I just don't understand world politics...

Wanna talk about politics, your favorite hockey team... vegetarian recipes?
Pursuer of Justice
Posts: 5798
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:38 pm
Location: Newark, Delaware

Postby Justice Hog » Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:27 pm

I've been staying out of this thread because I have mixed feelings about the topic.

First and foremost, I thank God for those troops/soldiers fighting for our country. They deserve our respect and our praise and I will always believe that.

Now.....

I was concerned because after 9/11, the government's focus was on terrorists. George W. said he was going to basically stop at nothing . . . to kick some terroristic buttocks.

Then, it seems like all of the sudden the Government took its focus off the terrorists and placed it on Iraq. Don't get me wrong, Saddam and his sons were tyrants and needed to go....but...did we just pick an easier (more identifiable) target than many (nameless/faceless) terrorists? I dunno.

Many smaller countries perceive the U.S. as a big bully who will hold sanctions against you or use military might against you if you do not hold the same democratic beliefs. That is not surprising because the U.S. does certainly get its hands dirty in many many other countries.

However,

As long as we are fighting to keep freedom alive...and to save people from tyranny, I will support the U.S. getting its hands dirty in other areas.

I just hope we do it for the right reasons....and not for some "made up" reasons the pencil pushers in D.C. want us to believe.
Fran Farren
"Justice Hog"

Newark, DE

6th person to join the "new THN message boards"

Section 341, Row 8, Seats #15 & #16

"Justice that love gives is a surrender, justice that law gives is a punishment."
-Mohandas Gandhi

+++++++++
Posts: 5224
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:21 am

Postby Skinsfan55 » Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:44 pm

First of all, this is the Lounge, not the Smack Forum. Namecalling and degrading of homosexuals is really uncalled for.

Secondly, "pushing an agenda" is what we ALL do. When I say I'd love to trade Samuels and our 5th rounder to the Raiders for the #2, I am trying to push my "agenda". I came here to discuss this subject civily. Posters like SFIR can do this despite being on the other side of the issue. You cannot, this is a most annoying character flaw.

To go and say I am a left wing liberal and to assume that I am not a Christian is wrong.

You fail to look at this conflict from both sides, and that's where you and I differ. I am trying to stir up intelligent conversation about how this could end well, and what positives might come out of it (SFIR provided several examples of VERY positive things that have happened so far) but you have NOTHING to offer to the conversation other than petty insults, homophobic tendancies, and general ignorance.

PS- There are hardcore liberals and hardcore conservatives who will both agree the media is biased towards them. The argument that the "media" as a singular entity is biased towards anyone is laughable. How could hundreds of thousands of newspapers, radio and television news agencies all be organized towards one direction? Answer, they can't. Give it a rest.

*********
Posts: 1185
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 6:23 pm
Location: Fayetteville, NC

Postby Brandon777 » Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:59 pm

Skinsfan55 wrote:First of all, this is the Lounge, not the Smack Forum. Namecalling and degrading of homosexuals is really uncalled for.

Secondly, "pushing an agenda" is what we ALL do. When I say I'd love to trade Samuels and our 5th rounder to the Raiders for the #2, I am trying to push my "agenda". I came here to discuss this subject civily. Posters like SFIR can do this despite being on the other side of the issue. You cannot, this is a most annoying character flaw.

To go and say I am a left wing liberal and to assume that I am not a Christian is wrong.

You fail to look at this conflict from both sides, and that's where you and I differ. I am trying to stir up intelligent conversation about how this could end well, and what positives might come out of it (SFIR provided several examples of VERY positive things that have happened so far) but you have NOTHING to offer to the conversation other than petty insults, homophobic tendancies, and general ignorance.

PS- There are hardcore liberals and hardcore conservatives who will both agree the media is biased towards them. The argument that the "media" as a singular entity is biased towards anyone is laughable. How could hundreds of thousands of newspapers, radio and television news agencies all be organized towards one direction? Answer, they can't. Give it a rest.
Man. Because I have an opposite view than you do, I have not contributed to this conversation. As far as the insults go, if I'm not mistaken, you pretty much called my opinions "ignorant, close minded, stupid and laughable" etc. Whatever. I judge people based on their character. Some of the professors I had in college that expressed your views were soft, overly emotional and sensitive men. I'm not saying thats WRONG, but those are tangible facts I witnessed. That is why I used the term FRUITY when describing them. If your someone who is extremely emotional and sensitive, thats O.K. I just disagree with you, thats all. Nobody loves war. But sometimes there is no choice.
Last edited by Brandon777 on Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Let us all gather around and drink the Cooley-Aid of the Redskins.

