posted 01-23-2003 12:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MediocrePlayer:
Maybe we're both wrong, but the way I see it is with all the changes that happened recently in the US - Bin Laden wins. He's trying to shake the foundation of what makes this country so great. And if you guys do it to group X today you will do it to group Y tomorrow, and this is not what the United States is. Its what Bin Laden wants it to be.
--m

---

I agree entirely with this statement.

And as someone who many on this forum would label a conservative who is "pro-war" (not the way I'd characterize it), I must say that we have to be careful how we sort out the balance between civil liberties, security, and immigration. It's goes to the essence of this country.

posted 01-23-2003 12:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich:
By the way, it's not just my loss. It's the loss of all Americans. I just happened to experience it up close an personal.

---

I was profoundly upset, disturbed, furious, outraged and agonized by 9/11. And I want Bin Laden killed for it. Period.

I also need to see what "collateral damage" that @$$hole got away with- and part of it is that M-P, a talented, intelligent, thoughtful (and cool) guy got tossed out of here. We're all the product of immigrants & if the anti-Irish sentiment during the Civil War, or the Current Anti-Canuckistan Tidal Wave had started earlier, I wouldn't be here, either. And neither would you.

Is it fair that M-P might be detained longer in an airport? No, but unavoidable, too. But there is a big difference between the reality of the necessity of security and safety & kicking someone who has been a constant visitor since 10 years old out of the country.

And I'll go out on a limb and make a prediction. The next terrorist attack is going to be perpetrated by blond-haired, blue eyed radicals. Because they'll have a greater chance of success. Because M-P will be getting all the attention.

posted 01-23-2003 12:46 PM               

Go to Egypt or Saudi Arabia, or all those other wonderful countries, and see how you will be treated as an immigrant or visitor there. See how much freedom you will have. See how much respect they will have for your religion, or for the rights of women.

posted 01-23-2003 12:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by samchar:
I agree entirely with this statement.

And as someone who many on this forum would label a conservative who is "pro-war" (not the way I'd characterize it), I must say that we have to be careful how we sort out the balance between civil liberties, security, and immigration. It's goes to the essence of this country.

---

posted 01-23-2003 12:49 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strick:
Maybe I haven't read every on this one, but I'm surprised by a lack of the obvious.

What this war needs is a good protest song.

---

Strick...an old stand-by is.....

"Where have all the Flowers gone"
...............Or................
how about........
Phil Ochs...Draft Dodger Rag......

I know there's no Draft anymore,but it brings up ole'Protest songs.......

gonna lay my sword and shield down by the Riverside................................

Oh and

And it's 1-2-3-4 what are we Fighting for,
I don't Give a my next stop is.....
you get my drift I think

posted 01-23-2003 01:00 PM               

During ww2 we looked at Japanese and Germans differently. To not do so, would have been negligent and potentially catastrophic. Does this hurt those innocents who are not anyway involved...yup.

We didn't arbitrarily do this. We didn't do it before we were attacked. In hindsight, that coulda been a huge mistake. How many people have cried that all the signs were there, if we woulda just paid attention. Well, we are paying attention now.

We didn't want to do this...we were forced to do it. Yes, Bin Laden forced us too...we have reacted to him. Exactly what he wanted us to do. The alternative would NOT to be as vigilant...then, when it happens again..."why didn't you crack down after the first one?!"

Its war. If your innocent you might be subjected to more scrutiny than you like. This is regrettable...but, if your innocent, you'll survive it. Hopefully you'll understand the neccessity war brings.

posted 01-23-2003 01:11 PM               

No insult was meant, I was simply using the definition of the word.

This is a definition of conservatism (the philosophy of conservatives)from a reputable US dictionary.

Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1835
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Social activism is about change, Conservatism is about leaving things the way they are, following the old traditions. Again, If you want your views about the war to get equal coverage, get a few thousand "conservatives" and go to Washington. Believe me, a few thousand would get as much press as 200,000 "Liberals"

BTW

Here is the meaning of liberalism

Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

I'm willing to bet that this definition of liberalism, is closer to your beliefs than the definition of conservative. In fact pretty much every person in the US is actually quite liberal. It's ingrained since childhood, the bill of rights the constitution, the love of commerce and competition are all liberal things.

Rush Limbaugh and other self styled conservatives use the word "Liberal" as a propaganda tool. They will look at a broad range of people, cherry pick the ideas of each one call them all liberals and say things like LIBERALS are pro abortion. Now mother Theresa was certianly a liberal, but she was certainly not pro abortion.

