well, I guess this is it, just wondering what everyone things about all this war stuff?

no comment.

i take the fifth....

I offer a



and a

...

nice... in all honesty i'm suprised anyone even responded. I will say that i have very mixed feelings about it and that this was a no-win situation

War sucks.

may i "totally agree," "echo the sentiment," and "ditto" jamiecarroll's simple but true statement.

all i'm gonna say is that i feel too young to have been through 2 wars already...we all are....sometimes i feel that with all i've seen and experienced i should be 40, while at other times i feel 10.

My top secret sources inside the Pentagon tell me that they will be placing their bombs between the minuerets down on casbah way. shhhh

HAHA! Got you....My secret hiding place has been right here on feature message bore. Now you give me USA secrets!

OOOOH! Found ya! We've already got your ass lased again, you goin' down, BITCH!

uh oh. see ya. you never catch me, cowboy!

I'm pretty surprised that there is more serious conversation on the Carligula.com message board on this topic than there is on this one.

(Edited by Keith at 12:51 am on Mar. 20, 2003)

keith, i beg to differ. you just can't take statements like "you never catch me cowboy!" very lightly. i mean , really, how much more serious can you get?

Seeing as how there wasn't a single post about the space shuttle exploding over Texas this doesn't surprise me. I scratch my head at what gets discussed here sometimes and honestly that makes it both bizarre and interesting. Like how we have this talk of a new religion created after the one and only Rory Daigle or Saddam and Bush exchanging barbs in this very thread. This place is wholly unique.

well i for one, am not afarid to say what i think, and im sorry if this does get a little more serious than we were hoping for. this message board is as much a part of me as zoolander's phone is to zoolander.

i hate this. i am scared, angry, sad and worried all at once. i don't agree with the war, but i can't think of a better solution. i have nightmares about war all the time; i hate george bush and i don't care if the CIA knows it.
I sleep with girls and that's probablt a terrorist act too.
read allen ginsberg's poem "america". that is how i feel.
i don't want WWIII and that is exactly what this is the beginning of.

..and its a bummer.

Right on, stalker. Both war and GWB make me physically ill. As jc said so correctly, war always sucks. Killing people to wage peace is the least rational idea I've ever heard. But this war sucks even more because there is zero justification, and because GW is handing a license to kill to all of those terrorist assholes out there who have said that an war on Iraq will be a war on Islam. He might as well be saying what Sadaam said today in response to the war: "Long live jihad." I just wonder if he'll feel any guilt after the first retaliatory terrorist attack on Americans. GW reminds me of that old truism of psychology- If you think everyone else is crazy, you're probably the one who's crazy.

I was out of the country recently, and every person that I met (British, Canadian, French, German, Cuban, Spanish) was curious to know what Americans thought about Bush, since he is so clearly an asshole and an idiot in the eyes of the rest of the world. I was embarassed to be American.

(Edited by Lauren at 8:37 am on Mar. 20, 2003)

You can write this down and take it to the bank: Even if we "win" this war, only bad, bad things will result. Terrorism? Shit, you haven't seen anything yet. Buckle your seatbelts.

Watch it, Lauren, statements like that will kill your career. Look at the Dixie Chicks. Remember them?

Good point about the space shuttle disaster, BrianW. Personally, I'm a little ashamed about that.

I'm not qualified to comment on the war because I'm too apathetic and as always, I have nothing to back this up.

The rest of my life is filled with all of the serious stuff that happens in the world. I've always liked the fact that we can still come here and be light and happy even in the midst of worldwide turmoil. Besides, most of us are "know-it-all" college kids so this isn't the best place to have an open, honest political dialog.

Having said that, now it's time to stir the pot a bit...

Isn't that the only time that war is ever used? Are there any politicians who love war and want to fight any chance they get? War is never anyone's first choice. Apparently, our freely-elected government has reached a point where it believes that we have no other viable options.

I can't say that I believe George W. Bush is the greatest statesman we've ever had as President. However, I do believe that he's pursuing what he thinks is the best option. For whatever reason (personal vendetta, top secret intelligence information, or fondness for blowing things up), he's reached a point where he believes that there must be real change in Iraq. He no longer believes that diplomacy is an option for bringing about that change. (On that point, I happen to agree with him.) I don't think he cares about getting re-elected. He doesn't care about his popularity rating. He cares about doing what he knows to be right. I admire his resolve, but I can only hope that he's right.

Tony Blair has done a much better job of putting a positive spin on this the coalition's objectives in Iraq. If you haven't heard it already, you should read his speech to the House of Commons this week. (I couldn't find a transcript but you can find some decent summaries here, here, and here.) He basically argued that, yes, Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, but he's also been a bad, bad man who has ruined Iraq. Before he came to power, Iraq was a very wealthy nation, comparable to Spain or Portugal. Now, in spite of the nation's rich oil supply, most of the citizens live in poverty. Blair doesn't see it so much as an issue of chemical and/or nuclear weapons. He's taking a broader view and is trying to "heal the world."

It's a bit off topic, but I just have to ask: Do you really believe this, or are you just expressing your fears? And, if so, have you lost all faith in the American idea of personal liberty?

I agree with you, but what else can we do? Even if we didn't attack, would that guarantee our safety from terrorism? In the short term, it puts us at greater risk, but doesn't it improve our safety in the long term? What other options do we have to protect our safety? The only other option I know of is isolationism, which isn't much of a solution at all.

Jeremy, you just posted exactly what I hoped to see in here so while it's nice that this place can remain a refuge from the heavy stuff in life, sometimes events that happen in this world are simply too significant not to have some words written about it. Not everyone has their "serious topic only" boards they visit, so this place can offer that if it's needed.

