CBS: No Anti-War speeches @ Grammys

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"After all, we inspired them (with the Declaration of Independance) to get freedom for themselves."

 

And how long ago was that? I guess we should stay away from Mexico since that Alamo incident...

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Heck, thousands could die if we drop a nuke.

 

The fact that we WON'T shouldn't really matter here, though.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../15/MN79475.DTL

 

Policymakers in the Department of Defense, the armed services and the nuclear weapons design labs are moving forward rapidly in planning for the possible production of a new generation of smaller nuclear bombs and a resumption of nuclear testing, a leaked Bush administration document shows.

 

(...)

 

House Republicans issued a policy paper on Thursday which calls for some of the changes discussed in the Pentagon memo. These include the repeal of a decade-old law that prohibits the development of small, low-yield nuclear weapons, and steps that would make it easier to resume nuclear testing, which was halted ten years ago.

 

The GOP paper also proposed a new doctrine under which the country would be able to launch nuclear attacks not just in response to a nuclear attack, or the threat of one, but to pre-emptively destroy stockpiles of other weapons, such as chemical or biological weapons, in the hands of hostile countries.

Shall we go into how many ideas are pursued by our government?

 

Doesn't mean that we have any intention of actually doing it.

-=Mike --- who finds paranoia funny

[Guest DrTom]

Wow, people sympathized with him because they felt he was being persecuted. This proves... what, exactly? That Americans tend to root for someone they perceive to be the underdog? Look at the numbers when there was no scandal hanging over his head, nor an impeachment vote cast against him: 42-57%.

[Guest Some Guy]

You're also discounting the forced patriotism after 9/11, which resulted in high ratings for Bush.

I disagree that it was "forced patriotism". It was for the most part true patriotism coming to the forefront. There were some people who were like, "Oh something bad happened and everybody is waving the flag, I should too." But most of us truly love our country and supported the Pres afterwards. I've always been very petriotic but I didn't run around waving a flag them and didn't after 9/11. I had a pin with the WTC and a flag over it that I wore in my hat for over a year until I lost it.

I gotta eat. I'll try to finish this at some point.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I remember telling my mom that we should but the flag out, and a few days later 9-11 happened. I agree with SG, that it was people's love for their country coming to the fore front. It's unfortunate that it took such a horrible tragedy but it wasn't forced.

[cawthon777 0]

LOL I thought I might actually post something relevant to the thread.

 

Fred Durst broke the rule. "I think I speak for everyone when I say this war should just go away." (paraphrased)

 

Whatever, dude. Go find a guitarist.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I disagree that it was "forced patriotism". It was for the most part true patriotism coming to the forefront.

LOL! Of course!

 

And when Macy's has a President's Day Sale, that's true patriotism too, right?

 

[Guest Texas Small Arms 09]

So did Cheryl Crow as her guitar strap had "NO WAR" on it...but her hair was covering the word no

[Guest DrTom]

The US has always said that it supports freedom everywhere, but won't force goverments to change. Well, the TRADITIONAL US has.

Not necessarily. That line of thinking -- that America will keep the world safe for democracy -- is generally considered the Woodrow Wilson school of democracy. I'm a fan of the John Adams school, myself: Americans are friends of liberty and democracy everywhere, but defenders only of their own. It's a bit more isolationist, and certainly needs to be examined when certain things happen, but as a guiding principle, I much prefer it.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I disagree that it was "forced patriotism".  It was for the most part true patriotism coming to the forefront.

LOL! Of course!

 

And when Macy's has a President's Day Sale, that's true patriotism too, right?

 

Why is it so hard to believe that a majority of people's patriotism came to the forefront after 9-11? WTF does forced Patriotism mean anyway. Did someone force people to buy a flag? It was the individual's decision to show their patriotism in whichever way they deemed appropriate.

[Guest MD2020]

WTF does forced Patriotism mean anyway. Did someone force people to buy a flag? It was the individual's decision to show their patriotism in whichever way they deemed appropriate.

 

Yeah, man, I remember when those jackbooted thugs came into my house and held a gun to my head and made me run out and buy a flag and a flag pin and to display them or they would kill my entire family and burn my house down and kill harmless puppies and...

 

 

Oh wait. That didn't happen.

[Guest JMA]

The thing I hated post 9-11 was that patriotism became "trendy." It was the "in" thing to do. Which kind of makes it seem trvial; which it shouldn't be. I was never that much into nationalism. After all, you can't control where you are born. I do find that excessive patriotism leads to xenophobia, though. It's not like countries are "real" anyways. If you think about it they are just pieces of land with immaginary borders and names. I feel that everyone was scared shitless post 9-11 and had to grip onto something to worry less. Some people flocked to their religion and others chose to be patriotic.

 

I did neither. I mourned those lost, of course, but I didn't REALLY change. Sure, I became more afraid of myself, my friends, and family dying but that is to be expected. I don't patriotism was FORCED on anybody, but Bush certainly made it feel that way. What with his "You're either with us or against us,""Axis of evil," ect. I'm kind of the guy who will always question what his country does.

