly later than when most of the film's events happened. I came away feeling like McNamara was/is a coward who isn't willing to own up to his actions.
On another tangent - What's up with my generation? Time and time and time again, I am the youngest patron in the theater if the movie is the least bit serious, foreign, or educational. I'm late twenties, so I'm really not even very young anymore. Don't young people know there's more to life than Budweiser and the American Pie trilogy?
There was a better one that wasn't even nominated --- Shorty, about someone with Downs.
This award, for the second year in a row, simply demonstrates the far-left tilt of the Hollyweird elite. Hope those of you who are members here aren't too offended by that.
I plan on seeing it soon because whatever one's views, listening
to McNamara is always educational and enlightening.
I won't comment on Vietnam but I did see him on C-SPAN
discussing the Cuban missile crisis. The guy is and was
brilliant. The thinking, strateigic and otherwise, that
was done at the time is absolutely fascinating.
fr
should be shown in EVERY US high school. Excellent movie.
People try to put them down...
your generation baby...
sorry guys could not resist
I didn't see Fog of War, but want to. I lived through it.
As for your generation -- I think it's a broader issue. In my view, the country has gotten intellectually and morally lazy. I see less and less emphasis on excellence, on taking responsibility, on people being curious about the world around them, and more and more emphasis on self-indulgence and selfishness. Good for you for taking things seriously!
Because you lived through it. My mom, who is 57, really enjoyed it. And yes, I think people have gotten extremely intellectually, morally AND physically lazy in this country. Apathy runs rampant as well.
BTW Turkana, I appreciated your email. I really did mean to respond, but my email is deleted after only a few days. When you have a spare moment, could you please send me a blank note so I can have your email address? I'd like to respond. Thanks again [email protected].
EVERYONE becomes more selfish when people try to steal their cheese.
IW was talking about her generation. However, our society as a whole has been affected as Turkana stated it. The younger generations simply have known less of the things that earlier generations grew up with (i.e., struggle, personal responsibility, social structure, time away from constant media saturation, etc.), so apathy, cynicism, detatchment are more relative to their mindset, and this is reflected in both the low turnout for voting and in the lack of activism by people now in their 20's.
When I think back to the 60's and 70's, and to how young people were viewed then, at least they were trying to change something for what they perceived to be better. However, as has been stated many times, children live what they learn and learn what they live, so if modern younger generations are apathetic, it is to older generations that we must turn for the reasons why.
There is a new book out today (I think) by Zbigniew Brzezinski entitled, The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. He's been on PBS a couple of times promoting the book.
The premise of the book, as I understand it, is not whether WMD's existed or whether Bush lied or even whether we should have gone to war with Iraq, but rather, now that the Cold War is over, how should America exercise its role and power in the world? His perspective is that there are many forces at play that require increasing global cooperation and that the central moral yardstick to America's actions is our ability to coalesce a real coalition of support. We cannot afford in this environment to be seen as a hot-headed and arbitrary bully, which is the unfortunate consequence of our Iraq policy.
No one grieves Hussein's fall. I'd shoot him myself. But I do grieve the fall of our perceived moral standing in the world. If we are generally percieved by most advanced countries - cultures with whom we share much - as having no moral backing and as being dangerous, then we face serious problems. The world of the 21st century is not one in which any country can dictate to the rest of the world. Which is how we are perceived.
Brzezinski is absolutely right. Its not what you do its how you do it. Kennedy in 63 went to De Gaulle and offered to show him pics of the nukes the Soviets had deployed to Cuba. De Gaulle, the president of France refused to even look at the pics stating Kennedy's word was all he needed. The world was on the brink of a nuclear world war and Kennedy commanded so much respect that De Gaulle didn't even want to look at the satellite pics. That is the level of respect this country commanded after ww2.
