For all the Bush-bashers

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
On behalf of the Iraqi citizens I thank you for not being the one to make the decisions! Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have been saved from being slaughtered and starved because people don't think like you. Meanwhile, organizations are putting billions of dollars in aid together for the countries who aren't in imminent danger from their very own leader.

I'll let the Iraqi citizens speak for themselves, though I doubt we'll every let them express such feelings at the polls because we won't like what they think of our "life-saving" efforts.

If, hypothetically speaking, it were possible to save hundreds of thousands of Iraqis or tens of millions of Africans with the same amount of money, I know which one I'd choose. Not that we needed to spend the resources we did to help stem the effects of sanctions. We imposed sanctions that did nothing to weaken Saddam, and may well have strenghtened him. This wasn't even Bush Jr.'s fault.

 

[Dan]

How many times have we spoken in the past 5 years? Maybe 5 or 6? How many times since March of this year? Maybe twice? So how do you have the first clue where my stance was pertaining the Iraqi people before or after the occupation? All you know is what I've typed on these very message boards.

Riiiiiiiight, so the things you put on the boards are not your opinions at all? I'm only allowed to take things that you have directly spoken to me as your opinions or beliefs?

So, honestly, before the war, you felt really sorry for the people of Iraq? Right after 9/11 happened, rather than say "I say we just nuke the entire middle east" you said "yeah, this is horrible, but what about those people in Iraq, huh?"

But, anyway, by that rationale, how are you so sure what our government's reasons for the war are? How many times have you spoken with Bush and his cabinet in the past year?

Please tell me you don't seriously believe that's solely what freedom of speech is all about? It would be pointless, except for speaking out against government?

Never used the word "solely", but what's the point of saying people should be happy to have the freedom of speech in one breath, then condemning them for using that freedom in the next?

My point is that, at least on this board, those of us who are opposed to the war are utilizing freedom of speech more than those who are supporting it.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Dan

My point is that, at least on this board, those of us who are opposed to the war are utilizing freedom of speech more than those who are supporting it.

Look, I don't think anyone asked me nor did I ask myself what I felt for the Iraqi people the day before September 11th. I was too busy trying to raise a child and put food on the table. What were you doing the day before? I don't think you thought of anything having to do with world politics either.

However, your statement that only those opposing the war are supporting free speech is wrong. Anyone, anywhere in this country who opens their mouths or types on a keyboard or otherwise voices an opinion of any kind is partaking in free speech.

No one questions that right- all I said was that there is a reason people in this country speak out against their leaders instead of leaving for a better country. There is no better country.

We are not perfect, never will be. But to just continuously demean President Bush and those who were in favor of this conflict without at least admitting that there's the possibility that you aren't being objective is rhetoric. It's not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Almost every argument that I have seen about why we should not enter this war has wound up being a finger pointing session towards President Bush and how stupid and what a liar and the like. The hard fact for those who oppose the war to accept is that President Bush didn't act alone why is he taking all the blame. Why haven't I heard one word against Hillary Clinton- she voted for the war. Or Tony Blair? He also committed his troops to the fight.

So no, the day before September 11th my thoughts weren't about Iraqi babies. They were about how to keep the liberals from taking the food off my plate and giving it to those who don't deserve it. My thoughts were on my sister getting a job and her own apartment. Just as I'm sure your thoughts were on how to pass your next test, not how to remove the sanctions killing Iraqi babies!

If you don't believe that apathy runs both ways in this country, I suggest you look at the lamentable voting statistics in this country.

 

[jimnyc]

I'll let the Iraqi citizens speak for themselves, though I doubt we'll every let them express such feelings at the polls because we won't like what they think of our "life-saving" efforts.

They are speaking for themselves, by being alive!

Riiiiiiiight, so the things you put on the boards are not your opinions at all? I'm only allowed to take things that you have directly spoken to me as your opinions or beliefs?

Your confused, I CLEARLY said all you know is what I wrote on these boards. How does that equate to me saying that only what I "speak" is my opinions?

So, honestly, before the war, you felt really sorry for the people of Iraq? Right after 9/11 happened, rather than say "I say we just nuke the entire middle east" you said "yeah, this is horrible, but what about those people in Iraq, huh?"