[Guest JMA]

I think it was more people like Ann Coulter who tried to force patriotism on people.

 

"If you don't support Bush you're a terrorist."

 

Then again, you had idiots like Jerry Falwell blaming "homosexuals, atheists, and liberals."

[Guest NoCalMike]

to some companies Sept. 11th just became another way to conjure people into buying american flag merchandise. I remember the following weeks/months there was an american flag-everything-type stand about a half a mile apart for a 10 mil stretch.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The Dreamer. President Bush's "with us or against us speech" was directed at other countries.

[cawthon777 0]

Yeah, okay. I'll agree that a lot of people saw 9/11 as a way to make an easy buck by playing off the patriotic nature of Americans. However, there were plenty of people before that were patriotic and being patriotic in itself is not a bad thing. It doesn't mean you blindly follow your government, it means you understand the vast number of rights and priviledges you can enjoy in this country and not anywhere else. Sure, no country is perfect - but I'd much rather be here than any other country in the world.

 

So what if people became uber patriotic after 9/11? Doesn't bother me any. Just take it with a grain of salt.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

But it's still the same war rhetoric. Namely, "We're fighting the good fight."

 

Now, for the past 50-60 years or so, war has been seen as a pretty bad/evil/whatever thing. War was something nobody wanted to see happen. And then suddently, everyone wanted to see war happen. It was a weird 180. And I can't imagine that suddently EVERYBDOY changed their opinions at war on 9/11, but that the war rhetoric snowballed patriotism on people.

 

Now, while I don't think the Taliban society is a good one and an Afghanistan controlled by Warlords (which everything currently is outside of Kabul) can't be much worse than the last regime, the general feeling was that saying "Hey, wait a minute, I don't support this military action" or "Is this really necessary?" was evil, because you weren't mindlessly nodding your head with your hand over your heart.

[Guest JMA]

I'm a fan of the John Adams school, myself: Americans are friends of liberty and democracy everywhere, but defenders only of their own.

That's what I was trying to say. I may have said it wrong in my previous post.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

People didn't want to see War happen. They knew that military action was necessary after 9-11.

 

Not supporting the U.S. in Afghanistan isn't evil. It's misguided. In what other way besides force could you remove the the Taliban from power.

[cawthon777 0]

Now, for the past 50-60 years or so, war has been seen as a pretty bad/evil/whatever thing. War was something nobody wanted to see happen. And then suddently, everyone wanted to see war happen.

No one wanted to see war happen. But it happened. Now it's up to us as to what to do about it. Do we sit on our hands and take what fate brings us or do we take some initiative and see to it that a second attack, which will no doubt be much more devestating than the first, doesn't happen?

[Guest JMA]

It was perfectly fine to take the Taliban out of Afghanistan: they attacked us, we destroy them. However, war with Iraq is something I don't agree with. I don't believe there is a connection between 9-11 and Iraq. The terrorist training camps were not places in Iraq controlled by Sadaam, they were in Kurdish territory. Basically, the reasons for the war are simple.

 

1: Revenge. Bush Sr. and the Gulf War are motivating factors here. Bush Jr. wants to do what daddy couldn't.

 

2: Natural resources. Although it is overexposed now from being repeated by celebs and pundits, oil does play a factor here.

 

3: America's dick size. Some of this is just to make America look powerful. By showing its citizens and other countries that we are indeed powerful.

 

4: The economy. A war is the perfect way to take people's minds off the current financial crisis.

 

5: Osama. A war with Iraq takes people's minds off Osama, who no one has been able to catch.

 

6: Take out Sadaam. The only real reason to actually go to war. The US goverment is deathly afraid of another terrorist attack (and with good reason) that they want to nip all potential attackers in the bud.

 

7: Morality. Sadaam is an evil man. He is a fascist who cares about no one but himself. He tortures his people and expects them to worship him.

[Guest Some Guy]

1: Revenge. Bush Sr. and the Gulf War are motivating factors here. Bush Jr. wants to do what daddy couldn't.

It should say "what daddy wouldn't", not "couldn't". We had a larger military and coalition then, we most certainly could have done whatever we wanted to Iraq then. But Bush Sr. chose not to for a number of reasons, with the Turks opposition being the major force and the fact that the war was to puch Saddam out of Kuwait, not necesarily kill or remove him.

 

2: Natural resources. Although it is overexposed now from being repeated by celebs and pundits, oil does play a factor here.

 

Sure, but it isn't the only factor.

 

3: America's dick size. Some of this is just to make America look powerful. By showing its citizens and other countries that we are indeed powerful.

 

Horse shit. Everybody already knows we have the biggest "dick". There is no country in the world who could beat us in a war, without just nuking the shit out of America. We have no need to prove ourselves in war.

 

4: The economy. A war is the perfect way to take people's minds off the current financial crisis.

 

Maybe, but Rumsfeld brought this up right after 9/11 and I don't think the economy was on his mind.

 

5: Osama. A war with Iraq takes people's minds off Osama, who no one has been able to catch.

 

We're still looking for him.