Here's my take:

I've been against this war for a long time now and have thought that Bush and company failed miserably with their attempts at diplomacy. I'm not really sure how hard they tried, honestly, as if you look at the makeup of his administration it's largely composed of old school Replublicans from as far back as Nixon and are apparently heavy on the "war hawk" side of things. They believe the easiest and most common sense method of correcting a wrong they see is to go to war against it. It explains the insistence of the "war on drugs" and now terrorism. I'm not saying any of this is wrong (well, I think the war against drugs is wrong, but the war against terrorism is clearly needed), but it just goes to show you where these men come from in their thinking.

So now we've started this, so not going to war is no longer an option. I've heard and read enough to know Saddam and his regime are about as bad as you can have in the world today and are worthy of no longer existing. So I only hope the US Military takes them out with as few casualties as possible (it would have been nice if that early strike last night against Iraqi leaders did the trick, but alas it probably didn't). My biggest concern is who will replace Saddam and if and when we'll be returning to the Gulf to remove that person because they've "turned" against us in the future.

I wasn't expecting to see such well worded and thought through opinions posted as the last two from Tom and Brian. I can't say that I'm a HUGE fan of our president. But, I don't resolve to making statements like he's a cowboy, elected not selected, or he's just a drunken, stupid college fratboy. You don't like him, fine. great. He was elected through the system we have set up, get over it. I did. And no person gets through an Ivy league school by being a drunken screw up, daddy's boy. He may get in with those credentials, but won't graduate.

So. No sane person wants war, blah blah blah. We've all heard it and it's a given. This war we're RE-ENTERING has not been our first solution to the non-compliance and threat we've seen from Saddam. Yes, I said re-entering. At the "end" of the Gulf War, we entered into a cease-fire with Saddam. We said, we won't kill you if you disarm and provide us the proof. They didn't. We gave them 12 years since then. Bush Sr., Clinton, and now this Bush have recognized the threat Iraq in it's current state presents. They, and more importantly America, have taken the diplomatic route. We even took the international route through the UN, which we aren't obliged to do. (Clinton proved this when he bombed Iraq in 1998 without going through the UN.) There's your justification. Need more? Just say so.

To say that terrorist attacks against the US would be retaliatory now that we are in this war again, would be like saying we asked for it the first time when they attacked on 9-11. Have we forgotten that minor incident so quickly? What did we do to deserve it? Who were we at war with then? No, I haven't. Nothing. And no one. They (the extremists) hate us no matter what we do.

A lot of hawks in the current administration? You may be right in saying that. That's why I'm so thankful to have Colin Powell in there. He's an outpsoken, peaceful man who helped write the agreement to stop the fighting and give Saddam's regime a chance in the first Gulf War. Powell's words of peace and diplomacy were taken seriously this time around, too. We followed his advice until he even gave up on Saddam's games of noncompliance, only giving the UN enough information to stall.



(Edited by foldsfan at 11:49 am on Mar. 20, 2003)

Since the beginning of the Gulf War we have never ceased being at war with Iraq, whether it be economic sactions (which as killed over one million Iraqis) or the air strikes that have been going on for 12 years. It frightens me how the US treats its former employees (we helped Saddam rise to power, we helped him stay in power, we helped them develop their chemical and biological warfare). Remind me to never have a federal job.

(Edited by Ceeze at 1:20 pm on Mar. 20, 2003)

There's a lovely picture that you can find on the internet of Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam Hussein after the U.S. aided in channeling chemical weapons to Saddam against Iran because Iran was considered a greater threat at the time and because we knew Saddam would not hesitate to use them.

We've always known about the human rights violations of his regime, and the human rights violations of the Taliban (another "evil" regime we helped come to power because we thought Commies were worse) were known for years before the War on Terror. I just can't help but think human rights violations are a nice icing on the cake that appeals to the public but in essence aren't the real reasons for war.

I'm confused right now when it comes to information and I don't pretend to know the real reasons behind the war. These are just opinons.

I'm especially concerned with the long term ramifcations. Bush has opened a new chapter in international law by skirting the UN and I don't think foreign policy will ever be the same.

I think the shameful effects of ludicrous terms like "Axis of Evil" and "Freedom Fries" will take decades to undo. Yes foldsfan, such blatantly moronic and ignorant terms come from the mouth of an Ivy League graduate.

As a frequenter of other message boards, I have to say that the war discussions on those boards basically consist of "if you are against the war then you aren't patriotic" and "let's go kill all them dern iraqis"...typed in all caps, mind you. Part of me is glad to be able to come to this message board where everyone can actually voice their opinions in an articulate manner and remain pretty much open to other ways of thinking. On the other hand, I also like that I can come to this board and generally read humourous stuff that makes me forget how messed up the world is. But in a time like this, I think that our community should definitely discuss this. As long as it doesn't get too out of hand...

My opinion is pretty in-the-middle. I am anti-war, but I'm also anti-Saddam (which, I guess, everyone is). I have been exposed to both sides of the argument through anti-war protests on campus and through discussions with my family (political discussions with family always end awkwardly), but I still remain indecisive. Of course all of this comes atop all of the problems of my personal life (which was dealt just about as big of a bomb yesterday as Iraq felt).

As sad as it is to say, right now I don't have time to think about this war. It, like other things, is just unbelievable and we as a nation are heading to a pretty scary place. Yesterday sucked.

On a lighter note, MTV's coverage did provide some humor. They stated that Saddam has Austin Powers and Britney Spears posters in one of his homes and MTV said that Saddam was "ego trippin'."

(Edited by DigsySlattery at 12:37 pm on Mar. 20, 2003)

I think that both this war and Saddam Hussein's regime are two pretty terrible evils. The hard thing for me to decide during the last few days is which is the worse and which the best evil.

The U.S. will drop bombs and missiles that have the capacity to kill thousands of Iraqi civilians. However, these same innocents could very well be tortured and killed by their own president. One Iraqi who recently came out in dissent of Saddam had his tongue cut out and was tied to a post, left to bleed to death.

This is awful. War is hell.

