Subject: KISS
By Dennis Miller
All the rhetoric on whether or not we should go to war against Iraq has got my insane little brain spinning like a roulette wheel. I enjoy reading opinions from both sides, but I have detected a hint of confusion from some of you.
As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice someone ever gave me. He told me about the KISS method ("Keep it Simple, Stupid"). So, with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for those who don't quite get it. My hope is that we can simplify things a bit and recognize a few important facts.
Here are 10 things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important issue:
1) President Bush and Saddam Hussein...Hussein is the bad guy.
2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing, keep this in mind. They have Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.
3) If you use Google Search and type in "French Military Victories," your reply will be "Did you mean French Military Defeats?" (Try this, it is interesting.)
4) If your only anti-war slogan is "No war for oil," sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the
education you deserve.
5) Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.
6) Despite what some seem to believe, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He just plays one on TV.
7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "Infidel" and Bin Laden wants you dead, too.
8) If you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but not in the danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the Dell computer dude.
9) We are not trying to liberate them.
10) Whether you are for military action, or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all need to support them without reservation.
I hope this helps.
____________________________________________________
1) President Bush and Saddam Hussein...Hussein is the bad guy.
--If you think every conflict is reducible to good guy vs. bad guy, your brain has obviously failed to develop past the cowboy shows on kids' TV--in which case maybe you can be president.
2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing, keep this in mind. They have Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.
--If you have faith in the Bush Administration to champion freedom, keep this in mind; they have John Ashcroft heading the Justice Department. As for disarmament, don't forget the NRA is working out of the Oval Office now.
3) If you use Google Search and type in "French Military Victories," your reply will be "Did you mean French Military Defeats?"
--If the most intelligent being you can get to support your prejudice is a search-engine robot, keep quiet about it. And if military success is your criterion of who's worth listening to, you should know that Mohammed outscores Jesus by a mile on that one.
4) If your only anti-war slogan is "No war for oil," sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.
--Agreed; any properly educated person can think of dozens of good reasons to oppose this war.
5) Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.
--These are your role models?
6) Despite what some seem to believe, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He just plays one on TV.
--Ditto for Dubya--except he's not as good at it.
7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "Infidel" and Bin Laden wants you dead, too.
--Bin Laden wants Saddam dead, too, as an "Infidel," and he will be most grateful for our assistance in that and in his latest recruiting drive. (1, 2, 3, who are we fightin' for?)
8) If you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but not in the danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the Dell computer dude.
--see #10 below
9) We are not trying to liberate them.
--Again, agreed--Bush is lying about that.
10) Whether you are for military action, or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out.
--If you believe that is the issue in this war, YOU need to quit hanging out with the Dell computer dude.
Each to his own. The latest poll I saw showed more than 70% of Americans supported Bush. If this war ends quickly with minimal casualties, the stock market and the economy will very likely improve and enhance Bush's chances for re-election. Now, this presents an interesting quandry for anti-war activists - do they want the war to end quickly with minimal casualties and help Bush's re-election, or do they want it to go on for a long time with many deaths to hinder Bush's re-election campaign in 2004? Think about it.
I tend to follow the Limbaugh logic...... Dems have put all their eggs in the failure basket. Including war and the economy. Pretty damn decent of the liberals eh, hoping for disaster for their own gain.
If you're getting your political insight from a circus act like Limbaugh, you may want to broaden your horizons a bit. I suggest Willam Kristol of the Weekly Standard, for informed, pragmatic "conservative" commentary.
I hope that the "war" is decided quickly in our favor, and as mercifully as possible, but the Iraqis are a brutal regime, and lets be honest here, there are going to be proud Iraqi soldiers who are going to defend their country, just like our troops would if our country was invaded. It may be a third world cesspool with oil, but it is their homeland.
I wish I had the same crystal ball that Cynic seems to be peering in to in the post above. I'd clean up in the stock market. MfSD.
-- Modified on 3/24/2003 6:06:35 AM
I like Bill Kristol. I prefer Safire. I enjoy Rush. Knock his style if you want. I understand he`s not for everybody but you have to admit, regarding the topic of my previous post he is right on.
anything. Limbaugh is a buffoon, a circus act, and foremost, an entertainer, not an analyst, no military background, no political experience, but a very big mouth.
