CBS: No Anti-War speeches @ Grammys

[Guest JMA]

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.

That's tip-toeing around the question. If it is justifiable to take down Iraq's dictator than it would be justifiable to take down any other dictator. Like I said, it's not a black and white issue (although it is rare anything is). If we take down Sadaam than we MUST take down other dictators to avoid looking like hypocrites. If we don't take down Sadaam than we can't justify taking down any other dictators. It's a no-win situation.

[Guest Some Guy]

Did you read what I wrote? I think I gave a pretty clear reason why Saddam is tops on the list and the dictator of Uganda or where ever isn't.

 

If we don't make our distintion clear then we run the risks you mentioned. But, I think this one is pretty clear.

[Guest NoCalMike]

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.

I don't believe it was "forced"patriotism, however I do feel people felt by putting an american flag bumper sticker on their car and a NYFD hat on their head, then they could ignore any of the actual ISSUES that hit us in the face. Instead of discussion on foreign relations and how to better them and/or change them, people just robotically decided that some people just "hate us" and it was as SIMPLE as that. It took about 3-4 months for everyone to get back into the normal routine and I am sure at least 75% of the people that all of the sudden CARED, have gone back to paying no attention to anything except their superbowl and big mac and Daredevil movie, (3 things I also enjoy too).

[Guest EricMM]

If we take down Sadaam than we MUST take down other dictators to avoid looking like hypocrites.

 

I may not like this fact, but issues in the middle east are just more important to the US than issues in other countries. There is no Oil in Uganda, to use Some Guy's point. This is why we did not go to war in Rwanda.

 

It is not the job of the U.S. to save every country from it's leaders. It is the job of the U.S. to look out for it's own economic interests. What's wrong with that statement? It's not nice but it's certainly true.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Back to the original topic

 

Did Erica Baduh have a Kill the Prez T-Shirt on?

[Guest HecateRose]

I think Erica Baduh's shirt said "Dead Prez." I could be wrong, but that's what I remember seeing.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

That's a band, not a suggested course of action.

[cawthon777 0]

That's a band, not a suggested course of action.

Does she know it's a band? lol

[Guest JMA]

I may not like this fact, but issues in the middle east are just more important to the US than issues in other countries. There is no Oil in Uganda, to use Some Guy's point. This is why we did not go to war in Rwanda.

So, the justification for not taking dictators out is that there is no oil in these other places? That's just wrong. That's not how America should be. It's depressing when your President lies to you with a straight face. Couldn't he just tell us the truth?

 

Bush: "Yes, oil is a factor in us going to Iraq. We need more oil and have better use for it than a bloodthirsty dictator. As an added bonus we'll have the oppurtunity to free opressed people and hand-pick the new leader."

 

Why can't he just say that? Oh right, I forgot, it's politics.

[cawthon777 0]

I may not like this fact, but issues in the middle east are just more important to the US than issues in other countries.  There is no Oil in Uganda, to use Some Guy's point.  This is why we did not go to war in Rwanda.

So, the justification for not taking dictators out is that there is no oil in these other places? That's just wrong. That's not how America should be. It's depressing when your President lies to you with a straight face. Couldn't he just tell us the truth?

 

Bush: "Yes, oil is a factor in us going to Iraq. We need more oil and have better use for it than a bloodthirsty dictator. As an added bonus we'll have the oppurtunity to free opressed people and hand-pick the new leader."

 

Why can't he just say that? Oh right, I forgot, it's politics.

Yes and, as we've already discussed, only George Bush plays politics. Evil evil Bush with his devil eyes and pitchfork. Watch out or he'll force facism down your throat!

 

Is it a factor? Probably. Is it a big factor? No. If we want oil, we should take out Saudi. If we want Saddam's head, we should take out Iraq.

[Guest JMA]

Yes and, as we've already discussed, only George Bush plays politics. Evil evil Bush with his devil eyes and pitchfork. Watch out or he'll force facism down your throat!

 

Is it a factor? Probably. Is it a big factor? No. If we want oil, we should take out Saudi. If we want Saddam's head, we should take out Iraq.

If it's not a big factor then we should go after non-oil related countries ruled by dictators. But that won't happen. I never said only Bush played politics. So don't insinuate that I did.

[cawthon777 0]

If it's not a big factor then we should go after non-oil related countries ruled by dictators. But that won't happen. I never said only Bush played politics. So don't insinuate that I did.

What about Milosovich? We took him out of power and no one had a problem with that. He was a big genocidal ruler just like Saddam.

 

Or, to a lesser extent, what about Manuel Noreaga?

[Guest DrTom]

I was going to jump in here and respond to a couple of Dreamer's posts, but SG, you're doing an admirable job of fighting the good fight. Carry on, lads.

[Guest JMA]

fighting the good fight

What is the "good fight"? It sounds like something the PTC would say. Not trying to be snide, just asking a question.

[Guest EricMM]

That's just wrong. That's not how America should be.

 

Look, I'm just saying it's the way it is. We don't have to go after Saudi Arabia, because they already give us massive amounts of oil. Plus they are not about to go to war with anyone, thus plunging the mideast into turmoil and raising the cost of oil.

 

I've heard that we went into Yugoslavia for two reasons. Either it was because the people being prosecuted were white, thus Americans "cared more," or the more likely (IMO) fact that everyone is leery of conflict taking place anywhere near Europe. It's been proven twice that world wars start in Europe, even over little nations squabbling. Many people still see Europe as a powder keg.

 

And finally, lets face it, Africa matters diddly squat. There is no conflict going on in Africa that warrents the loss of U.S. life, in the eyes of America's leaders. There is no risk of world war because of what the Tutsis and the Hutus were doing to each other. It's just Africans killing Africans killing Africans.