Sounds serious. Sorry to hear it...

nicely said, Tom. I agree whole heartedly, and would have made a similar post had i sat down at my computer sooner.

Definitely a lot of opinion goes into our discussions, but I believe (another opinion?) that there are facts to look at. Yes, we did supply Saddam with weapons. He was not the madman he is today. He turned on us. He developed\aquired other weapons that we were okay with until he invaded Kuwait, an ally, and Saudi Arabia. We could get off target and start talking about the inconsistencies with countries such as Saudi Arabia and China who are aiding terrorism and violating human's rights laws, and I would say I would agree with everyone about those inconsistencies in our policy. But, we're talking about this war we're in with Iraq.

I also agree that the issue of human's rights violations isn't the real reason we're going in, but they do exist. The main reason and the reason that is justified is, in fact, the enforcement of the UN resolution 1441. The UN has failed to act on it's promises. France has failed to act on it's promise to back the resolution it signed (1441). Fine. We aren't alone. Just because France and Germany want to protect themselves for various reasons (oil, politics within their own country, etc) doesn't mean that we should wait until Iraq becomes a North Korea and aquires nukes. Over 40 countries are supporting us. Tony Blair, a liberal who was good friends with President Clinton, went through hell in his own party for supporting action against Saddam's regime. The leaders of those countries understand. Congress understood when they voted a little over a year ago, of course politics takes place of character.
I have no problem with people disagreeing. I'm never sure if the words I type will take the wrong inflection with people, so I'd like to say that this discussion is benign on my part and isn't meant to be anything more than a discussion. I love hearing a good arguement backed up with fact.

On a side note, I think "Freedom Fries" was coined by Congress, but I really could be wrong. I concur that it was a very stupid move, either way. Back to work!

(Edited by foldsfan at 1:32 pm on Mar. 20, 2003)

dayum... a dude goes to lunch and comes back to some heavy opinions... bravo.
I don't have much to add, except that you can't blame us for putting Saddam in power. To paraphrase a former CIA chief... "the espinionage business is a dirty businees, and if we want to be in the loop and protect ourselves then we have to be willing to get dirty."

It's all about picking the right horse. Saddam was our man when Iran, Syria, and Lebanon were the bain of our existence. Bin Laden and his troops kept Afghanistan free from Soviet rule. We knew we were getting into bed with some bad fellows, but when we looked at the other players at the poker table, these guys fit the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" model. They served their role, and did it well. Where we went wrong is that we lost contact, and failed to get a return on our investment.

For an eye opening look into how we (the people, the government) failed the CIA and the intelligence community, run don't walk to the bookstore and pick up "See No Evil" by Robert Baer. He was a spook in the 80's and 90's and has seen some shit. He was pulled out of service and eventually forced to retire for being outspoken after he had set up a coup of Saddam in '96 using the Kurds. Washington pulled the plug on the operation in the 11th hour. And the Kurds went into battle without our promised air support. They were slaughtered. After that, we pulled what little resources we had out of the middle east. That's why 9/11 took us by such surprise.

Actually, Iraq was a relatively healthy and prosperous nation prior to the sanctions the UN (led by the U.S) imposed on Iraq following the Gulf War. Statistics that I've heard/ read a few places are a doubling of the infant mortality rate, a 4x increase in child mortality, and a reduction of the per capita GDP from $2840/ year to $200 year, between 1989 and 1997.

I fail to see how Blair thinks he's healing the world through the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children from sanctions, and now more wanton killing in the form of war.

And I think etcetera is right in mourning the destruction of international diplomatic relations for years to come. Although you'll never hear it on CNN, cities across Europe & the world are shut down today by people protesting the war & aiming their anger at Bush- this is not a good sign that the world will support America in the future.

foldsfan- although I totally disagree with you, I appreciate the intelligent thoughts, and I'm also glad we can have this open dialogue. Maybe thefeatures.com should take the helm for the New World Order? Although thoughts like this will not be tolerated in our brave new world:
Didn't you read your Book of Daigletology? Powell is the Anti Christ!

The UN, being the compassionate humanitarians they are, along with the US, continues to send in food and other aid to Iraq through the Food for Oil program, but Saddam takes the money he should be buying and builds palaces for himself and funding weapons programs instead of taking care of his own people like a good dictator should. I don't even mind dictatorship if they want it in Iraq and the dictator acts like a decent human being.
I sent in my money, but have yet to receive The Book, I think the money goes to support the free-masons. Someone did show up at my house with flowers and a pamphlet explaining how the Features Message Board is all about oil.

(Edited by foldsfan at 3:54 pm on Mar. 20, 2003)

the sanctions would have been lifted had saddam cared to meet the terms presented to him. tony blair isn't the guilty party- it's not his responsibility to make sure the iraqi people have the best possible quality of life... really, if you don't want the UN to have to use force, you have to give them some way to back their demands, so the sanctions are warranted.

(Edited by damon at 4:58 pm on Mar. 20, 2003)

I would just like to add that the hostility of our own people toward freedom of speech makes me upset and weary. Example: I was at a Preds game on Monday (when W announced his little 48 hour warning). They were showing it on the JumboTron between periods. Well some people were clapping, which is fine. But I felt obligated to boo b/c I completely disagree w/this whole damn thing. Well that sparked some rednecks behind me to start mocking me and throwing shit at me and cussing at me. I implored to them as to why they could express themselves and I couldn't. Needless to say it got a little heated and the usher had to break us up (just arguing, but loudly). It's sad when someone's war divides the world's people.

And war, what IS it good for? (HUH!)

Absolutely nothing.

Yeah, weary is a good way to put it. That was a brave move, WJ- I don't know whether I would've been that brave. I'm tired of hearing from media & people that now that there's a war, true Americans will support it. I guess I thought it was patriotic to be concerned about the long term survival of our country and to value civil liberties like freedom of speech? Apparently I'm misinformed- too much time wasted reading the Book of D.