Limbaugh isn't anywhere near Safire's league, and Kristol(who I have met)is orders of magnitude more intelligent and articulate then both of them. MfSD.
I respectfully disagree. To each his own. I happen to think he is absolutley brilliant. But if you and others don`t think so that`s fine too.
You still didn`t respond to the statement I made in the post though. Any thoughts?
-- Modified on 3/25/2003 4:01:16 PM
--If you think every conflict is reducible to good guy vs. bad guy, your brain has obviously failed to develop past the cowboy shows on kids' TV--in which case maybe you can be president.
Well, I guess we know who you believe the bad guy is. I find the people who are that harsh about the president are the type that would oppose him no matter what he did. Notice they weren't out protesting when Bill Clinton threatened the same war for the same reasons in 1998.
--If you have faith in the Bush Administration to champion freedom, keep this in mind; they have John Ashcroft heading the Justice Department. As for disarmament, don't forget the NRA is working out of the Oval Office now.
I'd like to thank the Democratic National Committee for faxing over this week's talking points. Regardless of whether the people you like politically are in charge, you can't escape the fact that the United States stands for freedom in a way the UN simply can't, not with most of its member namtions run by dictators or unelected monarchs. And honestly, I was a little tired of being lectured on pacifism by China (still mopping up the blood in Tiannanmen Square) and Russia (standing on a pile of smoking bones in Chechnya).
The point is that the UN was given seventeen opportunities to enforce its own resolutions and it failed every time. The League of Nations brought about its own demise that way and, sadly, the UN may have done the same.
6) Despite what some seem to believe, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He just plays one on TV. --Ditto for Dubya--except he's not as good at it.
Roughly 70% of your fellow citizens would disagree with you. Again, I say the venom people spit at the president personally should give you a clue as to their ulterior motives for opposing this war.
In any case, Sheen's character has recently sent the US to war because he believes American power gives us a responsibility to act against tyrants. As Josh recently said to Toby (both characters are Jewish) "If the US had been the world's policeman in the 1930's, you and I would have a lot more relatives."
9) We are not trying to liberate them. --Again, agreed--Bush is lying about that.
Sigh. Okay, I'll leave you alone on the Bush-hating stuff now. I think you're flying those colors high enough for everyone to see on their own.
But for the sake of argument, let's say the talk of liberating Iraqis is just pretext. Let's say the administration dosn't really care that establishing the first Arab democracy on the doorstep of Saudi Arabia and Iran will start to bring down the tyrants all over the Middle East. So what? Who cares? As long as their actions have that effect, and they will, then I don't give a damn. As long as the job gets done.
3) If you use Google Search and type in "French Military Victories," your reply will be "Did you mean French Military Defeats?" (Try this, it is interesting.)
I tried and it didn't work as described.
type in "french military victories" and use the "i'm feeling lucky" button instead of the standard search.
it's a joke, a parody web page created by a canadian student.
I tried it a few says ago (hitting the "I'm feeling lucky" button. It did work, but when I tried to show it to someone later in the week, it wasnt working anymore. In fact, I couldnt find that parody page anywhere. Looks like google delisted it.
it does work. i just came from there. google doesn't "delist" anything. type "french miltary victories" exactly into the search field and hit the 'i'm feeling lucky' button. or follow the link below to find the parody page.
Keep It Simple Stupid is a principle invented by the military, to keep guys from thinking. Not a surprise that this would be used as the basis for a justification of war.
On the contrary, the military wants individuals who can think, not just take orders. I did a 4 year stretch back in the mid 80s and even then, they were looking for a total quality force.
As for Miller, the guy makes me laugh, not that I necessarily agree or diagree with him. One thing is for certain, Bush is waging this war for a number of various reasons, one being the security of the US.
That said, I doubt very much that beating the crap out of a third world tin horn like Hussein and his gang of thieves is going to do much to improve our national security, but the military loves it, it's a great proving ground for new weapons technology. MfSD.
Dear Sedona,
So sorry to hear that racist bastard Dennis Miller is your guiding light.
For this one:
10) Whether you are for military action, or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all need to support them without reservation.
Are you and your imaginary lover Dennis Miller, thinking that Bin Laden and Saddam are coming here, to replace our constitution, and deprive us of the freedom of speech?