Does anyone think modern day politicians could restore America to that level of respect?? Bush sure the hell can't. In the end we came out stronger for not retaliating and the Soviets were defeated without firing a single shot. The logical thing to do would have been to nuke Cuba and Moscow but Kennedy didn't want to start ww3 and realize we could win by leveraging our trust and respect around the world. In the end the Soviets looked like fools and we came out on top. Of course it helps to have a person in the White House who has an IQ higher than room temperature.
There is an honorable and smart way of doing things and a wrong way. We are now the most hated and feared country in the world not because so much due to policies but due to the arrogance of the people in charge of those policies. Its sad!!
emeraldvodka,
While I usually find merit to your posts, I must dispute this one. See my post in response to wmblake, above.
The problem with your argument is that I believe you're confusing agreement over the problem with agreement over the method to solve it. There was, re: Iraq, no dispute over whether Hussein had WMDs. The UN agreed; Democrats agreed; even France and Germany agreed (probably because they had sold Saddam the technology; Osirik was a French nuclear reactor). The dispute was over whether we were finally going to deal with the threat in an effective manner.
Your conclusion over the Missile Crisis is correct, but your premise is not. We came out on top and without having to fire a shot because of our overwhelming superiority and the real threat of massive retaliation. It is doubtful that such threats are credible in today's geopolitical reality, or have any impact whatsoever on terrorists who might secure and use WMDs. Moreover, lest we forget, Kruschev vowed that his nation would never be humiliated like that again, and the outcome of the missile crisis was the fueling of an arms race for another twenty-five years. It resulted neither in lowering tensions, or in reducing Soviet expansionism, merely in reducing adventurism.
In the end, respect is nice, and desirable if achievable. But fear works.
Its pleasant to receive a response artuculating an understanding of policy, which is the fundamental basis for understanding the future direction of any nation.
Let me just state why I never believed Iraq was a national seccurity threat. I also didn't believe for one second that Clinton bombed the aspirin factory in 98 based on intelligence. And to this day no piece of intelligence has come out unequovically stating there was any proof at all of chemical weapons production in that Sudanese factory. Please don't take my response as a diversion since yours is a very intelligent post. I know you will disagree with me on this but the following facts are just too mind boggling for me when it comes to Iraq, and the reason why I don't believe Saddam was a threat at all. Please do not see them as liberal rants, since you know from my posts I tend to be conservative on a lot of issues. These are facts Im stating. Though I do respect your disagreement
1. The report used by Powel at the UN turns out to be a 12 year old report written mostly by a college student.
2. Rove says in March of 02 that we shouldn't unveil a new marketing campaign until labor day. Now if this is a matter of national security why wait at all. From the statement its clear it was more about political timing rather than national security.
3. Rumsfeld say he knows exactly where the WMD's are. At the time he said it inspectors were on the ground. If that statement was based on solid intelligence why not immediately turn that intelligence over to the inspectors on the ground and expose the hidden WMD, since he knew exactly where they were. Its one thing to say we know he has them but he knew exactly where they are. If you know exactly where the murder weapon is why not tell the authorities and expose the murderer??
4. Wolfowitz first says we settled on WMD for bureaucratic reasons then at a security conference in SE Asia a reporter kept questioning him as to why the US wants to go after Iraq instead of N. Korea first. Wolfowitz said "because Iraq was swimming in a sea of oil." That statement was removed within 2 hours of being posted from most websites. Now why would those words come out of asst. Defense secretary's mouth?? I couldn't believe it when I read that.
5. Cheney in his 01 energy task force papers is found to have maps of Iraqi oil fields and the names of future suitors for the developments for those fields. How could Cheney be thinking of future suitors back in 01 when Saddam was in power. This one totally blew me away.
6. Perle specifically said in an interview before the war in the UK that even if no WMD's exist we were going to go in and take him out. This statement was also removed within hours from websites that posted it.
7. The claim of buying uranium from Nigeria was proven to be completely false way before the war, yet it was used.
8. No intelligence existed that Saddam had ties with Bin Laden yet people kept repeating it.
9. Office of special plans set up by Rumsfeld put civilians in charge of interpreting intelligence. All the CIA intelligence was going through the office of special plans and being outright distorted or being highly exaggerated by them and then passed on Bush.