Then again, if you get down to it, the anarchist in me doesn't really care too much about the long term survival of our country. But I'll always care about the survival of American people, as well as that of all people.

There are probably a lot of things that you could have argued about with that crowd and gotten the same results, what else should be expected showing that speech on two-for-one night?

I am a man divided when it comes to U.S. foriegn policy. Two different points of view are constantly at war (sorry...) in my head.

In one corner, the Libertarian viewpoint. This viewpoint was my ONLY viewpoint for so long. It goes: We should be an isolationist republic. Our military should exist for no reason other than to protect our own borders. Do you have any IDEA what our country spends each year on the military?!!! What if we pumped 1/2 of those BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars into education, or into creating a REAL national healthcare plan. Shit, what if we dumped 1/4 of that money in?!! We spend SO much money on the military, and for what? To essentially be the world's police force. Our armed forces are literally spread out all over the world, involved in every single conflict that even dreams of existing. I think that that we should do what Japan did after World War II, and drastically scale back our military. We pull out of everyone else's business. We, as a country, do not get involved in other countries' issues (except for extreme exceptions...think Holocaust). You say you feel badly about what's going on in Bosnia? Well form an organization and contribute money privately. But OUR tax dollars stay at HOME. This really would soothe the terrorists' (read: Muslims') burning hatred of America. Do you know why they hate us so much? Because we're all up in their damn business all of the time, busy trying to police whatever conflicts may exist in their countries.

Anyway, that was my bag for so very long. And I think that it's a logical viewpoint. But ultimately, it's only that - logical. What if we got away from using our head so much and used our hearts more often. And that's what I'm really feeling now - more LOVE. More compassion, more kindness, more generosity. I think about Jesus Christ. What kind of foriegn policy would he have if he were president? I think about things like the AIDS pandemic in Africa, of the struggling millions in Eastern Europe and Asia. I think about things like this and just feel that we CAN'T just isolate ourselves while the world dies around us. After all, we're all human beings, and we should look out for one another.

So in the end, I don't know what I believe about the U.S. and how it should ultimately interact with the rest of the world. But I know that I am opposed to war in the context that we are fighting it now. You can talk all you want to about resolutions and alliances and the plethora of details pertaining to the situation. But in the end, it's about people killing other people. And I just can't agree to that unless there is NO OTHER WAY OUT. And I don't feel confident that there was no other way out in this situation. I'm sorry if I sound like an idealist, but I guess I am.

there's a lot that's been said here...

i'll just say that I don't feel right with this war. There are a lot of things at play and everything about it seems shady to me.

Plus, the fact that we have gone to war without many major countries' support means that any nation in the world can do whatever they want without thinking about how it affects anyone else in the world. That's a scary thought. We're supposed to be ushering in an era of world community, but whatever.

jamiecarroll, that was an excellent post! And one I strongly relate to. Seeing all of the opposition to this war and the international hate for Americans has got me thinking this isn't the best route either. My whole support for the war was based almost entirely on the fact that the iraqi people would be better off in the long run after this. But your points have changed my mind somewhat. If we pumped all this money into food, technology, and health aids for other people, we'd probably end up helping more people groups and making more friends than we are now.
In addition, if all of the soldiers that have been deployed were instead spread across America, I feel that the terrorist threat(s) could be nearly eliminated. But like you said, maybe this is just an idealistic way of thinking.

i doubt that the threat would be eliminated. terrorists don't seem to mind the military, as they sometimes use them for targets. anyways, if the were to serve any role in fighting terrorism domestically, it would create a marshal law-esque situation which would, no doubt, be extremely unpopular.

i found this last night and i thought i would post it to maybe lighten the mood.....

A letter to the London Observer newspaper from Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame). Letters; Sunday January 26, 2003 The Observer

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's
running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really
pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street.
Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me
queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me,
but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his
place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well
hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass
Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that: if we don't act
first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my neighbours say, if I've got
proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The
police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my
neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the
rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will
be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be
secretly murdering people Since I'm the only one in the street with a
decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the
peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however,
George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of
patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want! And let's face it,
Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to
bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop
Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us. That's why I want to blow up Mr. Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first!
That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering
at me in that totally unacceptable way. Mr Bush makes it clear that all he
needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just a s much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to
make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'.
It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims? It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up. Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist
masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you',
I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's just as sane as
what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending,
my policy will destroy only one street.
Sincerely, Terry Jones

RD - that letter is great. Thanks for sharing it.

I'm afraid that the live news coverage of this episode has turned war into some sort of ultimate reality television show. Forget Survivor and The Batchelorette, tune into Fox for "Operation Iraqi Freedom," starring the U.S. and U.K. military!!! It's strange and scary. However, I have been watching it nearly nonstop in the hopes of catching a glimpse of my brother, who has now been in Kuwait for nearly 6 months. I am very worried about him.

I think it's pretty amazing how they can cut to live shots of reporters riding along with our troops as they ride into Iraq. It really does seem like a reality show and it's unlike how any other war has ever been televised and covered by the news agencies.

I'm also getting really sick of this "shock and awe" phrase I keep hearing tossed about.

The phrase that has me and my wife (we've both worked in TV news) cringing is "Let's go to Ted Johnson, who is EMBEDDED with the 1st Division of Armored Marines Who Call Their Mother Mommy."

Embedded must be the Pentagon term for journalists attached to a unit. And the news repeats it because they think it sounds cooler than "Showing you shit, so that you think you are seeing some 'splosions, even though we're not allowed to show you jack."

Maybe I'm just weird about this stuff, but these buzzwords just drive me nuts... Shock and Awe is a close 2nd there, Brian.

I'm also sick of watching crappy 8fps video phone footage. Half the time it looks like it maybe JenniCam out in her sandbox playing with her cats...