+++++++++
Posts: 5224
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:21 am

Postby Skinsfan55 » Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:04 pm

Ignorance is the same as being uninformed, that is not an insult, it is an observation. Some people have the very same opinions but they can back them up. Saying everyone in the middle east is crazy... that's an ignorant statement.

Sometimes there is no choice other than war, and you need to weigh the pros and cons of taking such drastic action... I just fail to see where the pros are... to me we're opening up a pandora's box in the middle east, what possible good can come of this? How many years will it take? Are we prepared to go into a war of Biblical proportions taking hundreds of years?

+++++++++
Posts: 5224
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:21 am

Postby Skinsfan55 » Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:06 pm

Justice Hog wrote:I've been staying out of this thread because I have mixed feelings about the topic.

First and foremost, I thank God for those troops/soldiers fighting for our country. They deserve our respect and our praise and I will always believe that.

Now.....

I was concerned because after 9/11, the government's focus was on terrorists. George W. said he was going to basically stop at nothing . . . to kick some terroristic buttocks.

Then, it seems like all of the sudden the Government took its focus off the terrorists and placed it on Iraq. Don't get me wrong, Saddam and his sons were tyrants and needed to go....but...did we just pick an easier (more identifiable) target than many (nameless/faceless) terrorists? I dunno.

Many smaller countries perceive the U.S. as a big bully who will hold sanctions against you or use military might against you if you do not hold the same democratic beliefs. That is not surprising because the U.S. does certainly get its hands dirty in many many other countries.

However,

As long as we are fighting to keep freedom alive...and to save people from tyranny, I will support the U.S. getting its hands dirty in other areas.

I just hope we do it for the right reasons....and not for some "made up" reasons the pencil pushers in D.C. want us to believe.


I agree with a lot of what you said, keeping freedom alive is important (this doesn't always have to be done with troops however) but there is more than one for of government than our brand of representavie democracy. This is not a giant game of risk, people also have the right to decide what type of government jives with their specific set of beliefs.

sfir
Posts: 3476
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 12:43 am
Location: Roanoke, VA (The sw VA heart of the Skins)

Postby skinsfaninroanoke » Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:27 pm

First of all, no one said that we were going to try and recreate a representative democracy.

Second, there is a stabilizing factor that you aren't looking at - one of the main terrorist weapons is money. With the money flow being cut off from that region, and with the posturing cutting off a large chunk (the peaceful method you mentioned) from places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (posturing made more effective by our attack in the region), the terrorists have less money to operate with.

That is less money to purchase arms, less to corrupt officials, less for bribes, etc.

There were links from Iraq to several terrorist groups. Did you go and look at the oil voucher list I provided? Look under Palestine - there were a couple or three really big nasty groups getting major funding from Iraq.

Even Clinton had that pegged in the 1999 State Dept. report on terrorism - it wasn't Bush that thought that up - it was there in black and white before he got to the White House.

The fact is, their orginization is worried. They are having problems having to look over their shoulders as well as planning operations with less money, resources and armament.

As to you other point - Radical clerics who raise "Armies" of several hundred men are not nation building killers... they couldn't stop this. There are one or two on the list right now, and they aren't that much of a threat. Bush is sticking to his June 30th turning over of power, and that should tell anyone that we were in there for the right reason.

We went in there for a number of reasons, only one of which was the WMD.

1. WMD
2. Genocide
3. Saddam had invaded two different countries and was a DEstabilizing factor in the region - so much so that Saudis erected a huge base just for our troops to stay there, partially paid for by the other countries to the south of Saudi.
4. Torture and murder
5. Terroristic tendencies and funding
6. Taking away a hidey hole for terrorists such as those up in the northeast mountains of Iraq
7. Aid the Kurds to have some peace in the region
8. Put pressure on Iran to make changes on their own (which they are doing - there is an upheaval for freedom in that country right now)
9. Give the people of Iraq back their country, their oil, their wealth. You can't tell me that all of the people supporting Iraq because of being paid off were less oil hungry than specious accusations that can't be proven about our President being oil hungry. Yes, they have it rough because this sadistic piece of garbage was standing on their necks while building mansions all over the country. You can claim we are in there to force something - I say we are in there to remedy several things.

I don't believe that Iraq will become another Isreal, so to speak, but I think that the government that is put into place over there will stand a good chance of being able to hold it together because a vast majority of the people are glad to be out from under the yoke and don't want to go back.