I wasn't concerned too awfully much with Iraq or Afghanistan right after 9/11, I was concerned for my families welfare and those who were in NYC on that day. And once it was determined that Al Qaeda was responsible I'm sure I made plenty of knee jerk reactions.

And what were you busy saying right around these times on those very boards? Please don't make me repeat potentially embarassing words. You see, Dan, the difference between you and I is that I am man enough to stand by my words and prior mistakes. I have no qualms about bringing up what people said out of anger, or in jest, if you don't.

But, anyway, by that rationale, how are you so sure what our government's reasons for the war are? How many times have you spoken with Bush and his cabinet in the past year?

Because Bush and his cabinet have spoken to the press countless times in the past year, and their exact words were either printed or replayed in the media. Were my words somehow played back to you? Can you not see the difference? That analogy was horrible.

Never used the word "solely", but what's the point of saying people should be happy to have the freedom of speech in one breath, then condemning them for using that freedom in the next?

Contrary to your liberal studies in college, freedom of speech pertains to MUCH more than speaking out against the government. Besides, you say "what's the point of saying people should be happy to have the freedom of speech in one breath, then condemning them for using that freedom in the next?" Where did Moi condemn anyone?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Moi
Look, I don't think anyone asked me nor did I ask myself what I felt for the Iraqi people the day before September 11th. I was too busy trying to raise a child and put food on the table. What were you doing the day before? I don't think you thought of anything having to do with world politics either.

However, your statement that only those opposing the war are supporting free speech is wrong. Anyone, anywhere in this country who opens their mouths or types on a keyboard or otherwise voices an opinion of any kind is partaking in free speech.

No one questions that right- all I said was that there is a reason people in this country speak out against their leaders instead of leaving for a better country. There is no better country.

We are not perfect, never will be. But to just continuously demean President Bush and those who were in favor of this conflict without at least admitting that there's the possibility that you aren't being objective is rhetoric. It's not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Almost every argument that I have seen about why we should not enter this war has wound up being a finger pointing session towards President Bush and how stupid and what a liar and the like. The hard fact for those who oppose the war to accept is that President Bush didn't act alone why is he taking all the blame. Why haven't I heard one word against Hillary Clinton- she voted for the war. Or Tony Blair? He also committed his troops to the fight.

So no, the day before September 11th my thoughts weren't about Iraqi babies. They were about how to keep the liberals from taking the food off my plate and giving it to those who don't deserve it. My thoughts were on my sister getting a job and her own apartment. Just as I'm sure your thoughts were on how to pass your next test, not how to remove the sanctions killing Iraqi babies!

If you don't believe that apathy runs both ways in this country, I suggest you look at the lamentable voting statistics in this country.

But you must have heard of and thought about the effects of Iraqi sanctions at SOME point before 9/11, didn't you?

You're quite right to point out that this isn't just a matter concern Bush & co. It's more a legacy of Clinton than anything.

Many, many people from all over the world tried to raise concern about sanctions' effects of children for a long, long time. The simple fact of the matter is that our governments, neither Bush's nor Clinton's, and I hate to say our society at large, just really *didn't* care. To say it's such an important cause now that we have no other possible justification for war just makes us look like a bunch of hypocrites to the rest of the world, and regrettably quite rightly so.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by SLClemens
But you must have heard of and thought about the effects of Iraqi sanctions at SOME point before 9/11, didn't you?

You're quite right to point out that this isn't just a matter concern Bush & co. It's more a legacy of Clinton than anything.

Many, many people from all over the world tried to raise concern about sanctions' effects of children for a long, long time. The simple fact of the matter is that our governments, neither Bush's nor Clinton's, and I hate to say our society at large, just really *didn't* care. To say it's such an important cause now that we have no other possible justification for war just makes us look like a bunch of hypocrites to the rest of the world, and regrettably quite rightly so.

Personally, I do not support the UN at all. Thus, the sanctions that they impose are not of my choosing. And what people all over the world do or don't do is usually none of my concern. What became my concern is when it landed in my lap, literally. And, no, I do not think it's hypocritical for one of the reasons for this war to be the betterment of the Iraqi people. Is it hypocritical to bring a casserole to the people whose house burns down even if you've never given them food before???