(Edited by Peace Frog at 11:07 am on Mar. 21, 2003)

With that crappy video you keep hearing "wow, this is amazing video!" and I can't help but laugh to that. I realize it's pretty amazing that we are getting any video live from a unit moving deep into Iraq, but really you can't make out a lot. If I was anymore naive I might believe that the desert was composed of giant pixels.

Anybody notice how General Myers recent address focused on how many oil fields we've "secured?"

(Edited by deathscythe257 at 12:50 pm on Mar. 21, 2003)

Things have slowed down so I'll stir the pot some more...

I've heard variations of this argument many times. I find it quite disturbing because it suggests that once a nation, regime, faction, or leader helps the U.S. meet one objective, they should get a free pass to do whatever they want without any fear of reprisal. However, as Peace Frog suggested, international politics often involves choosing the "least worst" solution. During the Cold War, we considered Saddam Hussein's regime to be a better solution than Communism. Having won that fight and eliminated Communism in most of the world, Hussein is no longer a "least worst" solution. Additionally, I don't think our 1970's plans with Iraq worked out the way we hoped. We thought we were helping to create a democracy there, but, as it turns out, it's only a mirage of democracy.

I think it opens a new chapter because it reduces the role of the UN in the world. Hopefully, we'll start backing away from this idea that the UN is the world's ultimate authority and we must seek its approval for all of international policies. It was never meant to be a world government who determined who could fight and when. It was created as an international forum to discuss the security of the world. I don't think there is such a thing as "international law." Instead, most of the world has agreed on some basic standards of decency, such as "Don't kill six million Jews." (On this topic, I enjoyed reading a commentary by George Will and another by Dan Goure.)

"Freedom Fries" was not coined by George W. Bush. In fact, I can't find a single source that indicates he's every publicly used the term. If you have some evidence, please post a link. Terms such as "Freedom Fries" date back to World War I. At that time, Germany was the enemy so sauerkraut became "liberty cabbage," and hamburgers were "liberty steaks." (I have something to back this up.) I don't think it took that long after that war ended for us to regain our sensibilities about our culinary nomenclature.

This has been one of the most interesting aspects of this conflict to me. There are a few people like foldsfan and Lauren who see it as a definite right or a definite wrong. However, most Americans seem to be caught in the middle. Yes, Saddam is a bad man who has presided over many atrocities. Yes, there's a very strong possibility that he has weapons of mass destruction. But is it really worth all of the lives that will be lost? Is he really a threat to the people on the other side of the globe? It makes it hard to decide which is the lesser evil. We hear a lot about all of the Iraqi people (both military and civilian) who will be killed in this military operation. However, it may help us to discern what the best solution is by instead looking at the people who will survive. Iraq has around 24 million people. In a worst case scenario, you can expect about 100,000 of them to die because of all of this. While that is terrible and tragic, we have to remember that 23.9 million will still survive. So I think we have to ask ourselves if this operation will improve their lives or not. (This, of course, requires that we first define what an "improved life" is.)

I don't condone people's impolite behavior, but that's the beauty of freedom of speech. You have the right to boo the President when he speaks, and others have the right to be rude to you when you do. I think I had a very similar experience at the same Predators game. Since I wasn't wearing a hat, I did not place my hand over my heart while the national anthem was presented. I heard some people behind me mumbling something about my "un-American" behavior.

Lauren, I sympathize with your position. What does a patriot do when her country is engaged in activities with which she doesn't agree? I'm not an expert on patriotism, but here's what I've come up with. We had a long period of debate in this country on what (if anything) we should do about the problem (or lack thereof) with Iraq. I think that all good patriots should participate in this debate at some level. Now, however, the debate has ended. Whether your side won or lost the debate, I think patriots should support their country. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it. I think there are appropriate ways for one to express his displeasure. I think non-disruptive protests like a candlelight vigil are a good idea. However, forming traffic blockades in Washington, DC, and bringing the nation's capital to a stand-still is not very supportive.

To keep people from hating us so much, I think we'd need both political and cultural isolation. It's not just our use of military force that many people find so offensive. It's the way that we try to force our culture on others. We think our SUV-driving, Gap-wearing, beer-guzzling society is so great that we can't imagine why everyone doesn't want to be just like us. (This thinking causes people to believe that al Queda is anti-American because they're jealous of us.) If we're going to truly be less offensive to people of other nationalities, we need our government to keep its nose out of other people's business, but the government must also forbid the private sector from marketing abroad. I think this argument can also be applied to JC's more compassionate line of thinking. Once you decide that someone else's standard of living isn't good enough, you open the door to forcing your ideology on them. It starts out innocently; you send food and medical supplies. Then someone says, "Those poor people all live on humble farms and live in old houses! That's terrible! I'll open a factory there and give them jobs so they can earn real money!" It's all downhill from there.

I'll conclude by explaining my disdain with the use of the word war when describing the current military action. I think it's insulting to those who suffered and died during the wars of our past. When you fight a war, soldiers die horrible deaths by the thousands. On the home front, we have to make real sacrifices to support the effort abroad. Until someone is appointed air raid marshal of Franklin or soldiers are being cut down by machine gun fire as soon as they climb out of the trenches, I don't think it's appropriate to use the word war.

I am aware that the term was coined by Congress. Its use, however, applies to the White House cafeteria and restaurants across America are following suit. My argument was that an intelligent Ivy League graduate (who I'm sure spent most of his time cloistered in the University Library rather than say...drunk from morning to night) would see the negative effects of such terms in the White House in regards to an already-shaky relationship with the European Union. I would also think maybe such a brilliant Ivy League graduate might stop to point out that "French Fries" have no relation to France. But I suppose education isn't everything. No one is going to remember 30 years from now which Senator came up with it. They're going to remember it arose during Bush's administration.