And the connection between bin Laden and Saddam is what, exactly? If you know, Sedona, I suggest you tell the proper authorities because they sure as hell can't work it out.
Relax...what ever made you think he's my Guiding Light?
Just passing on an email, that' all..
Sedona
Why do you consider Miller to be racist?
Mr. HootOwl,
For the record, I am white, english/danish, and episcopal. Read the last three monologues of this ass-h, Miller, replace his references to muslims, or latins, with black or jewish. You will see more transparently how racist this bastard is ... somehow he has been muzzled a bit, but I remeber this monkey when he had that HBO program.
My guess is you are not referring to the last 3 points of the post of Dennis Miller but some monologues that are not posted in this thread? True? Do you have a link to these monologues?
Yes, Mr. HootOwl, not from the points presented here.
When Miller started at Saturday Night Live, he was clearly talented, and a decent humnan being. Somehow, on the way to HBO, he changed colors. The last thing we need here these days, is racism to separate us further.
Some of us who have been raised in purely white and upper middle class environment, become blind in what constitutes racist remarks.
I haven't heard these monologues (barely watched him on HBO), so I can't really comment.
11. Be glad that Dennis Miller is now doing stupid routines like this instead of screwing up Monday Night Football. He's much easier to ignore now.
If we cant agree that Saddam Hussein is the bad guy in this fight, we have problems brothers and sisters.
Sadly, there are some people whose absolute hatred of Bush, would have them become defacto supporters of Saddam and his continuation in power. Whether you are liberal or conservative you should be able to agree that Saddam is a cancer on mankind.
The Iraqi women who are being violated in the "rape chambers" or men being tossed feet first into plastic shredding machines, couldnt care less about hanging chads from last election. They just want to live and be free. There will be another election in 2004, we can worry about George Bush then. For now, lets worry about America.
Would any of these liberal crybabies be protesting this rightgeous crusade were Al Gore sitting in the White House? Not likely. Is war justified? What do you think the shredder jockies would say? A resounding shreiking YES as they're consumed. The human rights issue itself justifies removing Saddam. Let's not forget about the $25,000.00 payment to the families of homicide bombers in Israel. Is the war about a link to terrorism? Ask the families of the Australian journalists (non combatants) who became one with the vehicle they were driving yesterday. For Christ's sake, the SOB's can't even treat POW's with dignity. Last I checked, Iraq is signatory to the Geneva convention of 1949. F**k them, f**k them all.
Is this about oil? Absolutely!! Although not mentioned publically, protecting American interests in the Middle East is definitely a driving factor. Personally, I'm all for protecting our interests abroad. Don't get me wrong, I hate war passionately and was praying for a diplomatic solution. This is necessary though and Saddam brought this on himself and his country.He had every chance to avoid war and made the wrong decision. I feel for every coalition soldier who falls. I also feel for Iraqi soldiers and civilians alike who pays the ultimate price for their convictions, however misguided. I also feel for those who fight out of fear of reprisal.
May this end quickly.
-- Modified on 3/23/2003 7:59:32 PM
If Gore were President, we may have found that "diplomatic solution" you desired, and we might not be at war. Bush's coalition building and foreign relations skills are sub par(He couldn't get Turkey, a NATO ally on board to ground stage our most sophisticated tanks for God's sake). When you say "liberal crybabies", don't you really mean American's excercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech?
You've listed a number of reasons here why we are justified in invading a sovereign nation, a number of which I happen to agree with. The problem with this scenario is, the minute we finish off Iraq, we need to invade Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia(they still send money to PLO, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad suicide bomber's families) and a few other countries, if we're going to use the logic laid out here.
You hit the nail squarely on the head when you mentioned oil, it's the lifeblood of this country and Bush wouldn't be in Iraq right now if it wasn't for the fact that the Iraqis are sitting on the second largest known oil reserves on the planet. I'm curious how many of the "alleged" staunch right wingers who posted here actually served in the military like I did...... MfSD.
-- Modified on 3/24/2003 5:37:35 AM
-- Modified on 3/24/2003 5:39:02 AM
Yep.... I`m sure Gore studied the Clinton approach closely in his eight years.
If you get caught doing something and you need to divert attention from it simply fire off a few cruise missles at Iraq and pretend you are punishing them. Then, ignore them and go visit Babs in L.A.