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Moi
Personally, I do not support the UN at all. Thus, the sanctions that they impose are not of my choosing. And what people all over the world do or don't do is usually none of my concern. What became my concern is when it landed in my lap, literally. And, no, I do not think it's hypocritical for one of the reasons for this war to be the betterment of the Iraqi people. Is it hypocritical to bring a casserole to the people whose house burns down even if you've never given them food before???

It would be hypocritical to prevent someone keeping up their house and then bring them a casserole and say how much you care about them after you demolished part of it, yes.

Whether or not you support the UN, your government sure supported UN sanctions on Iraq, so much so that people see them etirely the work of the US because we enforced them so rigorously.

Sanctions don't only have a relation to the betterment of Iraqis. It is also affecting how our troops are received. Because of sanctions we've poisoned the well to an extent. Iraqis seem to blame both uncle Saddam and uncle Sam for what happened with sanctions. Now one is largely out of the picture and one is in the picture big-time, and is going to have a harder time of it because of sanctions.

But think for a moment about what you are really saying. You didn't care about the plight of certain people until certain trouble landed in your lap. Does that mean, if you're typical of many people here, which I think you are, that to get Americans to care about a place you have to attack them? What if we could have prevented 9/11 by pulling out of Saudi Arabia and not giving billions every year to Israel? Wouldn't taking an interest in the world, while reducing our military and manipulation of it, could have prevented 9/11? What about taking an interest in places and acting so that people have less reason to hate us?

 

[Dan]

Hey, I just remembered why I don't come to the political boards, for some reason, I can't post here without offense.

But, anyway...

Before 9/11 I didn't think much about the Iraqi people, no. But, I don't really think about them now. Their situation sucks, yeah, but there's starvation all over our country, too, among other things. Everywhere in the world, there's all kinds of horrible things going on, and like I said, this wasn't directed at any particular person, but it seems to me that most people who suddenly voice their opinions about how bad they feel for the Iraqi people are doing this more in a political manner than humanistic.

And for the record, I don't think the war is entirely Bush's doing, and I'll be just as quick to blame his cabinet as him. As for Hilary Clinton, she may be my least favorite political figure of my lifetime, far worse than her husband in my opinion.

And what were you busy saying right around these times on those very boards? Please don't make me repeat potentially embarassing words. You see, Dan, the difference between you and I is that I am man enough to stand by my words and prior mistakes. I have no qualms about bringing up what people said out of anger, or in jest, if you don't.

I'm not real sure what you're talking about here. You can go ahead and say what I said, if you remember, I know I saw nothing wrong with bombing the caves around Afghanistan, and I wanted nothing more than to watch Bin Laden die a slow, painful death. I feel the same way today.

Contrary to your liberal studies in college,

Mmm-hmm, since every person who's ever gone to college is a liberal. Just like I am. Even though I'm not.

freedom of speech pertains to MUCH more than speaking out against the government.

I realize that, but since this thread pertains to the government, I figured that would be the area of freedom of speech we should stick to. Sorry if I made it seem like I thought it only pertained to opposing the government, I figured it was sort of common sense that there was more to it than that.

Where did Moi condemn anyone?

1. Bad choice of words on my part.

2. I was making a statement about all the people on here and around the internet who claim people who oppose the war are being un-American.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by SLClemens
It would be hypocritical to prevent someone keeping up their house and then bring them a casserole and say how much you care about them after you demolished part of it, yes.

Whether or not you support the UN, your government sure supported UN sanctions on Iraq, so much so that people see them etirely the work of the US because we enforced them so rigorously.

Sanctions don't only have a relation to the betterment of Iraqis. It is also affecting how our troops are received. Because of sanctions we've poisoned the well to an extent. Iraqis seem to blame both uncle Saddam and uncle Sam for what happened with sanctions. Now one is largely out of the picture and one is in the picture big-time, and is going to have a harder time of it because of sanctions.

But think for a moment about what you are really saying. You didn't care about the plight of certain people until certain trouble landed in your lap. Does that mean, if you're typical of many people here, which I think you are, that to get Americans to care about a place you have to attack them? What if we could have prevented 9/11 by pulling out of Saudi Arabia and not giving billions every year to Israel? Wouldn't taking an interest in the world, while reducing our military and manipulation of it, could have prevented 9/11? What about taking an interest in places and acting so that people have less reason to hate us?