10. Bush Sr in 91 send Ambassador Glassby to Iraq to assure Saddam that we would not intervene on behalf of Kuwait if Saddam invaded the Kuwait. Why would a sitting president send an ambassador to a reassure Saddam we would not intervene and immediately after he did we start preparing for war. We knew he had chemical weapons and he had used them against his own people. Why would we reassure him knowing he could do the same to the Kuwaitis or launch those chemical weapons anywhere in the Middle East. It just doesn't pass even the most basic smell test. There were always alterior motives IMHO.
The whole history involving our relations with Saddam and the above statements by admin officials simply doesn't allow me to believe anything they say about our reasons for invading Iraq. I just don't believe the war in Iraq was based on a serious policy of national security just as I don't believe the democrats have any forward looking policy other than bashing Bush. Just my .02 cents though
This adminsitration, as well as it's apologists has no use for measured and reasonable dissent on this issue. If you disagree, and question the actions of our "Great" President George Dumbya Bush, you are, by definition, an extremist, and/or a traitor. Surely you are aware of this by now?
I guess where we disagree is about the question of the Iraqi threat. I don't disagree that Iraq was not presently an "imminent" threat, but I think you'll agree that those who criticize the Administration for characterizing it as such are misrepresenting the argument by use of a straw man; the Administration never said the threat was "imminent." That is why the doctrine of preemption is so controversial. Presumably, even Moe Howard Dean would agree that we can respond militarily to "imminent" threats. Here, the question was should we deal with a potential threat before it became "imminent," one which refused to demonstrate that it had eschewed the manufacture and stockpiling of WMDs, in a world where they might easily be conveyed to terrorist cells.
And I don't take your reference to the Night of Bombed Aspirin to be a diversion; that was plainly a case of military action taken by Clinton to divert attention from the Paula Jones deposition.
About your points, I deal with them seriatim:
1. Hadn't ever heard or seen that. Source? Besides, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference. I wrote some pretty good stuff in college, myself, particularly since I focused on national security policy to a much greater degree than I can today.
2. Rove's comment was consistent with the lack of imminence of the threat. Why wait? Because we could, and it was necessary to make the diplomatic efforts which Blair requested, to marshall the necessary military forces, and to build political support at home. I don't find Rove's comments sinister, or inappropriate.
3. I'm not sure I understand this point. He knows now? Or he claims to have known then? Besides, I think the practice of entering the back while inspectors were entering the front (delayed by regime officials) is fairly well-documented.
4. I'm wondering whether this comment wasn't a flippant response to inane and repeated questions. Besides, John Podhoretz points out the compelling distinctions in his new book, i.e., because North Korea has nuclear bombs and dealing with that regime would be a bloodbath, and a regional disaster. Iraq was an appropriate target first because it was more easily (relatively) dealt with. Besides, I think you'll agree with me that most singing this song were simply typical lefties who never want to address the here and now.
5. I remember hearing the explanation for this, and it is entirely innocent. What you refer to was simply a map of existing oil fields (wouldn't you be more worried if we didn't have it?) and PAST contractors. This is a typical red herring from the far Left. What are you suggesting? That we shouldn't have been planning for contingencies in light of the preexisting (since 1998) policy of regime change?
6. There is nothing sinister about such a statement. Regime change in Iraq has been American policy, congressionally-approved, since 1998.
7. One piece of bad intelligence does not indict the entire Administration. Plus, all those who want to cite this as evidence that Saddam was not seeking nuclear capability ignore the Osirik reacter, bombed by the Israelis in 1981, and other credible reports (there's a book out called "Under the Baghdad Sun," about Saddam's nuclear program; haven't read it, but details program).