If you feel that certain peoples have a right to their way of life, religion, their own economy... well then you are actually supporting my point of view and President Bush's. You can't simultaneously hold the position that we shouldn't hurt homosexuals' feelings but it is ok, in the interest of stability in the region, to allow Saddam to brutalize and murder at will. You can't say that they should all be allowed religious freedoms, but yet did they really have that under the guy you are saying we should have let stay in power? No - the mullah's were under house arrest and could and were shot for spreading their religious teachings.

You have to understand that from my point of view, your conflicting standards seem to point right back to emotionalisms... we are attempting to give them back their country - I for one don't believe that Bush or anyone has sovereignty aspirations there.

Rwanda, we could have and should have stopped. Should we not have helped Haiti when they called for it? How about over in Europe with all the Baltic states killing each other off? Millions of refugees have lost it all, and yet this isn't a good enough reason to do the same thing in Iraq for you?

You really need to re-examine your motives, young sir. I am not saying they are bad, but when do you draw the line on a tyrannical ruler? How many people have to die before we go - enough! In Haiti - how many died before Clinton went in? The Baltic states?

There are claims you are making, like it seems to you we are trying to take their way of life or religion. I can tell you now that we don't do that. Shintoism is just as strong today in Japan, and their culture is still strong. Don't kid yourself - if we were really looking for world dominance, the Marshall, MacArthur and now the Iraq and Afghani rebuild projects would never have taken place - we would have kept them beaten, bloody and broken - instead, we helped them up and dusted them off and they are stronger for having our help.

I think you misplace certain beliefs from Hollywood concerning how greedy everyone in America, how power hungry we all are and thus it translates to the White House... Do you realize that we have done what we intended and are now preparing an exit strategy? Something that wasn't done with the Baltic states, the original Haiti incursion or Mogadishu?

Rather than looking at it as "oh poor them" maybe you need to rejoice for the millions that pulled statues down, and are living better today for the evil being gone. The man was an open canker in that area - and I will argue that he was a major part of the instability in order to keep himself in power - keep the focus shifted away through terrorists and other countries being manipulated. He wasn't stable at all.

Now to the McVeigh thing. He was insane. He took many innocent lives for no reason. He is part of a viral infection of sick twits in this country who think they are soldiers. These are the same kind of idiots who blow up abortion clinics and assassinate doctors to show life is precious.

Both of these examples - Saddam and McVeigh are both sick men who, as a result of their actions killed innocents and destroyed not only the lives of the people they killed, but everyone who depended on them, who loved them.

I will ask you a standard question - if there is a prisioner of war being held by the enemy, tortured, starved, and mistreated - how many lives would you give up in an attempt to save that person?
Rich in Roanoke
_______________________________________
Let others hail the rising sun:
I bow to that whose course is run

+++++++++
Posts: 5224
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:21 am

Postby Skinsfan55 » Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:54 pm

I'll agree there are some good reasons for this, but there are also some not so good reasons for this.

Yes, Saddam is an evil man, and giving Iraqis back their country is a good thing. (My friend Chris sent me a letter about how some of the people of Iraq give soldiers the thumbs up sign and cheer for them as their convoy passes by, so people obviously appreciate this.) But now that Saddam is gone these clerics have come out of the woodwork. I think you're downplaying the danger of these small armies. They have IED's, AK-47's, and other weapons at their disposal and any faction that can wage battles with US troops that last a week is potentially very dangerous. These types of people will do anything to keep the west out of Iraq and we have to be very careful.

But back to the idea that we need to free an oppressed people... why not make a few stops on our way home? The Chinese have mistreated, starved and tortured the Tibetans for over 50 years! Not only that but religious freedom has been squashed... if Tibet had something we wanted (coughoilcough) we'd be in there like a flash.

Maybe I'm just disenchanted with this whole idea of invading Iraq, to me, I think we have good intentions but we didn't entirely think this through.

*********
Posts: 1185
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 6:23 pm
Location: Fayetteville, NC

Postby Brandon777 » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:08 pm

Skinsfan55 wrote:Ignorance is the same as being uninformed, that is not an insult, it is an observation. Some people have the very same opinions but they can back them up. Saying everyone in the middle east is crazy... that's an ignorant statement.