The United States didn't cause the people of Iraq to breed a military dictator who punished his own citizens; gilded his toilets while his people starved; and, supported terrorists. The United States didn't cause the Muslims to interpret the Koran in a way that allowed the Iraqi leaders to use it as an excuse to remove humanity from their treatment of women and declared war on the United States. The United States has tried to be isolationist. That didn't work.

And as far as the world is concerned, what's hypocritical is when countries come running to us to save them from all sorts of evils- famine, over population, insurgents, neighboring agression, etc. and then, via propoganda, begin to point the finger at the United Sates for unleashing their morals on other countries. My thoughts would be stop coming around with your hand out and solve your own damn problems. I'm not responsible for the plight of the Africans, South Americans or any other suffering countries but they darn sure have the nerve to come running tot he UN begging for our help (actually, I would say demanding our help) all until they don't like the quid pro quo of it.

I proffer the analogy of WWII. There were many people in this country who opposed our entering WWII until the Japanese attacked us on our soil. I feel the same way. We've been threatened by Iraq. They are the ones who picked this fight. If we enter the fight, I say we win. And, I say, we win by also allowing the majority of their people to win too. I'm not saying we nuke the bastards and get rid of them nor are we, unlike our forefathers, suggesting concentration camps around the United States to house Muslims/Arabs. Neither are our elected leaders. We're saying to make the best of a bad situation, for each country. Try to get out of this situation better than we went in- perhaps the majority of the Iraqi's will as well. It matters not to me that they stand up and thank us for it, what matters is if, in the long run, our support in that country can enable their own people to step up to the plate.

Countless times in history, it's been proven. In 1776 a rag-tag group of people stood up to the most successful regime in the modern world. They were in over their heads and many did not know if what they were doing was right. They won. Now, these two countries stand beside each other as friends. During the Civil War, there were many reasons on both sides for fighting. Again, we now stand together as one nation.

Because, in the end, good wins.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Dan
I was making a statement about all the people on here and around the internet who claim people who oppose the war are being un-American.

No one ever said un-American. Just unfair and, apparently, unable to see that people can both disagree with each other and be correct at the same time.

 

[jon_forward]

In following this thread I saw not once the pain and suffering that the Iraqi people had to withstand during saddams reign, of all the sons and fathers and uncles that were removed from their homes never to return again. can you imagine what it was like for the families of these poor souls. no one deserves to have to live under the threat of death for speaking ones mind. I truly wish that senior Bush had not stopped the first time we were there, of course this is hindsight talking but the whole world would of been better off and I feel that terrorist might have had second thoughts about taken the US of A on. now all we have is a big ass mess everywhere and it seems that most everyone blames G.W when its not has fault the whole world stage has been turned upside down on him. I have been at yahell tonite so am a lil hot under the collar, sorry for rambling on.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by jon_forward
In following this thread I saw not once the pain and suffering that the Iraqi people had to withstand during saddams reign, of all the sons and fathers and uncles that were removed from their homes never to return again. can you imagine what it was like for the families of these poor souls. no one deserves to have to live under the threat of death for speaking ones mind. I truly wish that senior Bush had not stopped the first time we were there, of course this is hindsight talking but the whole world would of been better off and I feel that terrorist might have had second thoughts about taken the US of A on. now all we have is a big ass mess everywhere and it seems that most everyone blames G.W when its not has fault the whole world stage has been turned upside down on him. I have been at yahell tonite so am a lil hot under the collar, sorry for rambling on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, remember what happened to Qaddafi. Has he been a threat to anyone since?

 

[jon_forward]

I have not been here long enough to know what you are talking about cept to say I see he is trying to rejoin the humanrace.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Moi
The United States didn't cause the people of Iraq to breed a military dictator who punished his own citizens; gilded his toilets while his people starved; and, supported terrorists. The United States didn't cause the Muslims to interpret the Koran in a way that allowed the Iraqi leaders to use it as an excuse to remove humanity from their treatment of women and declared war on the United States. The United States has tried to be isolationist. That didn't work.

