<strong>btw, in the official statement after the emergency meeting of the European Union yesterday, the heads of states of the EU acknowledge that the "amassing of U.S. troops in the middle east contributed significantly to being able to resume U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq".
So the credible threat of war proved helpful, but that doesn't mean that you actually have to go to war. There are many more layers of how Saddam can be controlled and contained. War is not inevitable at this stage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gee, at this point you sound just like the Bush administration.
These most recent posts just go to show how the media can always be blamed. You used to hear about the "libral media" from all these "conservatives," now suddenly the media has this pro-Bush administration bias according to these "liberals." I wonder if people just see what they want to see?
You don't have to lie about what someone says to try and win an argument, do you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where did I lie about what was said. mw has spoken out against the war option, which is a fine position, given another solution. Then makes a statement to "lift the stupid sanctions". So, as far as what he said, well, he said it.
Given the current situation, those two statements then imply "Lift sanctions, skip military action" which would essentially telling saddam to carry on. Given those two positions, that was my conclusion to them. I did not lie about what he said. I never said mw and I shared a common conclusion, given those statements, but I simply made my own conclusion.
<strong>These most recent posts just go to show how the media can always be blamed. You used to hear about the "libral media" from all these "conservatives," now suddenly the media has this pro-Bush administration bias according to these "liberals." I wonder if people just see what they want to see?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutaly. The consevatives used to say (still do) that the press had a liberal agenda. So what, that doesn't mean freedom of speech is threatened either. They would of course try and get, in their view, more balanced coverage. But, that's not a loss of freedom of speech either. Of course, when they couldn't get more balanced coverage from mainstream media, they just created Rush.
As far as the numbers in the paper go, if the reverse had happened an the NY Times was listing a figure greater than had been estimated by anyone, the "Liberal Media!!!" crowd would have been livid.
It's not a liberal media. It's not a conservative media. It's corporate media. Whatever sells.
The conclusion you drew was done in the name of the anti-war movement, not your own. That's not right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't put any words in his mouth, he said them. As I said, I drew my own conclusions about Saddam carrying on as usual. I did, for sarcasm sake, add to my conclusion "The anti-war movement has spoken". But is does seem like that is what we hear from these protesters, is to totally avoid war and to stop sanctions. Again, to me, that essentially leaving Saddam doing his usual thing. Perhaps I sarcastically put words in the mouth of the anti-war movement, in general, but it was sarcasm and I didn't imply he had said it. I sarcastically implied the anti-war movement said it, at best.
The thing is, you can't weigh the issues if you have no first hand understanding of what a war truly brings.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that sounds profound, but I think that is more an assertion than any sort of cosmic fact. Sure you can weigh the issues. I never said that understanding the cost of war never enters the equation. It is also not the dominating element. It's already a foregone conclusions that war is very messy. It is rather arrogant of the anti-war crowd to believe that only they are capable of acknowledging that.
On a similar plane to your thought, one can say that you can't weigh the issues for anti-war either, if you haven't seen war firsthand. How can you protest the costs are too high, if you have never seen them? So by that line of reasoning, *A LOT* of people in both camps have no business having an opinion worth championing. Only retired veterans do, evidently. ...but that is still no guarantee that they have a grasp of *all* the issues, just the one of having been in the middle of combat. So this whole line of reasoning pretty much leads nowhere, but kills a lot of time discussing (can any less be expected from the anti-war camp?).
<strong> [quote]If you get your knowledge of war by watching CNN, you'll probably say to yourself 'Self, we can beat Iraq in two weeks. We should just do it now.' The problem is, CNN isn't a good reference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, misguided stereotypes. That's helpful. If you believe in war, you must be brainwashed by CNN.
<strong> [quote]If you know war, you can weigh the issues that should or should not lead to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe, maybe not. It's hardly a concluding factor- more of an indirect factor.
<strong> [quote]If you just know the issues, you can't even imagine when they're strong enough to lead to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe, maybe not. ...but since we are so heavy into stereotypes which adhere to specific (contrived) profiles... If you've never held a job, how can you even imagine when the issues are strong enough to lead you to get your first job? Maybe we should all be staying home, and never move out from Momma's? It's a catchy pardox, but really doesn't solve much beyond generating a lot of thinking.
There are two cases of this, one guy suspected in a plot to set off a radioactive bomb and another captured while fighting for the enemy.
Anyone, indeed.
I am not for holding Padilla without charge but the other is fine because he really is an enemy combatant.
It's unConstitutional, yes, but absolutely idiotic to act like it's a real threat to simple political dissenters. Just ridiculous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes suspected. We will never know if he did it. You can't follow the constitution "some-of-the-time" and only when it's convienient. Maybe it's not a threat to protesters now but what happens later? There is NO recourse and nothing to prevent the administration from locking up anyone. There is a reason why the constitution was written the way it was.
Did you know that Ashcroft is writing up a new and "improved" patriot act that could strip any American of their citizenship even if they unknowingly helped an organization deemed by the administration as "terrorist".
Think about the implications for a minute. It could be applied to abortion protestors, all those anti-govt. nuts in the northwest (sorry if you're one of those nuts, your worst fears are being realized), in fact, anyone at all.
Our government is (was?) structured so that we do not have to rely on the goodness and trustworthness of the king.
Comments
<strong>btw, in the official statement after the emergency meeting of the European Union yesterday, the heads of states of the EU acknowledge that the "amassing of U.S. troops in the middle east contributed significantly to being able to resume U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq".
So the credible threat of war proved helpful, but that doesn't mean that you actually have to go to war. There are many more layers of how Saddam can be controlled and contained. War is not inevitable at this stage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gee, at this point you sound just like the Bush administration.
