Peace Keeper IS THE NEW SINGLE......

[sodascouts]

Everybody always whines that the other side controls the media. Who cares? I know very few people who just swallow what "the media" tells them. Those that do usually aren't too bright.

[tommer]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
So, Tommer, am I to understand you too think the media is controlled by liberals?

i'm trying to hint that you don't have to be anti-liberal to be pro-war.
all these anti-war efforts reminds me of Neville 'Peace in our Time' Chamberlain.

[SmthngOfADreamr]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Joe, so let me get this straight: You think that people who had to run for their lives on Sept. 11 in Manhattan and are now wondering just why we're going after Iraq instead of protecting ourselves better at home and finding Bin Ladin -- you think those people by having these thoughts are engaging in liberal propaganda?

I agree with you Carne. I am one of those people who had to run for their lives on Sept. 11, and honestly I feel that I am open minded enough to see the this from both sides, mostly because I am not sure how I feel myself. Propoganda, either liberal or conservative, has little effect on me. Part of me really feels that the United States has been, and continues to be its own worst enemy with its over-bearing foreign policy and attempts to control foreign politics and economics. That part of me wants to see us get the hell out of Iraq ASAP, because we no reason to stir up trouble. The other part of me really is scared that something like Sept. 11th is going to happen again. It's in my mind every time I have to get on the subway to go to work, and that whether it's irrational or not,this fear has become a part of who I am. This is the other half of me who is in favor of the war, and wants the US to act like its usual overbearing self and go into Iraq and kick Saddam's ass before he kicks ours like Osama did. I agree that we should be hunting bin Laden, but unfortunately, he's not our only enemy. I am sure that I'm not the only New Yorker who is faced with this dichotomy, because a lot of us have so much of our own emotions tied up in the whole ordeal, that it's very hard to choose one single side.

[jwd]

Joe, so let me get this straight: You think that people who had to run for their lives on Sept. 11 in Manhattan and are now wondering just why we're going after Iraq instead of protecting ourselves better at home and finding Bin Ladin -- you think those people by having these thoughts are engaging in liberal propaganda?

I don't remember saying anything like that. But I would say in defense of that.....Afghanistan has been liberated, which was the major network of the al-Qaida. In case you haven't heard the third man in command in al-Qaida, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was apprehended yesterday, a major coup in the fight against terrorism. What makes you think that the war against terrorism has stopped?! And we have not been attacked since 9/11.....what makes you think that our homeland security is not working? Who isn't scared right now?!

As far as Iraq(Hussein) goes, wether he is tied to terrorism or not, and I would tend to believe that he is....Hussein is a bad apple with an even worse track record. He has been in violation of the UN for years. The only reason he is "disarming" now is because the military noose around his neck is tightening.

If anyone's ulterior motives for oil should be questioned it is that of Russia and France...not the US. These countries have huge interests in Iraqi oil.

Would you consider Hollywood to be a liberal counterpart to Rush or any other conservative talk show host?!

That part of me wants to see us get the hell out of Iraq ASAP, because we no reason to stir up trouble.

THAT is exactly what got the world in a hell of a lot of trouble in the middle part of the last century.



Joe

[CarneVaca]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jwd
I don't remember saying anything like that. But I would say in defense of that.....Afghanistan has been liberated, which was the major network of the al-Qaida. In case you haven't heard the third man in command in al-Qaida, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was apprehended yesterday, a major coup in the fight against terrorism.

You are right that you didn't say anything like that. I am merely pointing out that there are a lot of people with some pretty damn good reasons for not wanting to go into a war. Some of them ain't liberal either. So let's keep the discourse at the level of a reasonable intellectual exchange, rather than start throwing around epithets. This is a serious situation. To dismiss people's concerns about a war as mere liberal knee-jerk reaction is insulting.

And by the way, Afghanistan is a mess. We "liberated" Kabul, and that's about it. Its leader was almost assassinated not long ago. Do you really think much has changed in that country in terms of the tribal factions that were at each other's throats before the Taliban took over?

What makes you think that the war against terrorism has stopped?! And we have not been attacked since 9/11.....what makes you think that our homeland security is not working? Who isn't scared right now?!

