Bush Supporters are Intellectually and Morally Compromised

Occom Bill wrote: "we haven't succeeded" or "it's worse now than when we started" would not be well taken by the likes of Alice Paul or MLK. The consequences of the struggle itself are certainly considerable...

Bill, Alice Paul's grandaughter, Lorraine, was a good friend of mine. She carried on her grandmother's traditions with dedication and integrity. I enjoyed her stories about her grandmother's life as a suffragette. We met when we were forming a national labor womens' organization, the Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW). She worked hard on the project even though she was recovering from injuries resulting from a terrible auto accident.

BBB

I "grasp" that oftentimes icons of the "other" ideology are used in exposition of a stance in a discussion (MLK has been bandied about by the right as in support of everything from disassembling affirmative action to dismantling the public school system), and I was not going to let that pass unacknowledged.

Your condescending "explanation" of O'Bill's 'real' intent doesn't address that to use MLK in the way he did - in the middle of a longish point about not abandoning the oppressed - made it impossible to extricate exactly how MLK would and would not react, when faced with the spectre of Iraq.

As part of his defense, Saddam Hussein, on a couple of occasions, indicated that the "toughness" (the free world called it "brutality") he showed was necessary for the stability of the country…was necessary to keep disparate forces in check so that the country could operate in a reasonably civilized manner.

Did that part of his defense make sense?

Are the Iraqis better off now than they were with Saddam Hussein?

Well writ.

Neither you nor I know for sure what Saddam did or didn't hide before our arrival. We do know that he violated every resolution. We do know that he used every weapon he's ever had in the past. We do know that he sought more powerful weapons and I think we both know that he'd eventually have used them if he got them.

I have not, nor will I ever defend the motives of Bush nor any of his staff...
....Any self respecting man could never stand by while a rape was taking place if he had the ability to stop it. His ability translates to responsibility. I believe the same is true for countries. The US is by far the most powerful country in the world in terms of economy, Military and broadness of natural resources. Who, if not the US should step in front of the Rapist? I think it's high time the civilized people of the world recognize their responsibility and come to the aid of their repressed brothers and sisters. Until human rights of all citizens of the world are recognized, world peace will continue to be an idealist's fantasy. Now that the cold war is over we must stand together against evil before a new one begins. If Russia, the members of the EU and the United States all stood together, who would dare oppose them? Whomever you name; needs to be eliminated before world peace can be a reality.
Peace, out Bill

My belief is that Bush new this man had to go… and being a moron was happy to exaggerate claims to convince the public. I am ashamed that he should have to. The facts of Saddam's Regime's treatment of Iraqis should have been a call to arms in and of itself. His first, second or at least the third violation of his ceasefire should have been enough...

...Now I don't know precisely what the catalyst for Bush was. And I'm certainly not going to try to defend all his actions. I will not try to portrait the US as the world's noble protector either. I mean damn; we haven't even paid our dept to the poor people of Bikini Atol whose Island we blew up, allowed their children to play in H-Bomb fallout and nearly starved to death after abandoning them on the foreign Island we forced them onto. But the result remains the same. A brutal monster has been removed from power. This my friends, is a good thing.

Human rights is my number 1 concern. Violence against women and children drives me out of my mind. Where we seem to differ is I'm not nearly as concerned with nationality as you...
...Several generations of North Korean people have never had enough to eat. Charitable donations are sold on the black market to the isolated few North Koreans who have money. Much of the Middle East practices barbaric faiths where their women are valued less than shoes. When the cold war ended, it seemed everyone just took a big sigh of relief. I submit; not everyone. There is no excuse for hunger on this planet let alone in this country. When it comes to babies it doesn't matter what color their skin is, or where they live, they should be entitled to sustenance. Our supposedly peaceful embargos and sanctions only effect the poor (far worse than anything Bush has done here). Do you think Saddam ever suffered from trade restrictions? Please. These supposedly peaceful solutions are the reason we are so hated. A war against their version of Islam… Oh no, we don't mean that… Well we damn well should! That's right I said it. Women are not dogs, and I'll happily put to death everyone who disagrees with me until everyone that's left does. That, is the humane solution. If you believe with all of your heart that you should stone your women to death if she insults you and you can not be persuaded to change your way of thinking, than good riddance to you. If half of the people in a geographic location need to be slaughtered, to make room for a civil society, than so be it. Allowing cultures to mature at their own rate when they were isolated was one thing. Now that they are armed with first-world technologies it is quite another. Gone is the possibility of rising up with your farm tools to defeat your oppressor yourself. It is no longer possible. Without help from some superior force these people will continue to suffer untold horrific fates generation after generation forever. That's the ugly truth. Now I really don't care what the cost of liberation is. It's worth it and I'll happily pay my share. This world will continue to be a cesspool for most of it's residents until we finally admit that our ability translates to a responsibility to help. Are you feelin me?