8. I'm not sure I care, but there was intelligence about one meeting in Prague with Muhammed Atta. Even if there weren't, their ideological identity made concerns over making common cause reasonable (remember the old adage: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?).
9. I'm not sure what difference the personnel makes. And I'm not sure what intelligence your talking about. Your later point concedes that Saddam had and used WMDs. Regime was and has been our policy. What difference does the latest intelligence make, other than as relates to tactical battlefield decisions?
10. I'm not sure of the relevance of this point, or of the accuracy of this assertion.
Bottom line is, whether or not any or all of this is true, and whether you believe the Administration or not, I think the most fundamental question is whether Iraq is a better place for the removal of Saddam, and whether his potential for making mischief in the region is destroyed, are good things, making our mission worthwhile. I think the answer to both questions is "Yes," and hence, I dismiss most of the criticisms as carping.
And why is it that those who so despise the Adminstration's use of military might to accomplish our goals here were so silent about our Balkans adventure? Few could reasonably argue that any vital American interests were at issue there, and the feet of clay of the Europeans on the issue is hardly justification for American involvement. Again, this isn't a diversion; it's a call for consistency.
This is one of the few intelligent comments I've seen from someone who I presume (perhaps wrongly) opposes the Administration's foreign policy. It's too bad that the Democrat presidential contenders and their apologists lack similar dignity in debating such important issues.
I would dispute Brzezinski's concern over "global cooperation and that the central moral yardstick to America's actions is our ability to coalesce a real coalition of support," whether the United States is "seen as a hot-headed and arbitrary bully," and whether this "is the unfortunate consequence of our Iraq policy."
The problem with your analysis is that it presumes that those who would see us as such are people of good will who share our goals and aspirations. They frequently are not. Others --- I think particularly of the French --- possess a national inferiority complex with delusions of past grandeur. Take, for instance, the UN Security Council. Of its five permanent members, only three (the U.S., Russia, and China) are unarguably worthy of their role there today. France certainly does not belong there, and the British only perhaps (sorry Tony Blair; you're a great ally, but not as consequential as the Empire); Japan and Germany may, in fact, have more legitimate claims to that status. It reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945, not 2004.
Moreover, I would dispute anyone who would premise our actions pursuing regime change in Iraq as "arbitrary or hotheaded," as they have been American policy (congressionally passed) since at least 1998.
As it happens, I do business in India and travel there a couple of times a year and pick up some international papers throughout the year. It's my impression that generally the tone of these publications regards America's actions in Iraq as verging on being illegal. There can be no doubt that we have taken a significant hit in our credibility in the eyes of the world, making it harder to act the next time. I just think there were alternatives and the time to take them - of course, hindsight is 20-20, but even at the time, I didn't think we had done all we could have to gain greater support - your points about other countries' agendas notwithstanding. Economic self interest will not always sway diplomacy, when the stakes are clear and compelling enough.
You are right in that the Soviets were a defined and measurable enemy whereas the present day threat of terrorism is isolated and fragmentd, though its ideological roots are in the Middle East.
The problem I see is a fundamental conflict of interest for the US in the region. The balance of powers and capacity to counter and even exceed military strength created an environment where imperialistic military expansion was no longer feasible for the Soviets since we could counter it immediately. Hence the problem of geopolitical expansion by creating puppet regimes that would support communism and hence involve the US in regionl conflicts since we would see that as our best option to prevent the spread of communism. Each policy by the US could have clarity since we were not dependant on the Soviets.
In the Middle East lies the key to global energy supplies. Hence our policy in the region has been based entirely on preserving stability that would secure the flow of oil, not long term political stability which arises from a free society.
The entire premise of the Marshall plan was that a free, prosperous, and open society will not allow for another Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito. In the Middle East we actually financed, supported, and gave political cover to exactly the type of characters that were responsible for WW2. The first regime change that put the Shah in the region was precisely to have a friendly oil supplier.
