What it means to be Anti-War, Anti-US
Browsing these discussions, it is apparent that there are, as is often the case in political forums, a number of people who see this as a black and white issue, in other words, "either you're for us, or you're against us".
Stop and take a minute to think about what it means to be Anti-War and what it means to be Anti-US.
To think that George W. Bush did not do the right thing in entering this war against international consensus is neither anti-war, nor anti-US.
To think that war in general is wrong is Anti-war, but it not anti-US.
Some of you can't even put the idea in your minds that one can oppose the war but still support the troops, including the actions they take in the line of duty. That's just plain silly.
This is not a black and white issue. As a CEO, I'd love to have some of you blind supporters on my team, if I had my personal interests in mind. But with the company's interests in mind, I see value in dissent from my own recommendations, and I would never allow myself to be surrounded by "yes men" because that can stifle progress and leave the company at risk of damage due to any mistakes I might make.
So I wouldn't have a Groverat or a Eugene or a Scott (man, that guy is scary, he's so blindly assimmilated to Republican doctrine) in a decision-making position. Likewise I wouldn't want a Sammi Jo on my team either. There's just no room on my team for blind loyalty, in either direction. It's just too dangerous.
People, start thinking for yourselves! That's what leads to progress.
Stop and take a minute to think about what it means to be Anti-War and what it means to be Anti-US.
To think that George W. Bush did not do the right thing in entering this war against international consensus is neither anti-war, nor anti-US.
To think that war in general is wrong is Anti-war, but it not anti-US.
Some of you can't even put the idea in your minds that one can oppose the war but still support the troops, including the actions they take in the line of duty. That's just plain silly.
This is not a black and white issue. As a CEO, I'd love to have some of you blind supporters on my team, if I had my personal interests in mind. But with the company's interests in mind, I see value in dissent from my own recommendations, and I would never allow myself to be surrounded by "yes men" because that can stifle progress and leave the company at risk of damage due to any mistakes I might make.
So I wouldn't have a Groverat or a Eugene or a Scott (man, that guy is scary, he's so blindly assimmilated to Republican doctrine) in a decision-making position. Likewise I wouldn't want a Sammi Jo on my team either. There's just no room on my team for blind loyalty, in either direction. It's just too dangerous.
People, start thinking for yourselves! That's what leads to progress.
Comments
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
I don't understand why so many in the pro-war camp find themselves compelled to equate opposition to the war with support for Saddam Hussein. I do not know very many people who support the war, but I do not know one single person that supports or would attempt to defend Hussein. Is it so difficult to comprehend that an individual might find the actions taken by the Bush administration difficult to justify - while still recognizing Hussein as a Bad Man?
Excellent post.
I am anti-Bush. I have been since I heard he was running for President. I saw the documentaries, read about his governor ship. I was angered by his pro-pro-gun and pro-oil stance, wanting to break into certain wildlife preserves for oil...he was not a good person and that is not going to change just because he won an election!
In Canada if you are unhappy about a prime minister running, when they get in you don't jsut go "Oh yah I guess we should all drop our selfish individual views and join together for unity". We hate them til they leave.
I am not anti-american. I disagree with a lot of Americans. But the collective views of people is a useless discussion since the individual will have their own curve to the situaiton and plus the power of governmental persuasion leads me not to really fully digest what a blow-joe-American says he thinks.
Originally posted by Axle of Elvis
... or a Scott (man, that guy is scary, he's so blindly assimmilated to Republican doctrine)..
First off go to hell. How's that for decent? Can I work for such an impressive CEO such as yourself now? Second this is a fantasy that's always brought up here. That this person or that person sees things only in "black and white". It's a common and meaningless retort that's intended to short circuit debate and label someone as unreasonable.
I've explained over and over again here the difference, as I see it, between "anti-war", "anti-american" and what I like to have fun with "pro-saddam". If you didn't have such a black and white view of my postings you'd know that.