In responding to Maximus' post, he claimed that he wanted a "diplomatic solution" to Iraq, and I said we "may" have gotten one with Gore as President.
You sound as if "war", regime change, and the installation of a government "friendly" to our country was the only option available. Maybe it was, maybe not, but we'll certainly never know now. Particulalry considering that the Bush team had this Iraq plan locked and loaded long before 9-11 took place.
You want to delude yourself, that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, didn't want to finish the job that Bush's father started, go right ahead. But every one of those guys was either an integral part of the first gulf war, or in Rumsfeld's case, had actually met Hussein and done business with him.
We sold the Iraqis the pre cursor elements that they used to manufacture the poison gas that they used to kill 5,000 Kurds, and we sold them helicopters too, that may or may not have been used in those gas attacks. Our story is the Iraqis had expressed a desire to manufacture agricultural pesticides and fertilizer with the chemicals. You'll recall Tim McVeigh used readily available commercial fertilizer(ammonium nitrate)and diesel fuel to manufacture the OK City bomb.
Men of good moral conscience like Cheney and Rumsfeld are going back, atempting to rectify a lingering problem, partly of their making, and doing what they think is right in ousting Hussein and his brutal regime. Half assed comments about a President, two plus years removed from office have no material bearing on this discussion. MfSD.
-- Modified on 3/24/2003 8:20:28 AM
-- Modified on 3/24/2003 8:20:54 AM
You can ignore Clintons inaction if you chose to but I feel it is totally relevent to the situation we find ourselves in these days.
If you want to repeat standard right wing dogma, and blame Clinton for everything under the sun, (the lousy economy, a 6 % national unemployment rate, a ballooning budget deficit, tepid stock market, North Korea, the poor state of our foriegn relations, Bush's fiscally irresponsible tax cuts during a time of war after Clinton left him a 157 billion dollar surplus, etc.) go right ahead. But I can tell you that Bush won't be running for reelection on a platform of blaming the guy who sat in his chair four years before, not if he wants to win another term. He'll run on his strong stance against terrorism, his leadership in Afghan. and Iraq, his tax cuts and his moral fiber.
Now if you're also blaming Clinton solely for us being at war with Iraq today, then I suggest you look to the end of the first gulf war for the real culprit. Bush 1 had twice the number of troops in theater, and a much larger coalition that also picked up most of the cost of Gulf War 1(as opposed to the American tax payer on this one) and needed only give the order to march to Baghdad, and Hussein and his regime would have been finished. Bush 1 chose not to do that, and that in and of itself emboldened Hussein as did Clinton's 1998 response that I mention below.
Clinton mentioned regime change in 1998, and his military response to Hussein's having forced the weapons inspectors out, was a tepid volley of bombs and cruise missiles. But from 1991 to 1998(and up until about a week ago for that matter) Hussein had invaded excatly zero of his neighbors, launched exactly zero weapons of mass desctruction, been responsible for not a single proven terrorist attack by direct or indirect means against Americans, or facilitated or financed terrorist attacks or training, other than paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers(a practice the Saudis still engage in). Hardly a scenario under which one invades a sovereign nation and changes a government, all at American tax payer's expense. MfSD.
-- Modified on 3/24/2003 1:55:16 PM
-- Modified on 3/24/2003 1:56:32 PM
-- Modified on 3/24/2003 1:58:30 PM
If you recall the U.N. authorized the coalition to oust Hussein from Kuwait, not to march to Baghdad. I wish they had. I wish Bush 1 did it anyway. Can you imagine the hell he would have caught from the anti-war protesters if he had. He would have been accused of all sorts of war crimes. He did what the world authorized him to do. Now, Iraq has violated the cease fire agreement and they`re paying the price.
I will stop short of posting my feelings concerning your first paragraph and let this rest. This thread has already branched out to far for my likeing.
-- Modified on 3/24/2003 3:01:58 PM
Can you imagine the hell that Clinton would have received from Congress had he decided to invade Iraq? Do you really think that Newt and the boys would have okayed it?
I could be wrong, but I think Clinton did have approval from congress to do whatever he needed.
1st Marine Reconnaissance Company - 1st Marine Division - United States Marines - Viet Nam 1966 - 1970.