The entire world is aware of our involvement with those despots so when we decide to drastically alter our foreign policy in the region that affects the stability of the entire world people are going to take issue with our intentions and real motives. We had no involvement with the Soviets so there was no reason to question our motives.
We don't need the approval of anyone to protect our security however it just wasn't credible to believe that Saddam grave and gathering threat Blair and Bush were making him out to be. The inspections had destroyed over 95% of the stockpiles so the world is thinking well why start a war and risk destabilizing a region when stronger inspections could work.
If Bush had worked on overthrowing Saddam by arming the opposition and carried out the plan that Clinton so cowardly abandoned in 96 it would have seemed more credible. War just didn't seem necessary to remove this man who literally had no army left. When Saddam was defeated within weaks in 91, its just hard to believe that after sanctions, inspections, and no fly zones he was all the sudden an even bigger danger in 02. To me its just not believable.
To this day there isn't a sigle document that has come out indicating this Admin spend countless hours on post-construction and developing a comprehensive policy for the entire region. The thought it was going to be a piece of cake. It's not that easy. If Bush had developed something similar to the Marshall Plan that lays out an overall policy then its different, but there is nothing on the table.
Just MHO If you disagree I certainly respect that
I agree with most of your points, up until you get to the credibility issue. I'm not yet persuaded that Saddam wasn't such a threat, and that he wasn't still manufacturing and stockpiling WMDs, and I'm not sure it makes a difference. The point should be that the carping critics behave as though we knew they didn't exist, depending upon the short attention spans of most to forget that there was worldwide consensus on the issue. And I think the point on inspections is that there was no guarantee that they would work. Like me, you're probably old enough to remember Lucy with the football and Charlie Brown's repeated efforts to kick it. Opponents of the Administration's policy were never willing to say when enough is enough.
The point of the danger posed by Saddam is not that he was comparable to the Soviets --- which you don't assert --- but rather the potential that he would utilize the resources of al Qaeda to deliver whatever WMDs he could squirrel away on American targets. We learned on 9/11 what a few dedicated men could do. What if the twenty had been carrying vials of some souped-up Ebola (see Tom Clancy's Executive Orders)?
I guess one point (among many 
) would be that I was persuaded a long time ago that we should get rid of Saddam. Probably one of the few points that I would agree with Bill Clinton on. Too many opponents of the Administration's policy (and you do not appear to be among them) don't accept this basic premise, and attach all manner of evil motives to it.
Should we have a comprehensive policy? Sure. Problem is, I'm not sure one is possible in such a diverse region, with problems as intractable as those presented in Israel. And most of the BushHaters on this board are offering virtually nothing. So whatever the criticisms you have of current policy, show me where those offered by Administration critics, especially John Kerry, are any better. I doubt that you can, and perhaps you wouldn't even try.
I do know that we have solved one problem in the Middle East (so much for the leftie assertion that "war never solved anything"). To be sure, the jury's still out on whether we've created more problems, but it seems to me that any we've created will be tiny in comparison to the one we've solved. And that's a balance that we should favor.
And don't be so humble. Your opinion is intelligently and civilly expressed. You are the opposite of the man who was eulogized as a man of great humility, who had good reason to be humble.
What is interesting to note is the reversals from last years Oscar telecast. Last year no mention of our Soldiers preparing to invade Iraq ... this year, Billy Crystal made a point of recoginizing them.
Last year, we were bored with Michael Moore's diatribe ... this year very little worth mentioning of politics was included.
Alex Baldwin, Tim Robbins, Susan Saradon, etc. did not bore us with their personal opinions of American politics and behaved in a very professional manner. However, Penn did have to put in a jab about WMD and his foreknowledge of their absence, which resulted in a very minimal erruption of applause and highlighted his professional immaturity.
Could it be that Hollywood has felt the pressure from its customers? Since above even politics, Hollywood is all about money I have wondered why they continued to accept some of their headliners out spoken voice in disucssions where the country is so devided. It really has made no sense to me. I know I do my best not to break into political or religious discussions with my customers, it is a no win situation in business.