Sometimes there is no choice other than war, and you need to weigh the pros and cons of taking such drastic action... I just fail to see where the pros are... to me we're opening up a pandora's box in the middle east, what possible good can come of this? How many years will it take? Are we prepared to go into a war of Biblical proportions taking hundreds of years?
Well, from what I've observed, your leftwing, dramatic, and brainwashed by your liberal professors. At first I told myself not to post on this topic because I didn't want to get in an argument with a liberal. But I'm sick of the Bush bashing going on and I couldn't resist. To say that the middle east isn't full of religious extremest is IGNORANT ON YOUR PART. Not all the people from the middle east are suicide bombers, but most of them feel that it's justified and celebrate in the streets when Jews or Americans are killed. If Saddam wasn't paying Palestinians to blow themselves up to kill jewish civilians, didn't have a history of gasing Kurds and if he would of complied with UN resolutions, then maybe we should have thought about not going to Iraq. Saddam was warned time after time to comply. He would stall and make excuses. Then after 9-11, the government realized what a serious situation we were in and decided to act. I've been biting my tongue in arguing with you because this is the lounge and not the smack room. Why don't you join the peace corp and plant flowers in the desert. Are you really Jane Fonda?
Let us all gather around and drink the Cooley-Aid of the Redskins.

aka Evil Hog
User avatar
Posts: 6481
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 8:01 am
Location: South of Heaven, trying to hit a toilet on shrooms

Postby hailskins666 » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:18 pm

Brandon777 wrote:
Skinsfan55 wrote:Ignorance is the same as being uninformed, that is not an insult, it is an observation. Some people have the very same opinions but they can back them up. Saying everyone in the middle east is crazy... that's an ignorant statement.

Sometimes there is no choice other than war, and you need to weigh the pros and cons of taking such drastic action... I just fail to see where the pros are... to me we're opening up a pandora's box in the middle east, what possible good can come of this? How many years will it take? Are we prepared to go into a war of Biblical proportions taking hundreds of years?
Well, from what I've observed, your leftwing, dramatic, and brainwashed by your liberal professors. At first I told myself not to post on this topic because I didn't want to get in an argument with a liberal. But I'm sick of the Bush bashing going on and I couldn't resist. To say that the middle east isn't full of religious extremest is IGNORANT ON YOUR PART. Not all the people from the middle east are suicide bombers, but most of them feel that it's justified and celebrate in the streets when Jews or Americans are killed. If Saddam wasn't paying Palestinians to blow themselves up to kill jewish civilians, didn't have a history of gasing Kurds and if he would of complied with UN resolutions, then maybe we should have thought about not going to Iraq. Saddam was warned time after time to comply. He would stall and make excuses. Then after 9-11, the government realized what a serious situation we were in and decided to act. I've been biting my tongue in arguing with you because this is the lounge and not the smack room. Why don't you join the peace corp and plant flowers in the desert. Are you really Jane Fonda?
ROTFALMAO i coudn't agree more. and I WON'T post anything other than this on this topic.
THN's resident jerk.

Glock .40 Model 22 - First* line of home defense.... 'ADT' is for liberals.

+++
Posts: 4448
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 2:02 pm

Postby NikiH » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:25 pm

Ok I have to speak again. I have to ask you guys, who makes the decisoin as to when we stop terrorists? Do we have to wait until they attack us? Do we have to wait until they kill 5000 of our citizens? I just wonder if you are the same people blaming our governement for not acting before Sept 11th. We do it now or we have another Sept 11th. To me that is an easy choice. If you choose the other option, the only thing I have to say to you is obviously the majority of this country disagrees with you. Our congress and our president, who were elected, by the majority, decided we need this. I support it 100%. And I want you to know that I have a personal stake in the military. Scott (JansenFan), my husband was a Marine, he was from a long line of Marines in his family. So in 18 years I will probably be the mother of a Marine. And I'm ok with that. I will still support military actions, I will still support our president. Freedom comes at a cost. And if no one is willing to pay that price, you would not have the right to type this ANYWHERE!
Whenever I start to get blue, I just breathe!

My favortie line from the Simpsons:

Flanders: "Looks like someone is having a pre-rapture party!"

Homer: "No Flanders, it's a meeting of gay witches for abortion , you wouldn't be interested!"

aka Evil Hog
User avatar
Posts: 6481
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 8:01 am
Location: South of Heaven, trying to hit a toilet on shrooms

Postby hailskins666 » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:28 pm

NikiH wrote:Ok I have to speak again. I have to ask you guys, who makes the decisoin as to when we stop terrorists? Do we have to wait until they attack us? Do we have to wait until they kill 5000 of our citizens? I just wonder if you are the same people blaming our governement for not acting before Sept 11th. We do it now or we have another Sept 11th. To me that is an easy choice. If you choose the other option, the only thing I have to say to you is obviously the majority of this country disagrees with you. Our congress and our president, who were elected, by the majority, decided we need this. I support it 100%. And I want you to know that I have a personal stake in the military. Scott (JansenFan), my husband was a Marine, he was from a long line of Marines in his family. So in 18 years I will probably be the mother of a Marine. And I'm ok with that. I will still support military actions, I will still support our president. Freedom comes at a cost. And if no one is willing to pay that price, you would not have the right to type this ANYWHERE!
ok, i said i'd make one post on this thread and disappear.... i lied. nikki that was so well put together i have to give you a big :up: Now i'm done :twisted:
THN's resident jerk.