I am also well aware of the legacy of renamed "German" Foods during World War I and the purpose it served in arousing anti-German sentiment. My concern is not about the nation recovering it's culinary dignity or "nomenclature." I have no doubt that most people still use the anti-American "French Fries" and that this term will continue to be used. My concern is about the effects such terms have on attempts to arouse hate and prejudice in a pluralist society. I just don't think a country ostensibly waging a war in the name of protecting democracy and freedom all over the world should throw around such close-minded terms. That's all.





(Edited by etcetera at 2:50 pm on Mar. 21, 2003)

From what I can remember from Boy Scouts, you are to remove your hat (if you are wearing one) AND cover your heart during the National Anthem unless you are in uniform, in which case you salute. Too many people don't do this and I find it disrespectful.

Sorry to pick on such a minor point. Thanks for contributing so much to this topic. I definitely appreciate your opinions and am impressed by your knowledge of the situation.

Even though it's not directly related to the "war," I don't consider it a minor point at all. I'm terribly fascinated with etiquette and proper protocol in social and public settings. To my knowledge, there's never been an official statement from the government on how civilians should show respect for the flag or the national anthem. Without a definitive, official guide, standards have grown from tradition and military protocol. However, several different traditions have sprung up with minor differences in the details. I consider it to be a matter of etiquette so I look to Judith Martin (a.k.a. Miss Manners) for guidance on such issues. According to her, non-military personnel must rise when the national anthem is played. Gentlemen must remove their hats (or, as is common today, their caps), hold them in their right hands, and place them near their left shoulders so their right hand is over the center of their chest. Ladies and gentlemen without hats may choose to put their right hands over their heart, but it's not required as it is when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. One should never applaud when the national anthem is sung because it (along with liturgical music) is always presented and never performed. But that's her take on it. As I said there are other traditions. I remember once reading that resident aliens were required to put their hands over their hearts, but I can't find anything now to back that up.

Somebody's had a lot of time on his hands this week with his roommate out of town.

it wouldn't make much sense to allow the to set the oil fields on fire, would it? of course we secure them.

please read this article. it is long, but well worth the read.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm

Come on, "secured" from Saddam's henchman blowing them up (remember Saddam promised he wouldn't and already has) and wasting the Iraqi's oil money (a lot of which will probably go into rebuilding the country), not to mention the environmental damage it would do. Sorry for the excessant use of ().


One of the things I admired about JamieCarroll's isolationist views, was
that he was consistent. He not only was saying that the U.S. would need to stay out of other countries militarily, but also financially, medically, and in other ways. Maybe I have too much faith in Americans, but I believe that if we had more money, a lot of us would give it away to organizations that would provide relief for countries going through a famine, or to find a cure for AIDS or cancer. If for no other reason than tax breaks. As it is now, it's easy to say, "well my money's going there anyway through our taxes. Let the government do it."


And etcetera, I think it's an inane idea, these Freedom Fries. One thing that I was thinking about when reading your post is how, when Clinton was going through his trial and all that, people were saying, "Wow, how cool is it to have a president who is just like us?" People were proud of his sexual exploits and the example the most powerful man in the world was setting forth. He even had the audacity to lie to us UNDER OATH. Now we have a man who was straight forward and told the world he was a drunk, and noooow people have a problem with the kinds of personal, very common faults. (Not saying that cheating on your wife is a common fault.) I'm also not saying that you were this kind of person either, etc.
Just very loosely formed thoughts inbetween drawing doses.

(Edited by foldsfan at 4:02 pm on Mar. 21, 2003)

I think D257 meant that they're focussing more on what we've secured than what we haven't. I disagree, though. From the little I've watched of CNN, they seem to be reporting on how many fields aren't "secure" just as much if not more than how many are "secure". I find the fact that they're setting so many of these fields on fire to be truly terrifying. I mean, what purpose does that serve other than telling us that they just don't give a fuck?

Disrespectful? Its called personal choice and belief. The Constituion guarantees me such things. I havent said the pledge of allegiance or crossed my heart for the National Anthem since I was 14.

That's right, you have the personal choice to be disrespectful to our nation's forefathers.

If I were to say the POA today, I would definitely skip over the "under God" part.

Point taken. I think that McDonald's franchises are just as offensive to those abroad as are U.S. Air Force bases. But I have trouble saying for certain that we should place limits on capitalism. I believe in free trade. I think it ultimately benefits all countries.

I've got a sneaky suspicion many of our forefathers would be ashamed of our foreign policy too. Our country was founded on political dissidence, whether it be aggresive, or more passive like mine. I think if anything I'm showing utmost respect to our forefathers.

A few weeks ago they decided to have us take time out of homeroom to recite the pledge of allegiance and do the moment of silence again every day. Doesn't bother me but it definatley doesn't get recited very enthusiastically.

Unenthusiastic is a gross understatement when describing how the pledge is said by my high school students. I make them all at least stand up, but none of my students say the pledge. I have noticed, though, that when it comes to underprivileged, low-achieving, very discouraged black teenagers, this is not a rare thing. Most of them can't seem to figure out what "liberty and justice for all" really has to do with them and their families. Interestingly enough, though, I don't think most of them would have a problem with the "under God" part.

I'm not for this thing. maybe the things I do (or do not do) can be considered unamerican or unpatriotic. I am not down with the war because in order to "find and kill saddam" the united states is completely obliterating Baghdad. Its not that i am antiamerican. I am antislaughter, and pro-people. american citizens and iraquian citizens alike.

and i don't believe this "targeted area, precision bombing" bullshit. they are bombs. they destroy large areas, and kill innocent people.

and TF, yoiu're right. this can't really be called a war,. becasue a war usually involves two sides fighting, not one side blindly bombing the shit out of the other.

bush has something to prove; he's got to shoot 'em up to avenge his daddy, to prove what a "great man" he is, and more importantly to prove that "you shouldn't fuck with America becasue if you do, we will kill you all"
oh yeah, and the big moneymaker . . .OIL.

if we had cars that ran on hydrogen based fuel, we wouldn't have to fight over oil. but, if we stopped using oil, how would dubya get any money? what is this war REALLY about? and does george bush really have anyone's interest in mind other than his own?

the big mistake here is thinking that it can't happen to us. to think that something like Hiroshema couldn't just as easily be in New Mexico.
america thought it was invincible, and after years of bullying other countries and policing other countries, we learned that we are not.
september 11th proved that, and there is no way of knowing that somethign like that won't happen again. in fact, my guess is that is will happen again.
its just one retaliation after the other.