With this weekends huge success of Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion, and with Lord of the Rings nearing or exceeding the 1 Billion in revenue mark, I think Hollywood is feeling the pressure of those of us who really don't care to hear "actors" opinions on politics and maybe turning to those features which do not include the vociferous left of their industry. If they want to have a political voice, maybe they should give up acting and run for office like Fred Thompson did.
Great movies like Mystic River unfortunately will not be seen by the numbers who are lining up for The Passion or Lord of the Rings and maybe it is because many people are sick of Sean Penn, Tim Robbins etal's diatribes against our elected leaders, mabe not. Even though Penn and Robbins were rewarded for exceptional performances, the movie was not rewarded widely by audience attendance and that may plague these two for a while.
One thing that I would remind sdstud of is that Penn did not meet with approval of the Iraqi people on his visit to Iraq, he spent much of his time with Saddam's inner circle. I recall he went there to be a "Human Shield" as did many others, but like the others left the country before hostilities began. One main reason was that the Iraqi people overwhelmingly wanted the US to force regime change, this is widely documented.
I would also remind you that when Penn returned he complained that he was being avoided by Hollywood, even taking out a full page ad in the NY TImes complaining about it. The truth is he had two movies come out in 2003, one great one and one real yawner (21 Grams), hardly was he banned from his chosen profession. Penn is a fine actor as is Johnny Depp, but I hardly think their opinions on anything from the weather to politics are any more important that any other American's.
Bribite, I'm pleasantly surprised by such a measured and reasonable response from you on this issue.
The fact is, Saddam was a despot, and everyone knows that. The issue, fundamentally, is whether it was the job of the American Military, or even the job of international institutions such as the U.N. to change the regime in Iraq, at the cost of many hundreds of brave young American Lives (as well as thousands more serious injuries). I would contend that the ONLY purpose that would justify such a high cost to US, is if American lives on American soil were threatened. The Bush Administration clearly felt the need to make such a case prior to the war, even though they obviously intended to change the regime even absent such an imminent threat. Penn did not think so, and he went to Iraq to determine for himself if such a view was appropriate.
As for the full page ad in the Times that Penn took out, it was mostly to explain his rationale for the trip to Iraq, and what he observed there, not to decry the fact that some folks in Hollywood were distancing themselves from him, although I will grant you that might have been a secondary motive of his.
And, yes, his opinion is worth no more than that of any other ordinary American, with a few caveats: He, unlike me, was able to marshall resources and gain access to things that neither you nor I could have. And he frankly had more gumption in going the extra mile to fully form his own opinion and then to express it publicly, than did the average American.
Funny how he was granted even more access than the UN Weapon inspector's? Could it be that Saddam (not a dumb man) thought that maybe he could use this "leftist, actor/activist" as a dupe? For his own propaganda?
Look, I think Penn is sincere in his beliefs, I just don't remember electing him or anyone I elected appointing him to check things out of us or the U.S.!
What I don't understand is since you believe that Bush was hellbent on invading Iraq, was going in for other reasons, and has been misleading the American people throughout this war -- Why wouldn't a tyrant like Bush just go ahead and plant the WMD to find and everything would be just hunky dorie? Could it be that based on the information (not privy to Sean Penn) available to the President and that a smoking gun would most probably have just been fired at the US just might have had some bearing on his decision!
I wonder why Penn, Robbins, Sarandon, Baldwin etc, were so silent in regards to our involvement in Bosnia or Haiti? They were silent and I believe they were silent because they had "their guy" in the White House! I can respect a guy like Dennis Kucinich who has been against all US military involvement, even if I disagree with him, but this Hollywood club of ultra-leftists definitely pick their battles based on who is resident in the White House!
Penn was an idiot for going there, he accomplished nothing and to use one of his own arguments, he could have funded a teacher at an underprivileged school for a year on what he spent on that trip!