Glock .40 Model 22 - First* line of home defense.... 'ADT' is for liberals.

Pursuer of Justice
Posts: 5798
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:38 pm
Location: Newark, Delaware

Postby Justice Hog » Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:16 pm

Wow NikiH, that was eloquent. I thought I heard the Stars and Stripes Forever playing in the background as I read your post. Well said!
Fran Farren
"Justice Hog"

Newark, DE

6th person to join the "new THN message boards"

Section 341, Row 8, Seats #15 & #16

"Justice that love gives is a surrender, justice that law gives is a punishment."
-Mohandas Gandhi

+++++++++
Posts: 5224
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:21 am

Postby Skinsfan55 » Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:18 pm

I of course support the troops, but blindly following the decisions of the government is stupid. People need to think for theirselves. It's prefectly fine to think for yourself and then come to the conclusion that what we're doing is right... but what's NOT okay is to label anyone who disagrees with you as "left-wing" or a "queer".

We should conduct ourselves the same way we would if we were having a conversation about football, the true emotionalism that shows up is when someone breaks their normal character and begins namecalling and insulting because they feel too strongly about their point that they become incapable of explaining why they do.

Me calling someone ignorant for saying all middle easterners are crazy is the correct usage of the word, saying someone is ignorant because they disagree with your views is incorrect.

*********
Posts: 1185
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 6:23 pm
Location: Fayetteville, NC

Postby Brandon777 » Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:23 pm

Skinsfan55 wrote:I of course support the troops, but blindly following the decisions of the government is stupid. People need to think for theirselves. It's prefectly fine to think for yourself and then come to the conclusion that what we're doing is right... but what's NOT okay is to label anyone who disagrees with you as "left-wing" or a "queer".

We should conduct ourselves the same way we would if we were having a conversation about football, the true emotionalism that shows up is when someone breaks their normal character and begins namecalling and insulting because they feel too strongly about their point that they become incapable of explaining why they do.

Me calling someone ignorant for saying all middle easterners are crazy is the correct usage of the word, saying someone is ignorant because they disagree with your views is incorrect.
Will you just drop this subject. You won't change my views and I won't change yours. This is pointless.
Let us all gather around and drink the Cooley-Aid of the Redskins.

+++++++++
Posts: 5224
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:21 am

Postby Skinsfan55 » Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:42 pm

NikiH wrote:If you choose the other option, the only thing I have to say to you is obviously the majority of this country disagrees with you. Our congress and our president, who were elected, by the majority, decided we need this.


This is just plain incorrect, I respect the way you feel about pretty much everything else, but to think the president is elected by the majority is just plain gullibility.

-Take out anyone 17 or under, that eliminates a huge chunk of the population.

-Slightly more than 50% of eligable voters register, take out another HUGE chunk of the population

-Slightly more than 50% of THOSE people vote!

-Then you have to cut it in half again (it was about half and half in the last election) to get the number of people who voted for Bush.

So when you look at the facts, Bush was elected by a small, small percentage of people out there. That doesn't mean people agree or disagree with him, but he was not elected by a majority.

I am not saying I am for or against Bush, I haven't yet, but what I am saying is just because he's our president doesn't mean we aren't allowed to question him! People faught and died not only for US to have the right to question our leaders, but we've faught wars all over the world to provide other nations with this privlige! supposedly this is also our goal in Iraq...

I love America, and all it has done for us. I love the basic values we have, and while I don't like having to work everyday to make capitalism work, I realize that this is the best way to build a great industrialized nation and all the perks that come with that. However, patriotism is more than just holding your hand over your heart when the president speaks, or getting choked up when you hear the "Star Spangled Banner" played. It's having a genuine interest in what your country is doing, how and why we act the way we do as a nation... seeing what direction the country is going in... and if you don't like it, trying to change it... or at least understand it!

Just letting people spoonfeed you your conclusions is not the way to go, and by saying that, I am not accusing anyone in particular... and the idea perpetuated by others that I have had my conclusions spoonfed to be by queer, left-wing, liberal professors is insulting and assinine. I have taken the information given to me and tried to form my own conclusions on the subject and I have asked for imput from many of you, but so far I have mostly been met with rudeness and "patriotic" speach. Can anyone else besides SFIR give me honest opinions on what good this is doing without using the words "because Bush said so, and he is always right!"

Return to The Lounge