 

Again, it is not the US govt's job to keep Africans from killing each other. It is the US govt's job to keep Americans alive and free, keep America economically strong, and keep our global status intact. If this means we have to go into the mideast to prevent oil prices rising, we will. If this means going into the mideast to prevent people from attacking Americans, we will. I think history has proven this, and it has been this way FOREVER. For as long as I have been alive, Regan did it this way, Bush did it this way, Clinton did it this way, and Bush Jr. will too.

 

If American lives are lost, the president loses votes. If the price of gas goes above $2, the president loses votes. It's an almost simple formula.

[Guest DrTom]

What is the "good fight"? It sounds like something the PTC would say. Not trying to be snide, just asking a question.

Speaking up for common sense and not letting your heart bleed all over your sleeve, for starters.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

We didn't aid Rwanda but not because they were oil-less. We didn't help because they were black.

 

At least that's what Dick Morris said...

[Guest JMA]

Speaking up for common sense and not letting your heart bleed all over your sleeve, for starters.

Hm.

 

(checks sleeve)

 

Seems I'm fine there. And I have common sense, so no problems there. Guess that means I too am "fighting the good fight."

[Guest Some Guy]

America should only interfere in other country's business if we have something to gain from it or our allies need and ask for our help (like in Bosnia), safety, money, more democracy in the world.

 

BTW, where was the Hiollwood Left when Clionton was dropping bombs on Iraq? Where were they when Clinton bombed an Asprin factory in Sudan? How about when he blew up those tents in Afghanistan?

 

Is it just me or is this more of an anti-Bush/GOP protest than an anti-war protest?

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

They were too busy defending him during impeachment.

 

HOWEVER, there were a few that criticized him regarding Yugo (the names escape me however)...

[Guest Some Guy]

Sherril Crow went to entertain teh troops in Bosnia or somewhere with Hilary Clinton. That doesn't strike me as being truly "anti-war". Hypocracy: Liberalism is thy name.

 

EDIT: Changed "they" to "thy". My bad.

[Guest JMA]

Sherril Crow went to entertain teh troops in Bosnia or somewhere with Hilary Clinton. That doesn't strike me as being truly "anti-war". Hypocracy: Liberalism is they name.

Yes, a lot of the celeb supporters on the Left are annoying. That's a given. And I think you meant "thy," right?

[Guest evenflowDDT]

If it's not a big factor then we should go after non-oil related countries ruled by dictators. But that won't happen. I never said only Bush played politics. So don't insinuate that I did.

What about Milosovich? We took him out of power and no one had a problem with that. He was a big genocidal ruler just like Saddam.

Milosevic created a literal holocaust. I'm not denying Saddam kills his own people or whatever, but you can't compare the two at all.

 

Which brings me back to something I read in this thread (I'm playing a lame attempt at catch-up): Mike, you really can't compare us not going against Saddam to not going against Hitler and then use the "we need to stop him from killing the innocent citizens of his country", because when going after Hitler we didn't stop him from killing the innocent Jews in the concetration camps.

 

EDIT: Removed "second" and decapitalized Holocaust since there have been many genocides since that of the Jews, and Milosevic's is far from the second, unfortunately.

[Guest Powerplay]

Speaking up for common sense and not letting your heart bleed all over your sleeve, for starters.

Hm.

 

(checks sleeve)

 

Seems I'm fine there. And I have common sense, so no problems there. Guess that means I too am "fighting the good fight."

Common sense... or simply hate for the current administration? Seriously, if we shouldn't invade, what should we do? Iraq has given our inspectors the run-around how many times now? How long should really allow Iraq to continue to violate UN Resolution?

[Guest JMA]

Common sense... or simply hate for the current administration? Seriously, if we shouldn't invade, what should we do? Iraq has given our inspectors the run-around how many times now? How long should really allow Iraq to continue to violate UN Resolution?

Both. I just wish the administration would admit that liberating Iraq isn't the only reason for going. We can take down Iraq... but I think we should go after Al-Quada first. While we are focused on Iraq they can attack again.

[Guest Powerplay]

Common sense... or simply hate for the current administration? Seriously, if we shouldn't invade, what should we do? Iraq has given our inspectors the run-around how many times now? How long should really allow Iraq to continue to violate UN Resolution?

Both. I just wish the administration would admit that liberating Iraq isn't the only reason for going. We can take down Iraq... but I think we should go after Al-Quada first. While we are focused on Iraq they can attack again.

They can attack at ANY TIME. It's not like they are waiting for our military to leave so they can invade our country. Terrorists will attack when they want, and it doesn't matter if we are focused on.

[Guest DrTom]

Seems I'm fine there. And I have common sense, so no problems there.

I'll just advise you not to flatter yourself, and leave it at that.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Both. I just wish the administration would admit that liberating Iraq isn't the only reason for going. We can take down Iraq... but I think we should go after Al-Quada first. While we are focused on Iraq they can attack again.

To stop Al-Qaida we must elminate the nations that foster their cause and the subsequent hatred. Iraq is ruled by an evil tyrant who hates America. Iraq is in the Middle East. The Middle East is the home of radical Islam. Radical Islam is why the twin towers are nothing but dust. There is nothing stopping Saddam from helping out some Al-Qaida buddies who share in a similiar cause: the destruction of United States and the murder of its citizens.

[Guest spiny norman]

"How long should really allow Iraq to continue to violate UN Resolution?"

 

What about Israel? How much longer till we attack them for violating UN Resolutions? And why is it that people here are so willing to attack a country for breaking UN Resolutions by breaking a UN Resolution. And to think you said Sheryl Crow was a hypocrite!