I've been to hell and I'm a conservative!
It seems to me that the diplomacy that you hold so dead and the success of it is tied in directly to how much money the president offers these supposed allies. So what you are saying, in my opinion, is that Gore would have paid them more of our money in exchange for votes. I think not, we saw what Clinton did in 1998, bombing of Iraq with no clear objective, Gore would have continued in the same theme. The last democrat president that had the balls to prosecute a war was Truman. Since then they have all had their eyes on the polls or the intern under their desk. We had eight years of Clinton/Gore and NOTHING was done to abate terrorism against Americans.
I am glad that Bush is going to send Saddam to Allah, is hunting down Bin Laden like the pig sucking dog he is. I'm sorry for people who think this will bring more terror to the US, but putting your head in the sand is for ostriches not a super power! These people want to kill you and either way we will have to face them and kill or be killed. I'll shed no tears for my decision.
BTW, since when does lack military service undermine opinions in this country? Your question assures me that you were not a Marine.
-- Modified on 3/25/2003 10:12:29 AM
How much of the 75 billion dollar supplemental war appropriation request that Bush is sending up to Congress this week, is for "aid" to our middle eastern allies(Jordan, Israel, Egypt, etc.)? Probably a few billion.
So I wouldn't be making too many assumptions about what Gore may or may not have spent. Or what Gore may or may not have done for that matter.
Paying money for votes: the last time I checked, we offered the Turks 26 billion to let us stage ground forces in their country to use against Iraq. The Turkish parliament voted no, another of Bush's diplomatic failures. As a result we don't have our most sophisticated armor(the Abrams Ma2a tank)in theater as a result. And how much "bribe money" did we offer to Cameroon and other countries on the security council for their votes, the nine votes that Bush said he wanted, but never got. And don't lay that jive on me about the French threatening a veto, we're the United States for God's sake, the world's only super power.
I'm not saying that diplomatic efforts would have necessarily worked with Iraq, and perhaps war was necessary. I'm saying that Bush failed to build a "valid" coalition of nations to not only lend military support(not that we need it), but financial support as well. As a result, the American tax payer will be stuck with the bulk of this war bill, as opposed to the nearly 90 % of the first gulf war picked up by our "allies" in that conflict.
I already addressed the military service portion of your query in an earlier post. MfSD.
-- Modified on 3/24/2003 7:52:28 PM
-- Modified on 3/24/2003 7:58:41 PM
-- Modified on 3/24/2003 7:59:55 PM
Last night I head Lanny Davis (no conservative he) lay the blame of diplomatic failure on France and Chirac. "He not only opposed our stand but actively tried to undermine it." Lanny Davis, Fox News March 24, 2003.
Bush put together a 30 nation coalition, in 1991 we had a 33 nation coalition. Other nations will help with the costs, however, I agree that we will carry the majority of the cost. Not unlike 1991, where your information that 90% was picked up by supporting nations in incorrect. Pledges were made but only Japan paid their part.
I totally agree that the main element in diplomacy is American Dollars and that is why I believe our membership in the UN is useless.
As for Turkey, their loss, their economy has been halved and the citizens of Turkey will most likely correct this action by parliament in their next election. It would have been very helpful to have Turkeys help, but we can do the job very well without them.
Cameroon and the other countries I am sure we offered increased foreign aid to are the losers. Ultimately it really wouldn't have mattered, we would still be going it with the help of the nations in the coalition anyway, with or without France's veto.
As I have posted several times in this forum, America is ALWAYS benevolent in victory and will help rebuild Iraq after the war. Sadly, almost all of the nations we have helped have short memories and I have no doubt that Iraq will be the same. There are some exceptions, those nations who clearly remember the tyranny of communism of the recent past, Bulgaria and Poland for example.
Our involvement in Iraq will in the near future stabilize global energy prices and that alone makes it a viable venture. But add to that the inhumanity of the Hussein regime and in my opinion we have, as usual, the moral high ground.
Our military would have already crushed Iraq if it wasn't for our concern for the innocent Iraqi people. Our troops are sacrificing men daily for the safety of the Iraqi people. Carpet bombing those southern cities would have solved us a lot of problems, but those are never America's tactics.