 

6: Take out Sadaam. The only real reason to actually go to war. The US goverment is deathly afraid of another terrorist attack (and with good reason) that they want to nip all potential attackers in the bud.

 

Sure.

 

7: Morality. Sadaam is an evil man. He is a fascist who cares about no one but himself. He tortures his people and expects them to worship him.

 

So you're against getting rid of an evil facist dictator? Interesting.

[Guest JMA]

So you're against getting rid of an evil facist dictator? Interesting.

Don't even try that with me. There are two sides to the issue.

 

1: We could take him out because what he does is a crime against humanity. But then we run the risk of looking like the world's police.

 

2: We keep to ourselves and stay out of it. While many isolationists MAY prefer this would it mean us turning a deaf ear toward our fellow man?

 

Clearly this issue would involve many hours of debate. It's not really a black and white issue. If there was a way to liberate the Iraqi people without war I would be all for it.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

No one wanted to see war happen. But it happened. Now it's up to us as to what to do about it.

Everybody cheered on going and getting Osama, but it wasn't a war against the Taliban that was being sold like a Kirby Vaccuum across the country. It was a war on "terror," and there were plenty of hushed voices at the time that declaring war on an idea will result in abuse by the government broadening the term.

 

 

They were right, since buying drugs appearantly makes you a terrorist. Even though a federally-controlled drug market would actually (gasp) replace the shady dealers with actual clean outlets. Bah, whatever.

[Guest Some Guy]

So you're against getting rid of an evil facist dictator? Interesting.

Don't even try that with me.

Why not? You've repeatedly screamed from the mountain tops about being against the war and then admitted that Saddam is evil and tortures his people. Why is it unfair to draw the conclusion that because you are against a war to get Saddam out that you are (unconscienely and inadvertantly) supporting Saddam? Whether you do or don't support the guy (I know you don't) you're in favor of him staying in power to kill and torture his people over the interests of your own country.

I don't understand this. Why is it that you call Bush evil and go on tirades against him but we don't hear you or any other anti-war protesters speaking about a truly evil man, Saddam with nearly as much venom?

 

Clearly this issue would involve many hours of debate. It's not really a black and white issue. If there was a way to liberate the Iraqi people without war I would be all for it.

 

There isn't. Plain and simple. Saddam is going nowhere at no time unless we or somebody kill him and his Republican Guard. I'll admit that we fucked up royally when we told the Iraqis to rise up against him and then didn't help and watched those people get slaughtered. We are the only one's in the world who are both willing and capable of killing Saddam and his guard. I think we should and I think we owe it to the people of Iraq, who we betrayed to do it. That would help out the "perception" of America. The main problem is that Saddam will set up human shields and we will be forced to kill some civillians and many will accidently die. But it will not be WWII style carpet bombing of cities and it will not be Vietnam War style house burning. America does it's best to limit civilian causalties (death and injury), most countries don't give a shit, including Saddam.

[Guest JMA]

To be honest, I have no solutions. I just think there must be a better way. I don't think the ends justify the means in this case. Frankly, I think we would be have been better off if Bush Sr. would have done the right thing during the Gulf War and removed Sadaam from power.

[Guest JMA]

Question: If it is morally permissable to take out any dictator than doesn't that mean America should take down every dictator in the world? After all, if we take down one...

[Guest EricMM]

Question: Does that "question" mean that we can't take down this one? Just because we had the opportunity in the past, does that mean we can't take this opportunity now?

 

There are lots of reasons to be against this war, but you're bring up a lot of wrong ones. I'm just saying...

[Guest Some Guy]

To be honest, I have no solutions. I just think there must be a better way. I don't think the ends justify the means in this case. Frankly, I think we would be have been better off if Bush Sr. would have done the right thing during the Gulf War and removed Sadaam from power.

Sometimes there is no better way. By "better" I assume you mean "nicer" or "non-violent" and in this case I don't see a better way. I would very much prefer that the people of Iraq could defeat Saddam on their own and democratize but they can't. They tried and failed.

 

Bush Sr. didn't do "the right thing" because he listened to "World Opinion." (I've read you endorce it) And world opinion at the time, much like now was to leave the bastard in power and let him keep doing what he was doing before. You can't have the "world opinion" thing both ways. Bush Sr. listened and he was wrong, W. Bush doesn't and he is wrong. Pick a side and stick to it. I agree that Bush Sr. should've "gone all the way" as he said, but he didn't, Clinton did nothing about it and Bush has inherited the problem. Fuck world opinion, it is almost always wrong. It was in '91 and it is now. Doing what is right isn't always popular, but it must be done or you run the risk of allowing more wrongs to take place.

[Guest Some Guy]

Question: If it is morally permissable to take out any dictator than doesn't that mean America should take down every dictator in the world? After all, if we take down one...

No, just the ones who invaded another country with teh intention of absorbing it, lost a war over it, signed treaties and had sanctions placed on him as a result, and then violated them and pose a potential threat to our country. Also the fact that he has killed thousands of his own people and tortured more helps out as well.

 

I would love to see every dictator in the world killed and every country democratized, but it isn't our job to do that. We should only go after those who can and will hurt us.