Do you think Saddam ever suffered from trade restrictions? Please. These supposedly peaceful solutions are the reason we are so hated. A war against their version of Islam… Oh no, we don't mean that… Well we damn well should! That's right I said it. Women are not dogs, and I'll happily put to death everyone who disagrees with me until everyone that's left does. That, is the humane solution. If you believe with all of your heart that you should stone your women to death if she insults you and you can not be persuaded to change your way of thinking, than good riddance to you. If half of the people in a geographic location need to be slaughtered, to make room for a civil society, than so be it.

I resent that "icons of the "other" ideology" crap. McG's assessment of my meaning was spot on. Go back and read it again if you don't understand it.

So, in the final analysis, all i see is that those who have opposed this war have been reasonably consistent in their arguments against the venture, and that those who support this war have shifted with the winds of circumstance, because they can't or won't admit that they were wrong. I suspect that the latter group will continue to claim that they are not wrong, and will do so long after the Shrub is gone, and long after we have left Iraq.

Well writ.

I would like to wish Snood...and all the good folks posting in this thread...

...a wonderful, happy, and rewarding 2007.

I don't think you quite grasped the point Bill was making.

He was not suggesting that MLK would have supported the war, rather that sometimes the struggle is worth the sacrifice and time. We can not allow the need for instant gratification and immediate results cloud the vision of long term goals.

What words are you referring to (I hope you notice that you were able to post in a thread I started without being accused of stalking anyone)?

McGentrix wrote:

I don't think you quite grasped the point Bill was making.

He was not suggesting that MLK would have supported the war, rather that sometimes the struggle is worth the sacrifice and time. We can not allow the need for instant gratification and immediate results cloud the vision of long term goals.

Why use the image of MLK, specifically, to make a point about the worth of slaughter and destruction? I'm sure such icons as Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot would also agree that "sometimes the struggle is worth the sacrifice and time," in regard to war.

I wasn't asking anything.

Also, I cannot troll a thread I was invited to, whether you intended to do so or not.

Are you sure those were his words?

Good to see you Frank.

Frank Apisa wrote:

As part of his defense, Saddam Hussein, on a couple of occasions, indicated that the "toughness" (the free world called it "brutality") he showed was necessary for the stability of the country…was necessary to keep disparate forces in check so that the country could operate in a reasonably civilized manner.

Did that part of his defense make sense?

It does if you think Apartheid was a fine peace keeping compromise. Or, more pointedly, if you saw nothing wrong with 20% of the population dominating the society.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Are the Iraqis better off now than they were with Saddam Hussein?

Was Alice Paul better off behind bars being force fed than she was before she made her protests? Was the United States better off for mounting the Civil War in 1863?

Since some members seem to lack reading comprehension skills, here is the point which i was making.

Many people on the right once said we should invade Iraq because they "knew" Hussein had womd. After the invasion, they confidently predicted that womd and womd programs would be found. Some even predicted that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda would be found. Neither of those has happened. Since then, many have shifted their ground completely, and said that we went in to rid Iraq of a brutal dictator--and that is the heart of their inconsistency. I further mentioned Brandon, solely as an example, of some who continue to say that we had to do it because we had to be sure that there were no womd. I have pointed out that this is inconsistent, because such people do not call for the invasion of other nations known to have or reasonably thought to have womd or womd programs. I would further point out that those who are worried about brutal regimes don't seem to worry about that in other countries, such as the Sudan, the most glaring current example.

Simply saying that one has consistently supported the war does not in any way address the point i was making.

O'Bill:

Quote:

I resent that "icons of the "other" ideology" crap. McG's assessment of my meaning was spot on. Go back and read it again if you don't understand it.

Resent it all you like. The fact is that the right has made a practice of co-opting Dr King's words, and using them in a way he never intended. It was not unreasonable for me to make mention of that practice.

So, in the final analysis, all i see is that those who have opposed this war have been reasonably consistent in their arguments against the venture, and that those who support this war have shifted with the winds of circumstance, because they can't or won't admit that they were wrong. I suspect that the latter group will continue to claim that they are not wrong, and will do so long after the Shrub is gone, and long after we have left Iraq.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Good to see you Frank.

Good to see you…and you, too, Ti!

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

As part of his defense, Saddam Hussein, on a couple of occasions, indicated that the "toughness" (the free world called it "brutality") he showed was necessary for the stability of the country…was necessary to keep disparate forces in check so that the country could operate in a reasonably civilized manner.

Did that part of his defense make sense?

It does if you think Apartheid was a fine peace keeping compromise. Or, more pointedly, if you saw nothing wrong with 20% of the population dominating the society.

That sounds like a "NO"…but I really want to check. Are you saying you think the argument does not make sense?

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Are the Iraqis better off now than they were with Saddam Hussein?

Was Alice Paul better off behind bars being force fed than she was before she made her protests? Was the United States better off for mounting the Civil War in 1863?

This "seeming to answer without actually answering" is something I've not seen in you before this.

If you really don't want to answer…no problem, Bill…but I really do not understand your response.

No matter what denials or protestations are raised, it's totally accurate to state that many on the right have had to alter their arguments to fit the changing face of the war.