The "war against terrorism" as such has not stopped. It's just been overshadowed by our mindless administration's insistence on chasing ghosts in Iraq. They distract us with Saddam because they don't want us to think about the real issues: catching Bin Laden and his band of lunatics, truly portecting the homeland and improving the economy. Perhaps you think masking tape is going to save your butt when the next attack comes. I tend to think otherwise.

As far as Iraq(Hussein) goes, wether he is tied to terrorism or not, and I would tend to believe that he is....Hussein is a bad apple with an even worse track record. He has been in violation of the UN for years. The only reason he is "disarming" now is because the military noose around his neck is tightening.

If being in violation of UN regulations is a reason to attack a country, we should attack ourselves. For years, we refused to pay UN dues, for that matter. Lots of countries, including ourselves and Israel, have violated UN regulations.

Would you consider Hollywood to be a liberal counterpart to Rush or any other conservative talk show host?!

I'm not even sure what that means.

THAT is exactly what got the world in a hell of a lot of trouble in the middle part of the last century.

Tommer made a similar point. What you guys seem to neglect is that Germany was a huge power that had made enormous technological advances. How does that compare to Iraq, a country whose soldiers don't even get enough to eat? A country two thirds of which have been under our control for 12 years? Hussein has been in a fishbowl for 12 years. Do you think we're going to catch Saddam? Or do you think the more likely scenario is that he will disappear and we will never set our eyes on him again? And when that happens, what do you think he will be doing? Wouldn't you rather keep him right where we can see him?

[Rainman]

Carnevaca, these are great points.

I always shake my head when people make these comparisons between Hitler/Germany and Saddam/Iraq. Ain't even close. Hitler was (and I hate to admit it) a smart leader with balls and a powerful country and war machine to back him up. Saddam is a worm with a shattered country that can't even feed itself. He's a nasty character, to be sure, and I'd love to see him deposed in a hurry and his country would be better for it. But he's hardly a threat like Hitler. How many countries is he invading? Who, exactly, is he threatening?

And top of all that, we seem to learn nothing from history. War is so rarely a solution. With Hitler, yeah, it was the only choice. With Saddam? We have lots of choices, and the U.N. is still the way to go, IMHO.

As for him defying the U.N., for God's sake, do some homework on the US-backed slaughter in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 80s. You'll find no one has given the U.N. the middle finger like the good ol' U.S.A.! Saddam's an amateur when it comes to breaking U.N. sanctions or telling them to go to hell when it's convenient for his country.

[blinker12]

I, too, believe that comparisons between Hitler and Hussein are unfounded.
There is the genocide angle _ Hussein is trying to exterminate a subset of his country's population, just as Hitler tried to exterminate Jews. However, anyone who believes Bush is even partly motivated to go to war with Iraq in order to liberate the Kurds is naive at best.
If humanitarianism were our true motivation, we would have intervened more forcefully by now in places like Rwanda and the Congo, where genocide has also been occurring. But no _ those countries are in Africa, far from any natural resource (i.e., oil) that we can profit from.

[Karen]

Originally posted by jwd
THAT is exactly what got the world in a hell of a lot of trouble in the middle part of the last century.

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Tommer made a similar point. What you guys seem to neglect is that Germany was a huge power that had made enormous technological advances. How does that compare to Iraq, a country whose soldiers don't even get enough to eat? A country two thirds of which have been under our control for 12 years? Hussein has been in a fishbowl for 12 years. Do you think we're going to catch Saddam? Or do you think the more likely scenario is that he will disappear and we will never set our eyes on him again? And when that happens, what do you think he will be doing? Wouldn't you rather keep him right where we can see him?

I don't think that Joe was referring to Germany when he made this statement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's about Pearl Harbor and the policy that the U.S. had regarding isolationism (Action vs. Inaction).

This thread has taken on a totally different topic. Wouldn't you all agree that this particular debate should have it's own thread in the Chit Chat Forum? It's just not fair to those who want to continue discussing Christopher's "Peacekeeper is the new single...." post. Who wants to start a new thread? Anyone?