I and it seems approximately 70+% of the American people support Bush in doing the right thing even without UN support. Fortunately for us, he didn't pledge allegiance to the UN, he took his oath seriously to protect the US and its interests.
FYI, I honor opposing opinions and discussion. I do have problems with some current celebrity anti-war leaders when I feel their comments and actions appear to undermine our country and our soldiers on the field of war, for example Michael Moore's traitorous comments at the Academy Awards. It appears we have too many RICH people in this country who loathe America. Their comments are shown on Iraqi TV nightly and that is aiding and abetting the enemy!
BTW, I gave you my veteran status, what's yours? I'm just interested in that I hold all my "Band of Brothers" in the highest of regards, present company notwithstanding.
HooWaa
Dude, wish I had the same crystal ball you seem to be peering in to. You've made so many assumptions here regarding the final outcome of this Iraq scenario, I'm not even going to begin to address them.
Saw the Lanny Davis piece too, ho hum. And you're right, it wasn't 90 % reimbursement on the first gulf war by our allies, it was 95 %. MfSD.
Brilliant refute!
Your reponse to a Liberal Democratic spokesman's contention that the diplomacy you hold so dear was undermined by a French asshole is, "ho hum". Again, brilliant!
Easy to claim verteran status, little harder to come up with service stats and facts.
reasonable people can agree to disagree. But if you think that you're entitled to know what my service record, branch etc. was, you are wrong. Frankly it's irrelevant as far as I can see, as is any further continuation of this discussion. MfSD.
...so is that to say one's opinion is somehow more or less credible or well-reasoned determined by that?
I've pretty well tried to stay out of the majority of these little "discussions" because ultimately I see no one's mind ever being changed by them if they have preconceived opinions to begin with. I'm not a "staunch right-winger" (love the way some guys that toss around these labels) but from what I've read of your many posts, I'm someone who disagrees with you. But I served in the USMC, so where does that fit into the question? Never mind...I don't really want to know, it was just rhetorical.
I am always fascinated by those that are so eager to rush in to war, wrap themselves in our flag, and put our young people at risk, when they themselves never served their country, never wore the uniform. It has nothing to do with credibilty or the validity of one's point of view, in any qualitative sense, merely an observation.
I am tremendously proud of these American kids, out there on the front lines and flying combat aircraft. It's good to know we still produce fine citizens willing to heed the call to duty when called upon.
You poo poo this discussion as "little" when in fact it is fundmental in my opinion, to both our political and constitutional essence, and our obligation as US citizens to participate. Sure you can sit back, removed from it all, or cop a haughty, I'm above it all point of view, but any ignoramus can do that, much less someone with a modicum of intelligence.
Throwing political labels around, that's existed since the dawn of the Republic.
I would submit that you may disagree with me on some issues and agree with me on others, and the point of the discussion isn't necesarily to change minds, but to at least get others thinking about these issues from a different point of view. As for me, I believe I've spent enough intellectual capital on this particular thread. MfSD.
-- Modified on 3/24/2003 6:40:28 PM
-- Modified on 3/24/2003 6:41:45 PM
We do apparently agree on something. I am also proud of the dedication & sacrifices shown by those in all branches of our armed forces, both past & present. I do not believe that one must support the war, or the diplomatic efforts that did or didn't take place in advance of it, to support our troops.
And while you say you agree that military service isn't a litmus test for the validity of one's views, in the same sentence you've implied that those "eager to rush into war, wrap themselves in our flag" likely have never served themselves. By extension of that, together with the inference I drew from your original question on the subject of military service, a person could easily wonder if you don't feel someone who's "been there & done that" would, or should, be against the war. If I'm wrong about that, it won't be for the first time in my life..it's merely an observation.
The throwing around of political labels is another observation. But how long that practice has existed has nothing to do with it being either right, constructive, or conducive to a respectful discussion of opinions.
It wasn't "little" that I drew emphasis to..it was "discussion." This war is tremendously important, with obviously staggering implications, & certainly worthy of views being exchanged. But regardless of dictionary definitions, there is IMO a distinction between discussion, debate, & argument. What has most often transpired on these boards has been debate & argument..those are devisive rather than constructive.
Personally I believe that diplomatic mistakes were made by the US, there were also mistakes made by other nations. I also think that ultimately this war was unavoidable. So while it can be said I support the war, I certainly haven't been eager to see us rush into it.