You are wrong about Penn's attitude towards Saddam, sheesh, he accepted the mans hospitality while he was there! When he wondered out amongst the people, he was escorted by Saddam's people! If he wasn't getting the same feedback that the other "human shields" were, just maybe his association with Saddam has a little to do with that! Penn's not too popular in Iraq now, I'd like to see him make a return trip post-Saddam and see how he is welcomed!
Penn's a good actor, as a social commentator or political analyst he is a good actor, nothing more.
The UN Inspectors got access to stuff without advanced notice. Of course, Penn saw a skewed and biased view of Iraq, as presented by Saddam's regime. But, as a sentient being, he could use that and compare it to the ALSO biased view that we Americans were being given by the American leadership, and draw his own conclusions. Of course Penn accepted Sadaam's hospitality while he was there. That was necessary in order to actually go there. By looking at a pair of opposing, but biased views, one hopes to come closer to understanding what's true somewhere in between.
Penn never was interested in doing what was best for Iraq, he was interested in doing what was best for America, and to try to prevent an American unilateral invasion in the name of we citizens. The opinions of the Iraqi citizenry are only more relevant in that calculus now, then they were then, because WE made it so by invading. The fact is, he was not successful in turning public opinion against a U.S. invation of Iraq. For that to happen took the events to play out and the rest of us to discover the actual quagmire that transpired. But to have tried was a noble, if eventually unsuccessful effort on Penn's part.
And, the degree of culpability that would be required to actually plant WMDs is beyond even what I believe that the Bush administration is capable of. I don't view Bush as nearly as malevolant as I view him as incompetent and just plain unready for the job he holds. Cheney, otoh, I'm not so sure about, but something that criminal would need to be signed off at the very top, and that act is even something that I would put past Bush.
As for Haiti, there are probably 50 years worth of culpable American administrations of both parties responsible for the fiasco that is Haiti. And as for Bosnia, I believe that we did the right thing in Bosnia, as we acted part of NATO, according to our obligations under the terms of the NATO alliance.
I avoid these things like the plague for several reasons.
One of which is that there is not a single case I know of where any person had their views changed, regardless of the volume of words or the board space used. The reasoning for this is very simple...those who post are already of a certain mindset, regardless of where their own views lie in the political spectrum.
It's also a rarity that certain people post their views once & leave it at that. Instead they feel compelled to reply to anyone who doesn't agree with them, but usually merely saying the same thing with different words.
Another reason is that it seems almost inevitable that discussion evolves into argument, which in turn evolves into someone telling someone else to F-off in so many words.
I have my own views, but don't consider them any more righteous than those of anyone else. IMO the same can't be said of some
others.
We can choose to politicize damn near anything...but is it really necessary to do so because the choice exists? Does it really serve a purpose other than allowing someone to vent?
It was suggested by some people a while back that a political discussion board was needed. It seems that need has passed...it exists right here & now under the name of General Discussion, & little room is left for anything else.
Now I expect that someone will fire back at me as they have others, but I'll tell you now that while your'e welcome to do so, I won't be reading it. I'm one of those who says his piece one time & move on.
How does any discussion make for "little room is left for anything else"? One of the best things about the web is that it is limitless.
I also noted that for someone who "avoid these things like the plague for several reasons" you seem to be pretty up on the dialog.
Just in case you revisit your post!
To throw a cream pie! Then lick it all off. And charge them for it. Dang, that should at least buy me an acre!
The wise staff at TER will set aside a board for politics so that it can disappear from this board. The political discussion gets to be distracting most times and seems to draw in a lot of people whose general (read, non-political!!) posts I normally enjoy reading. Politics has a place in all of our lives, all of use love our respective country and want to see it become better, whether that is liberal better or conservative better or moderate better. It is just difficult to see intelligent people rip each other over such small, insignificant differences - there are people loose out in the world who will kill any of us in an instant simply for being who we are. I expect argumentative, irrational conduct and statements from an occasional idiot, but not from many of the people who I see regularly post here.