For example if you willingly spread lies about the US ... that's anti-american. What else could it be?
If you are against the war and make excuses for Saddam and deny the horrible things he's done. That's pro-saddam. I think I've only called one member here pro-saddam.
If the "anti-war" group that sponsors a march is a front group for an anti-american anti-democratic "workers party" then you have to wonder what they are for. Peace? Or opposing the US?
Also where do you get that I'm "so blindly assimmilated to Republican doctrine"? Maybe because I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage just to name two? No couldn't be that?
You'd think a highly impressive CEO like yourself could run the spellchecker?
Originally posted by Axle of Elvis
Browsing these discussions, it is apparent that there are, as is often the case in political forums, a number of people who see this as a black and white issue, in other words, "either you're for us, or you're against us".
Stop and take a minute to think about what it means to be Anti-War and what it means to be Anti-US.
To think that George W. Bush did not do the right thing in entering this war against international consensus is neither anti-war, nor anti-US.
To think that war in general is wrong is Anti-war, but it not anti-US.
Some of you can't even put the idea in your minds that one can oppose the war but still support the troops, including the actions they take in the line of duty. That's just plain silly.
People, start thinking for yourselves! That's what leads to progress.
Had to shorten that a bit in the interest of space.
The real problem is not so much that some can only put every issue into two sides with support of one equaling opposition to the other, rather it is that many progressive people endorse concepts or ideas without any firm application or limits to them. When pressed they will eventually begin to show their own means of applying these ideas or their own limits.
Often though they just enjoy declaring those who's limits are less than theirs, or who's application is different to be "narrow-minded" or "backward", "taking us back to the 50's", "practicing McCarthism", etc.
I mean think about the loaded phrase you threw into this discussion yourself. Anti-war, as if there were just a large majority of people sitting around hoping for thousands of their sons, daughters, neighbors and fellow citizens to go off and possibly be killed. There are those who acknowledge the need for war against a serious threat and who wish to use it as a last resort. Are those people simply labled "pro-war" by you and your own limited understanding?
You ask if people can understand that you can be anti-war and pro-US, and anti-war and pro troops. Perhaps there are people who are pro-preventively stopping terrorist attacks and pro-nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction while also being anti-colonial and anti-emperial. I say this since a common attack of anti-war folks is to declare that we just want the U.S. to rule the world or it is blood for oil.
Perhaps endorsing an idea without explaining the limits and the application doesn't stand on it's own.
Nick
So what this means to me is that we are running out of oil. Well thats all well and good, I really couldnt care less about paying an extra quarter or two for a gallon of gas (well I might if I had to drive everyday but I dont). But what it does mean is that in seven to ten years our military and industry will have to pay much more for oil and will be wholly dependant on Foreign nations for mobilizing our military.
It may be morally wrong to invade a country that has not wronged us (depending on your opinion) it is strategically in our best interests to secure a source of oil that will sustain us for many years. Now I dont believe we will outright steal the oil, that might even prompt military action from others against us. But I do believe we will sell Iraqs oil back to ourselves at quite good prices as part of the rebuilding of Iraq plan.
So whilst I may not necessarily agree with invading a nation on false pretenses (Anti-war), I can see how this action will benefit the United States in years to come (Pro-US). Now that the war has started I will give my full support to my President (its easier to refer to Bush as my President than "Bush" I really dont think he is behind this Machievellian plot) and the United States.
The fight over Iraq's oil
Analysis
By Daniel Yergin
Cambridge Energy Research Associates
The threat of war in Iraq has just one reason, say many critics: Western hunger for oil. Daniel Yergin examines whether the claim stands up.
But the real picture is different. Iraq represents just 3% of the world's total production capacity. Its oil exports are at about the same level as Nigeria's.
This comment is misleading because even though Iraq currently only produces as much oil as Nigeria it has potential for much larger production and sustainability.