If I've chosen not to participate these exchanges more frequently is because of the turns that typically take place & has nothing to do with my "sitting back removed from it all with a haughty I'm above it all point of view." Nor is it because I'm an "ignoramus"--thank you very much, but I'll refrain from further response to that.
A final point of agreement...I've also now spent enough time on this thread.
Nothing prevents a murderous conflict from having more than one bad guy, whether it is in Verona or in Iraq. There is great mischief and misleading in your "the."
I do not care about hanging chads either, though I care a great deal about deliberate and cynical disenfranchisement of black Floridians, a "small state" election strategy designed to exploit to the max the most flagrantly undemocratic features of our system, and G.W.B.'s all too convenient recourse to a court stacked with Daddy's appointees.
The image of rape chambers is nicely calculated to boil the blood, just as was the image of Kuwaiti babies evicted from their NICU incubators. We shall see. Perhaps Air Force Academy grads, of both sexes, can be delegated to investigate this matter.
Oh please.
The "small state" election strategy was devised to compensate for the fact that they knew they weren't going to win big states like California and New York, so they had to pick up electoral votes in twos and threes.
The "disenfranchisement of black voters" is a myth that even the Clinton Justice Department rejected. It's been kept alive by Democrats as ammunition for the next election, nothing more.
As for "daddy's" appointees to the Supreme Court, he put exactly two justices on the nine-member court. And one of those, David Souter, turned out to be a closet liberal and votes with the left wing of the court consistently. That's hardly enough to carry out a vast Bush Family conspiracy to steal the presidency.
My, but facts are inconvenient things, aren't they?
"Whether you are liberal or conservative you should be able to agree that Saddam is a cancer on mankind."
Of course he is...as are dozens of others in control of minor third world countries. Are we next supposed to invade those countries too, and dispose of them?
We should also be able to agree, whether liberal or conservative, that Bush has done far more damage to our international standing (when was the last time our only major ally was England?) and to our own legal system (when was the last time a citizen could be disappeared indefinitely without trial or representation on nothing more than the whim of the AG?), than Hussein could -ever- do.
Those ex-allies will be eating crow when the facts are uncovered in Iraq..... for now they can eat shit.
BTW.... deporting or incarcerating someone for visa violations is good enough for me.
If other countries get the point, maybe we wont need to fight anyone else. Maybe a show of resolve might do the work for us elsewhere.
I havent heard too much noise coming out of North Korea since all this started. Maybe he is just taking a breather, but maybe he's seen what we are willing to do and decided he doesnt want any.
Dittos for other (hopefully formerly) terrorist sponsoring states.
Personallly I couldnt care less what France or Germany thinks of the US. If we are right, and have the right to defend ourselves, then what they think is not relevant.
Lots of countries in 1939 decided that it was better to ty to appease Hitler than fight him. Were they right? Churchill stood alone in warning against Hitler. Did that make him wrong? Quite the contrary.
As to the supposed loss of civil liberties, in contrast to previous wars, there has been almost no change in th civil liberties that Americans continue to enjoy. Look back to World War II, there was price controls, rationing, internment camps, censorship boards, etc.
During the Civil War, Lincoln temporarily suspended Habeas Corpus.
To try to make the case that the US has turned into some sort of dictatorship is not only ridiculous when compared to reality, it is even more ridiculous when compared to actions taken in previous wars.
I guess I was wrong. There are some in America who are more interested in defeating George Bush today, than Saddam Hussein. I hope you get a dose of reality.
How many citizens who HAVENT trained in terrorist training camps are being held? I have no sympathy for one who has.
Let the drums roll out...
Let the Trumpets call...
While the people shout...
STrike up the Band!!
Hear the cymbals ring...
callin one and all...
to the martial swing
STRIKE UP THE BAND
There is work to be done, to be done..
There's a war to be won, to be won,
Come on you son of a son of a gun,
Take your stand....
Fall in line, yea bow..
come along let's go...
HEY LEADER, STRIKE UP, THE BAND!!!!
You should check out the penalties for contempt of court. And they didn't start with Bush.
I think the silliest argument I've heard against this war is that because the world is full of brutal dictators we shouldn't act against any of them.