There is no "peace movement" per se, there are a groups and groups, all with different agendas who disagree with Mr. Bush et al. There is no body of "conservatives" who are "pro war" there are nearly as many stances as there are people. Its the ones who speak up and do something that get the coverage.

So that brings us to the question; Are we talking about actual conservatives or something else.

posted 01-23-2003 01:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by SouthernFried:
What the US has had to do...it did because it was attacked. We are at war folks.

---

posted 01-23-2003 01:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich:
Arch,

Go to Egypt or Saudi Arabia, or all those other wonderful countries, and see how you will be treated as an immigrant or visitor there. See how much freedom you will have. See how much respect they will have for your religion, or for the rights of women.

That is exactly my point. If America ignores her own constitution and sense of fair play she is throwing that aside.

We Americans are too naive and gullible when people from other countries criticize us. Which is why we were so wide open for the terrorists to come here, and use our open society to commit their henious crime.

---

They didn't use the open society. They used lax airport security and an immigration system which sent them visas not only after they committed the crime but after they were dead. The same immigration system which is now overreacting by reneging on its promises to legitimate immigrants. The principles and laws of the US before "Homeland security" were and are enough to protect her if they are adhered to and properly applied.

posted 01-23-2003 02:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supertramp:
SF, I don't remember Iraq having anything to do with 9/11. France and Germany don't seem to remember either since both are telling Bush they do not support his actions.

---

Supertramp...I haven't even mentioned Iraq. I was referring to the war on terrorism and the resulting affects it has had on national security/scrutiny issues.

Second. To address your issue about Iraq and 9/11. There is plenty of evidence linking the terrorists to Iraq. From one of the hijackers meeting with an Iraqui diplomat 1 week before the attack (czech officials deported the official afterwards). To several Al Queda terrorists being trained in Iraq on how to hijack plans.

Third. France and Germany both met with Colin Powell in the last few months. Both countries pledged support for US actions. Their recent statements about NOT supporting those actions after saying they would, prompted COLIN to come out today with very harsh criticism of those countries. Something POWELL never does. It seems there are more political issues rather than actual security issues behind France and German Statements. Powell is incensed at their lying to him.

SF

posted 01-23-2003 02:38 PM               

If we use ARCH's definitions...than todays liberals are actually conservatives..and todays conservatives are actually liberals

Change is something liberals today abhor. Try changing our Education system, SS, Welfare, Tax code...LIBERALS today will fight you tooth and nail. "We can't change those things". They are entrenched and have not come up with a new idea in 30 yrs. Their only ideas are..."conservatives suck"...over and over again

While, conservatives would like to see changes in Education, SS, Welfare, Taxes. Have proposed decreasing size of govt, etc. To be fought every inch of the way...by "liberals".

Interesting how book definitions sometimes don't work in real life, eh?

And Mother Theresa was liberal??...ROFL. Sounds like a Barbie Streisand quote..."The men who fought WW2 were liberals, Jesus was a liberal, everyone who is good in the world are liberals." Mother Theresa was an independent, very religious person. Who helped the poor and homeless unselfishly, without govt supports. Sorta like all the christian groups in the US who have halfway houses, food shelters, etc...without govt support (until recently). To try and put a 'label' on her for political argmuments...has gotta be close to blasphemy. Tho, I'm an atheist, so aint no expert on blaspheming...I don't think

SF

SF

posted 01-23-2003 02:49 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SouthernFried:
What the US has had to do...it did because it was attacked. We are at war folks.

During ww2 we looked at Japanese and Germans differently. To not do so, would have been negligent and potentially catastrophic. Does this hurt those innocents who are not anyway involved...yup.

Actually, we put the Americans of Japanese ancestry in "camps" of razor wire and took their property...Oddly enough, we didn't put Americans of German or Italian ancestry in these cages or take their property...

I wonder why...

We didn't arbitrarily do this. We didn't do it before we were attacked. In hindsight, that coulda been a huge mistake. How many people have cried that all the signs were there, if we woulda just paid attention. Well, we are paying attention now.

We didn't want to do this...we were forced to do it. Yes, Bin Laden forced us too...we have reacted to him. Exactly what he wanted us to do. The alternative would NOT to be as vigilant...then, when it happens again..."why didn't you crack down after the first one?!"