And as far as the world is concerned, what's hypocritical is when countries come running to us to save them from all sorts of evils- famine, over population, insurgents, neighboring agression, etc. and then, via propoganda, begin to point the finger at the United Sates for unleashing their morals on other countries. My thoughts would be stop coming around with your hand out and solve your own damn problems. I'm not responsible for the plight of the Africans, South Americans or any other suffering countries but they darn sure have the nerve to come running tot he UN begging for our help (actually, I would say demanding our help) all until they don't like the quid pro quo of it.

I proffer the analogy of WWII. There were many people in this country who opposed our entering WWII until the Japanese attacked us on our soil. I feel the same way. We've been threatened by Iraq. They are the ones who picked this fight. If we enter the fight, I say we win. And, I say, we win by also allowing the majority of their people to win too. I'm not saying we nuke the bastards and get rid of them nor are we, unlike our forefathers, suggesting concentration camps around the United States to house Muslims/Arabs. Neither are our elected leaders. We're saying to make the best of a bad situation, for each country. Try to get out of this situation better than we went in- perhaps the majority of the Iraqi's will as well. It matters not to me that they stand up and thank us for it, what matters is if, in the long run, our support in that country can enable their own people to step up to the plate.

Countless times in history, it's been proven. In 1776 a rag-tag group of people stood up to the most successful regime in the modern world. They were in over their heads and many did not know if what they were doing was right. They won. Now, these two countries stand beside each other as friends. During the Civil War, there were many reasons on both sides for fighting. Again, we now stand together as one nation.

Because, in the end, good wins.

Teh US has been isolationist since WWII?!!! Just what was the CIA doing in Iraq when the Baath party took power? What were they doing in Iran when a democratically elected leader decided to nationalize the oil industry? Lebanon? Saudi Arabia? Then of course there's Latin America (our terrain to exploit based upon the "isolationist" Monroe Doctrine) and the Philippines. Korea, Vietnam. We do have we had hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all over the world? We've been the most interventionist power since WWII by far.


"I'm not responsible for the plight of the Africans, South Americans or any other suffering countries but they darn sure have the nerve to come running tot he UN begging for our help (actually, I would say demanding our help) all until they don't like the quid pro quo of it."

So then why is the Bush administration so worked up about Venezuela and Colombia? Why can't we just let them be, trade with them, and wish them the best? What if they feel threatened like us? Should they behave as we do?

I fear you might be right about a rag-tag group of people standing up to the world's greatest power, however. There are many precedents for that.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Moi
I've said it before and I'll say it again, remember what happened to Qaddafi. Has he been a threat to anyone since?

Did we have to invade Libya? Why not?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jon_forward
In following this thread I saw not once the pain and suffering that the Iraqi people had to withstand during saddams reign, of all the sons and fathers and uncles that were removed from their homes never to return again. can you imagine what it was like for the families of these poor souls. no one deserves to have to live under the threat of death for speaking ones mind. I truly wish that senior Bush had not stopped the first time we were there, of course this is hindsight talking but the whole world would of been better off and I feel that terrorist might have had second thoughts about taken the US of A on. now all we have is a big ass mess everywhere and it seems that most everyone blames G.W when its not has fault the whole world stage has been turned upside down on him. I have been at yahell tonite so am a lil hot under the collar, sorry for rambling on.

A foreign policy based around stopping human pain and suffereing is a great idea but if we only apply it to resource-rich nations we want to control it's going to look a bit hollow.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
Did we have to invade Libya? Why not?

Again, it all depends on how you define "invade". The USA launched air and sea attacks on Libya in 1986. Their country wasn't filled with insurgents and terrorists, so there was no need for occupation.

Problem was solved, and effectively.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
A foreign policy based around stopping human pain and suffereing is a great idea but if we only apply it to resource-rich nations we want to control it's going to look a bit hollow.

Unfortunately, it seems the resource rich nations are the ones engaging in illegal activities. Billions of dollars have been going in aid to various countries over the years to help stop human suffering. Each country is different and different approaches will be necessary. Talk about ignorant, to imply that we only help countries that have resources for us is pretty lame.

 

[Moi]

Give it up Jimnyc...you cannot have a conversation with someone who either won't or can't read and understand the words you are using.

I didn't say the US has been isolationist since WWII. Nor anyone imply that this conflict was based only upon humanitarian efforts. Nor did I...

 

[eric]

Same old Liberal think tank garbage.