Companies will be eager to get in line to sign contracts with a country that has 11% of the world's proven reserves. (Saudi Arabia, the highest, has 25%; the North Sea has just 1.7%).
This comment shows just how much oil Iraq has. I dont care to do the math (Im sorry) but the DOE says that Saudi can produce eight million barrells a day for the next 148 years. The United States also a large oil producer which produced eight million barrells a day in 2000 could only sustain that rate of production for seven years. The United States reduced its produciton in 2001 to roughly six million barrells a day presumably to stretch our oil reserves for a couple more years.
Iraq may not produce a huge amount right now but they certainly have a lot (and we consume a lot).
To get back to 3.5m barrels a day could take three years or more, at an estimated cost of several billion dollars.
Oh as if thats a problem, when a war costs 75-90 billion dollars to fight, I dont think a few dollars more to reap the rewards will really phase anybody.
And as for some of his other arguments for Iraq being a tough negotiator with its oil and asserting itself strongly over control of its oil fields I think are highly debateable. It is conceivable to me that the administration we put into power will be strongly pro-US and give us some security when it comes to having a viable alternative to Saudi Arabia in the future as well compensating us for all the money we spent "liberating" their country.
Decent article though, but I really dont think Iraq will immediately get up on its feet and start asserting itself strongly in the international community.
Originally posted by Scott
Well eveyone has a right to be stupid.
I trust you are not reducing yourself to name calling, or are you ?
The US is doing this to force a democratic power squeeze on the area. Iran will be surrounded by Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq while Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon will be surrounded by Turkey, Israel and Iraq.
Plus it stops the only support that the Palestinians have been getting. They believe that as soon as Saddam is gone the Palestinians will be completely on their own and unable to afford to continue their fight with Israel.
It is the grand plan by the 'cabal' group to stabilize East Asia has existed since the 90's.
Are you suggesting that this is all just the American government trying to bring democracy to a region that could definately use it. If you are then I disagree. Our goodwill (speaking as an American) can not be so great that we will readily invade another country without significant benefit for ourselves.
Originally posted by tonton
You're very wrong to claim that we have good relations with Saudi Arabia. Who do you think the 9/11 terrorists were? And no one in the US could claim that the Saudi Government is a good one. It is a very oppressive Muslim regime, arguably even more so than Iran or Pakistan.
We maintain relations with Saudi Arabia solely because of oil and political/strategic positioning.
You should read the recent New Yorker . . . there is an article about an embassador figure from Saudi Arabia who is literally considered "one of the family" with the Bushes . . . and he is a serious power broker who pulls all sorts of strings and wheels and deals beyond his own countries doings . . . . interesting article
but it shows that with the elite Arabians we are very close . . .
Originally posted by groverat
Does an open Iraq actually help Bush's oil buddies?
If by Bush's oil buddies you mean the corporations that he supports then yes it does. It gives them greater freedom to drill the worlds second largest oil reserve for many years at great profit.
The news article posted earlier made it sound like it would cost billions of dollars but Im sure "billions of dollars" is really quite a small price to pay.
As for relations with Saudi, I didnt say "good" relations I said strong relations. We buy their oil, base our aircraft in their country, train with their soldiers and have many corporate interests in Saudi Arabia, we have a "strong" relationship with Saudi because it is in our interest to do so and who really cares if their system of government *sucks*.
I dont mean to be sounding more ignorant with each successive post but I have an appointment I have to make and work that needs doing (but strangely Id rather sit here and read this board).
Originally posted by pfflam
You should read the recent New Yorker . . . there is an article about an embassador figure from Saudi Arabia who is literally considered "one of the family" with the Bushes . . . and he is a serious power broker who pulls all sorts of strings and wheels and deals beyond his own countries doings . . . . interesting article
but it shows that with the elite Arabians we are very close . . .
Thanks, pfflam. I didn't get a change to look at last week's New Yorker. I remember reading a recent issue on the origin of anti-Americanism. Interesting read.