"war doesn't determine who is right. It determines who is left"



(Edited by stalker on skates at 8:09 pm on Mar. 22, 2003)

the nation

Thought you guys might find this interesting. For more leftist propaganda take a look around the site. Lots of fun stuff.

Also, I haven't really posted my opinions on here as of yet, and maybe I won't, but I appreciate everyone keeping the dialog open, having intelligent comments and staying civil. It's the only way anything good can come of this.

i really don't buy either of those. first of all, there's really nothing to avenge. correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't clinton come very close to sending troops into Iraq in '98? would he too have been concerned with defending the honor of george h. w. bush? secondly, it's not as if bush is going to build a plantation house in the middle of an iraqi oil field and move there, under the shade of his new oil platforms. the oil fields are iraqi, and will remain so. all the focus placed on them lately has been warranted- i mean, why the hell would the militarty want to devote months to extinguishing dozens if not hundreds of oil fires? does anybody remember the pictures from kuwait when their oil fields were set ablaze? really, the oil feilds are crucial to the postwar reconstruction of iraq, and it makes sense to preserve them.

(Edited by damon at 7:41 pm on Mar. 22, 2003)

Whether they are valid concerns or not, I would just like to say how glad I am that the American people have questioned George's motives (speculation or not)... I'm not sure where I stand on the issue as of now, but I'm certainly glad that at least everyone isn't blindly supporting the glorified image of a president leading the poor, mistreated Iraqi people to liberation.. I guess I think he is trying to do something good, but has his own interest in the back of his mind.

That is all I will add to this subject, I think.

frankly, i think that all of the leaders involved in this mess have their own interests in the back of their minds. i mean, of course china doesn't support overthrowing such a government (at least they aren't hypocrites). even jacques chirac, that wise leader he is, (and schroeder, who commits to nothing) has his own interests in mind. i think that tony blair's stand means more to me than anyone else's. for a man who has experienced the success and popularity that blair has enjoyed to put his neck out for a cause that only 25% of his citizens support, he must know something. really, it isn't everyday that the most popular prime minister in english history risks his place in history, and dare i say, the support of some of the idealistic celebrities who backed him the whole way (one noel gallagher, among them). as far as questioning bush's intention goes, i'd keep a closer eye on donald rumsfeld.

(Edited by damon at 2:33 am on Mar. 23, 2003)

Did you expect different? It seems to me that people protest anything that George W Bush does. In fact, I'd say that the danger is more that people blindly criticize anything that Bush does, whether they know the facts or not. And why wouldn't they, when Jon Stewart is explicitly telling them five nights a week that our president is an idiot?

I'm not a George Bush fan by any means, but I do sometimes feel sorry for him. He can't do ANYTHING without getting blasted by the pop media. All I ask is that people try to seek out the facts for themselves on issues. Don't just take Janeane Garofalo's word for it.

jaime carroll, you are truly a wise lady

all too often i hear people criticize bush for being stupid, when in reality, they are not the proverbial sharpest knife in the drawer (not unlike what gerald ford experienced). he really has been unfairly labeled. granted, he may not be the rhodes scholar that clinton is, but he is far more intelligent than many of those who love to talk shit about him- especially some of the trendy celebrities who love to jump his case. seriously, how is martin sheen's opinion any more valuable than the average american? he may play the president on tv, but he'd be just as qualified if he stayed in a holiday inn express. and janeane garofalo? what was the last funny movie she made? maybe she should work on improving her acting career before she starts guiding america in the right direction. i don't mind when informed people disagree with bush and his policies, as there is always room for criticism. but all too often i talk to people who criticize bush, when in reality they never watch the news or open a newspaper to learn anything. you can't base an opinion on shit you hear people say- especially celebrities on the today show. it really is rubbish.

(Edited by damon at 3:31 am on Mar. 23, 2003)

Yes, I think Tony Blair's unflagging support of this has been quite remarkable. He has endured no end of criticism for his stance. I don't think this criticism has necessarily been unfounded - most of us are nervous about the lack of UN and global support and the British are far more pacifist than Americans are - but I respect the fact that Blair has stuck to his guns in the midst of it. It shows an appropriate denial of self-interest in the matter. Now it seems his people are coming around a bit.

One of the saddest things to me is that most of the casualties so far have been British. I expect that this has been taken very badly back home.

We live in a society where public figures are under a microscope, and yes that means they will be harassed for everything they do. That is the nature of the beast. Is it at times sad and degrading? Why yes, it is. However, Clntion served as joke material for the Daily Show just as much as Bush is doing so now. That's the way it is going to be, right or wrong. As for blind criticism, from my experience those that dissent are usually MORE informed on the topic in question. I'm not saying there aren't those that disagree just for the sake of having something to be against. However, it is much easier for the uninformed and uneducated to blindly follow the majority and sleepwalk through history, the majority being those that support this war and the presidency of Mr Bush. In closing, God (Allah, Vishnu, whomever) bless our troops. I pray for their health, a speedy end to this conflict, and I pray that the global repercussions are nowhere near as severe as I expect. Thank you and good day.