<strong>
You don't have to lie about what someone says to try and win an argument, do you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where did I lie about what was said. mw has spoken out against the war option, which is a fine position, given another solution. Then makes a statement to "lift the stupid sanctions". So, as far as what he said, well, he said it.
Given the current situation, those two statements then imply "Lift sanctions, skip military action" which would essentially telling saddam to carry on. Given those two positions, that was my conclusion to them. I did not lie about what he said. I never said mw and I shared a common conclusion, given those statements, but I simply made my own conclusion.
<strong>These most recent posts just go to show how the media can always be blamed. You used to hear about the "libral media" from all these "conservatives," now suddenly the media has this pro-Bush administration bias according to these "liberals." I wonder if people just see what they want to see?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutaly. The consevatives used to say (still do) that the press had a liberal agenda. So what, that doesn't mean freedom of speech is threatened either. They would of course try and get, in their view, more balanced coverage. But, that's not a loss of freedom of speech either. Of course, when they couldn't get more balanced coverage from mainstream media, they just created Rush.
You should listen to the song. (It's called Alice's Resturant)
<strong>...I simply made my own conclusion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you did put words in his mouth. OK.
The conclusion you drew was done in the name of the anti-war movement, not your own. That's not right.
It's not a liberal media. It's not a conservative media. It's corporate media. Whatever sells.
<strong>Sadaam must go or war with iraq. its as simple as that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup, that's pretty simple.
How do you think John Lennon would feel about this?
<strong>It's not a liberal media. It's not a conservative media. It's corporate media. Whatever sells.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. Right. Right. Right.
<strong>
Right. Right. Right. Right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Left. Left. Left. Left.
<strong>
So you did put words in his mouth. OK.
The conclusion you drew was done in the name of the anti-war movement, not your own. That's not right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't put any words in his mouth, he said them. As I said, I drew my own conclusions about Saddam carrying on as usual. I did, for sarcasm sake, add to my conclusion "The anti-war movement has spoken". But is does seem like that is what we hear from these protesters, is to totally avoid war and to stop sanctions. Again, to me, that essentially leaving Saddam doing his usual thing. Perhaps I sarcastically put words in the mouth of the anti-war movement, in general, but it was sarcasm and I didn't imply he had said it. I sarcastically implied the anti-war movement said it, at best.
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
<strong>
Yup, that's pretty simple.
How do you think John Lennon would feel about this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He probaly said imagien a world with no wars. then he woke up and said but this is the real world.
*runs*
<strong>
The thing is, you can't weigh the issues if you have no first hand understanding of what a war truly brings.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that sounds profound, but I think that is more an assertion than any sort of cosmic fact. Sure you can weigh the issues. I never said that understanding the cost of war never enters the equation. It is also not the dominating element. It's already a foregone conclusions that war is very messy. It is rather arrogant of the anti-war crowd to believe that only they are capable of acknowledging that.
On a similar plane to your thought, one can say that you can't weigh the issues for anti-war either, if you haven't seen war firsthand. How can you protest the costs are too high, if you have never seen them? So by that line of reasoning, *A LOT* of people in both camps have no business having an opinion worth championing. Only retired veterans do, evidently. ...but that is still no guarantee that they have a grasp of *all* the issues, just the one of having been in the middle of combat. So this whole line of reasoning pretty much leads nowhere, but kills a lot of time discussing (can any less be expected from the anti-war camp?).
<strong> [quote]If you get your knowledge of war by watching CNN, you'll probably say to yourself 'Self, we can beat Iraq in two weeks. We should just do it now.' The problem is, CNN isn't a good reference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, misguided stereotypes. That's helpful. If you believe in war, you must be brainwashed by CNN.
<strong> [quote]If you know war, you can weigh the issues that should or should not lead to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe, maybe not. It's hardly a concluding factor- more of an indirect factor.
<strong> [quote]If you just know the issues, you can't even imagine when they're strong enough to lead to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe, maybe not. ...but since we are so heavy into stereotypes which adhere to specific (contrived) profiles... If you've never held a job, how can you even imagine when the issues are strong enough to lead you to get your first job? Maybe we should all be staying home, and never move out from Momma's? It's a catchy pardox, but really doesn't solve much beyond generating a lot of thinking.
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>
But i[t] does seem like that is what we hear from these protesters, is to totally avoid war and to stop sanctions. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not around here anyway. Most everyone on this board would choose war over leaving the status quo of the past few years.
uhhh
uuhhh
I don't know
uhhh
uhhh
OIL!
<strong>Anyone?
There are two cases of this, one guy suspected in a plot to set off a radioactive bomb and another captured while fighting for the enemy.
Anyone, indeed.
I am not for holding Padilla without charge but the other is fine because he really is an enemy combatant.
It's unConstitutional, yes, but absolutely idiotic to act like it's a real threat to simple political dissenters. Just ridiculous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes suspected. We will never know if he did it. You can't follow the constitution "some-of-the-time" and only when it's convienient. Maybe it's not a threat to protesters now but what happens later? There is NO recourse and nothing to prevent the administration from locking up anyone. There is a reason why the constitution was written the way it was.
Did you know that Ashcroft is writing up a new and "improved" patriot act that could strip any American of their citizenship even if they unknowingly helped an organization deemed by the administration as "terrorist".
Think about the implications for a minute. It could be applied to abortion protestors, all those anti-govt. nuts in the northwest (sorry if you're one of those nuts, your worst fears are being realized), in fact, anyone at all.
Our government is (was?) structured so that we do not have to rely on the goodness and trustworthness of the king.
<a href="http://publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=506&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0 " target="_blank">http://publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=506&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0 </a>