Its war. If your innocent you might be subjected to more scrutiny than you like. This is regrettable...but, if your innocent, you'll survive it.

Maybe you'll survive it...but not all of the Americans of Japanese ancestry did survive...and few got their real estate back, either...

OTOH, their sons were "suitable" for American military duty...

Hopefully you'll understand the neccessity war brings.

And excuses for racism...

SF

---

posted 01-23-2003 03:26 PM               

That's the truly frustrating thing. There just aren't any easy targets here, yet our rage begs us to bomb somebody. I think it best to question that rage.
I don't know what Shrub's real agenda is in sponsoring a war with Iraq. I rather doubt the "big oil" theory, championed by many on the left. All we know for sure is that the proferred explanation of WMD is a discredited excuse. Should they at least tell us the real reason? I mean, if it's something as simple as "i'm just flat tired of that guy (saddam)", then we can debate that. Having already manufactured one demonstrably false excuse for an act of war, does it behoove us to be suspicious?

There's a lie we all like to tell ourselves: "the US is a peace-loving nation". We nod fondly each time some mindless idiot or mountebank, ignorant of even the most rudimentary knowledge of our culture or history, utters that banal phrase. Heck, americans generally LOVE war. There can be no doubt about it, as we devote so much of our GNP to practicing for it. We flock to movies about war, and constantly erect monuments to it, and heap honor on its perpetrators. We adopt Orwellian illogic, convincing ourselves that "war is peace" (or, more commonly, "win peace by preparing for war") Any President's ratings shoot into the stratoshphere within minutes of his orders to bomb someplace most of us have never heard of. And, no good american leaves their TV when we televise the carnage, save maybe to get another beer from the fridge. Those few americans who dare question the necessity of our sport are condemned as unpatriotic, or agents of some fifth column. Is this the behavior of peace-loving people? When you hear someone state that this is a peace-loving nation, you are speaking with a person who is either abysimally ignorant, or a shameful liar. The truth is quite the contrary, for we intuitively know that, in the ugly world of realpolitic, the last standing superpower does not remain in the ring because it is "peace-loving".

We are, i think, a kind people, and wish to do well. Not ever having suffered the true yoke of war, however, has made us entirely insensitive to what it is. For us, it's just good TV entertainment, a diversion from the sit-coms that infest our evenings. Even the wars we lose are not painful to the average guy. We go about our routine without a draft, without rationing, without starvation or economic collapse. What is NOT to like about war for us, after all? With the right technology, and the right adversary, we can now even largely eliminate the stream of body bags into Dover AFB. Absent a draft, we can assure that even those very few of our mercenaries that perish will have lived on the other side of the tracks. It'll be no worse for us then the stuntmen who dare death making the war movies we love to watch!

posted 01-23-2003 04:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DharmaBum:
SF: Shrub's real agenda is in sponsoring a war with Iraq.... "i'm just flat tired of that guy (saddam)....We go about our routine without a draft, without rationing, without starvation or economic collapse .....we can assure that even those very few of our mercenaries that perish will have lived on the other side of the tracks.

I love this country, and have been blessed with an excellent education, freely provided by my government. I feel that i served it well, but can never repay the debt i owe. I believe we are essentially a kind and generous people that sincerely wish to make the world a better place. But, we have a childish obsession with war, and mindless insensitivity to its consequences, and need to be very careful.

---

Wow, for loving your country, you sure do have a lot of contempt for your countrymen. And, who was it that suggested we were "peace loving". The lady says, "Give me your tired, your poor, your..." not give me your peace lovers.

And, hey, it's usually a good idea to call people by their proper name. Whether you disagree with him or not, he is OUR president. "Shrub" is the equivilent of calling the former President "Slick Willie" -- it's disrespectful and your excellent education -- or your momma -- should've taught you better. I'm just glad you gave "Shrub" an upper case and "saddam" a lower case. That's a good sign.

Also, what side of the tracks our honorable soldiers and sailors come from is immaterial. This Charles Rangle psychobabble about instituting the draft so that we have a University of Michigan quota system for battle is just insane. The working and middle classes of this country have always pulled the weight. So what?

We don't have an obsession with war, we just got body slammed a year or so ago and we are still sorting out how to deal with it. Yeah, we have to be careful, but what we are doing is not mindless. I'd love you to tell Powell, Rice, and Rumsfelt (to their faces) that our approach is mindless. Well. Really?