See, I just don't think that's true, Ceeze. Yes, every president in this day and age will get their share of ribbing. But can you honestly tell me that Bill Clinton got the same treatment that Bush is getting day in and day out (not just during the Lewinsky scandal) by the entertainment industry? I don't think it's even close. I mean, sure they poked fun at Clinton's mannerisms and his drawling cadence, but with Bush, it doesn't seem to just be in fun, and I think it's several degrees more vicious. In fact, as foldsfan pointed out earlier, I think that as more of Clinton's sexual escapades were uncovered, he was actually more revered by the powers that be in entertainment (if for no other reason than because it pissed off the Republicans, the "establishment," and the "squares").

But hey, the right is not free of blame either. Though they don't claim to be unbiased, their talk shows are downright merciless, and don't give Democrats a chance in the same way that pop media don't give Republicans a chance.

What we need is a third-party candidate who can rise above the bullshit gang war that American politics has become.

that is very true.....

Good luck with that. Maybe the Easter Bunny can be the Vice President. All kidding aside, I think we're a long way from that being plausible. At one point in american history, a 3rd party candidate stood a viable chance at being elected (Eugene Debs, Teddy Roosevelt, hell Strom Thurmond), but I'm not sure what it would take to get one elected nowadays. John McCain could have probably pulled 20% of the vote (from both parties) and won some states last election year, but I don't think he could have won. It would have to go like this:

Social, economic and political disarray in America (like another huge depression, another world war), the parties would have to leave the center and move farther left and right, and there would have to be a wildly charismatic 3rd party candidate (think JFK, but not Catholic).

On a completely unrelated note, there is only member of Congress with a child in the Armed Forces. Think about that for awhile.

(Edited by Ceeze at 1:03 pm on Mar. 23, 2003)

I agree. It's hard to face, but I agree. John and Jane Doe will have to become decidedly uncomfortable before they will start to think outside of the box.

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 6:33 pm on Mar. 23, 2003)

Oh no, jc! I was going to be your '04 campaign manager, but then you had to go and tout capitalism. I guess now I'll put my energy behind Jon Stewart ; ) All this discussion of whether the U.S. should be isolationist or not is interesting, but only rhetorical. The Unites States' government and industry is primarily motivated by a desire to reap profit from the rest of the world, which is the only way that our bloated and greedy society can continue to survive. Were we to sever ties with all nations, our entire economy would crumble since it is based on exploiting cheap foreign labor and resources to build American wealth. This wealth is necessary to both maintain history's most massive military (to fend off the inevitable attacks from poorer, disgruntled nations) and to enable the vitality of American consumerism, which in turn drives industry to seek out more and more sources of profit across the globe, stepping on many toes in the process. Remember how we were told that the best way to fight terrorism in the fall of 2001 was to go out and shop?

But anyway, this discussion is about war & I appreciate the posted articles from Common Dreams & the Nation. Whatever your political flavor, I submit that independent/ non-corporate media is the most provocative and accurate information out there.

Regarding celebrities, I saw a CNN interview with Janeane Garofalo a few months ago in which the reporter essentially asked her why we should give a shit what she thinks. She responded that she felt compelled to speak her mind to the press because they're not calling Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn for interviews, so it's the only way to get a non-mainstream viewpoint heard. I thought that was a good point.

Regarding various other comments...I'm glad you're an idealist Jamie- it's a rare & noble breed...I too stopped saying the pledge or standing for the anthem around age 14, and I'll admit it's because I don't respect our government...Token- I also have a loved one in Kuwait & all this news of the sabotage of the 101st Airborne is very scary.

I think it could realisticly go either way. people often believe or think only as they are told to. Either way, I try to respect all opinions, as long as they are educated. But I hope I did not come across as an unedducated adament opposer of Bush. I don't agree with several of his policies not involving the war. (ie his stance on abortion, trying to insinuate Christianity into everything, his extensive use of capital punishment) The fact that I don't agree with war just exacerbates my complete disregard for his authority and his (lack of) intelligence.

maybe jon stewart is telling us that GWB is stupid for a few reasons. if that is his opinion of bush, then he is stating it. the only difference between me and him is that he has a television show and states his views publicly. that and he has testicles...

Sorry, Lauren, but Capitalism is The Answer. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to social policy, but in terms of economic policy, I'm about as far right as can be.

I'm not wimping out or sidestepping when I say: the issue is much much too complex to get into here, so I'm not going to try to continue the debate. I can recomend some books if you want, or you can just take my word for it. But communism, socialism, or any type of government-controlled economy will ultimately not perform as well as a capitalist environment. Just ask the USSR, or go visit Cuba, if you don't believe me.

I think it's purely a personal choice. I still always stand, face the flag, and put my hand over my heart for the anthem, and I'll always recite the pledge. For me, it's more out of respect to the founders of our country than anything to do with the current regime's policies. I think that they should always have the pledge in school. But whether or not to take part should be up to the individual kid. It's just my opinion...

It's funny you should say that, because we actually honeymooned in Cuba (shhh!). And their system is working very well for them- they have a lower infant mortality rate and higher literacy rate than we do, and no one is starving- but at a high price paid in civil liberties that we take for granted. Also, they've made a few concessions to free enterprise in the past decade that have probably contributed to their economic survival. I'll also grant that it's a lot easier to have a successful socialist regime in a small, tropical, resource-rich, somewhat homogenous nation than it would be in a lot of other places.

So, I think Cuba does work in terms of providing for its people, but I don't think the answer is necessarily socialism. I hate the phrase "government-controlled" anything, and I'm pretty much still searching for an economic theory that respects human, individual, and collective rights and is truly egalitarian. Any book recommendations would be welcomed- and I agree that this discussion will have to continue outside of the good ol' MB.

Wow, Cuba would be a beautiful place to honeymoon! I have a friend who lived in Cuba for a summer and fell in love with it.

I understand what you're saying about their people not starving. Communism doesn't let people starve, but it also doesn't let them prosper. And that's my beef. I want to live in an environment where if you're willing to work harder, you might just get ahead in life.

Communism is like Prozac - the lows aren't as low, but the highs aren't as high either.

Genius.