babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Why we should go to war

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Why we should go to war
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 03 February 2003 09:23 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In the mode of Basil Fawlty, I've tried not to mention the war. I know that Guardian readers are massively opposed to any action against Saddam Hussein, as are 90% of the people I love and respect both personally and professionally. But I am in favour of war against Iraq - or, rather, I am in favour of a smaller war now rather than a far worse war later. I speak as someone who was born and raised to be anti-American; I know that, even in my lifetime, America has behaved monstrously in Latin America, Indo-China and its own southern states. I was against the US because, whenever people sought autonomy, freedom and justice, it was against them. But that narrative is ended now and a new configuration has emerged.
The new enemies of America, and of the west in general, believe that these countries promote too much autonomy, freedom and justice. They are the opposite of socialism even more than they are the opposite of capitalism. They are against light, love, life - and to attempt to pass them the baton of enlightenment borne by the likes of Mandela and Guevara is woefully to misunderstand the nature and desires of what Christopher Hitchens (a life-long man of the left) described as "Islamo-fascism".

- Julie Burchill, The Guardian, 1-Feb-03


Guardian article

She joins Mitchell Cohen, editor of Dissent, who has also swallowed hard and come out today in favour of using force to oust Saddam.

[ 03 February 2003: Message edited by: Can-Am ]


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 February 2003 09:49 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you're saying you are in favour of a war against Islamic fundamentalism?
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 03 February 2003 10:10 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
She joins Mitchell Cohen, editor of Dissent, who has also swallowed hard and come out today in favour of using force to oust Saddam.

To roughly paraphrase Woody Allen..."Dissent" and "Commentary" could merge into a new magazine called "Dissentary".


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 February 2003 10:12 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Saddam Hussein isn't an Islamic fundamentalist anyway, just a garden-variety third-world dictator (see "Leader Pictures" thread), if a particularly thuggish and brutal one.

A real battle against this kind of authoritarian regime would involve support for civil society groups fighting for human rights. One of the rare positive examples of such a development in the Arab world is Morocco. Human rights groups long fought the brutality of Hassan IIs rule. The new king seems prepared to accept a form of constitutional monarchy, liberated political prisoners, and at least formally abolished torture. (Abuses remain, but they are nowhere near the systematic ones of before).

There are groups fighting for human rights, including women's rights, social rights of the poor, trade union rights and the rights of national minorities against both the authoritarian rule and the Islamic fundamentalists, in the neighbouring countries of Tunisia and Algeria. I have met some of these courageous people.

There is a link to Alternatives on the main babble page. Alternatives has been involved for many years in the fight for human rights in the Arab world and Middle East (these two aren't the same but overlap - the Arab world also included North Africa, the Middle East Iran and Turkey...).

Julie Burchill is a self-centred hmmm... is it sexist to say bitch? ... what word could apply equally to men and women. Almost as whingy and self-indulgent as our own Leah McLaren person.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
guy cybershy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1021

posted 03 February 2003 10:21 PM      Profile for guy cybershy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I used to respect Julie Burchill, she seems to have taken leave of her senses on this one. I seem to remember she supported the Falklands war also.
From: Calgary | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 03 February 2003 10:22 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So you're saying you are in favour of a war against Islamic fundamentalism?

I didn't say that. I posted this article because it seems to me at least somewhat significant that some fairly prominent leftist people are changing their views.


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 03 February 2003 10:25 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To roughly paraphrase Woody Allen..."Dissent" and "Commentary" could merge into a new magazine called "Dissentary".


Out of curiosity, are there any leftist publications which pass muster for you? I'm assume Zmag and Commondreams are orthodox enough, no?


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 03 February 2003 10:25 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
She joins Mitchell Cohen, editor of Dissent, who has also swallowed hard and come out today in favour of using force to oust Saddam.
On another thread I noted that The New Yorker editor, David Remnick, had also experienced a similar epiphany. That was met with personal ad hominem towards him and absolutely zero on the substance of his arguments.

More from the Guardian.


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 03 February 2003 10:29 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
and posturing pansies such as Sean Penn...
A journalist's credibility evaporates the moment he/she employs insults and derogatory terms towards people in order to win an arguement. The Guardian should disallow such rubbish masquerading as journalism if it wants to maintain its shred of a reputation.

[ 03 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]


From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
guy cybershy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1021

posted 03 February 2003 10:30 PM      Profile for guy cybershy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't thnk you could call Burchill a "leftist" anymore. Her racism is on the record. She once referred to arabs as "camel fuckers" in print.
From: Calgary | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 03 February 2003 10:30 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
hmmm... is it sexist to say bitch?

Yes.


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 03 February 2003 10:32 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That was met with personal ad hominem towards him and absolutely zero on the substance of his arguments.

Looks like we're off to a good start here along the same lines, so I guess I'll bail.


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 03 February 2003 10:32 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, if the real enemy is Sunni, (as opposed to Shia) Islamo-fascist, then I think we should allying oursleves with Saddam against Saudi Arabia. If the enemy is Shia Islamo-fascism then we should be allying ourselves with Saddam against Iran.

But then all them over there look and act the same so perhaps the best thing is to wipe them all out starting wiht Saddam, as Iraq is traditionaly richest and most powerful Arab country. It would seem that the Bush "plan" fits with this criteria, rather than the latter two.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 03 February 2003 10:34 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A journalist's credibility evaporates the moment he/she employs insults and derogatory terms towards people in order to win an arguement.
Then Fisk and Pilger have no credibility? Get a grip.
quote:

Looks like we're off to a good start here along the same lines, so I guess I'll bail.
Smart move. Me, being stupid, might actually stick around and try to tease some sensible anti-war argument from the gallery. All that tall grass though...

[ 03 February 2003: Message edited by: SHH ]


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 February 2003 10:51 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok everyone, please help me find a non-sexist substitute for "bitch", that could apply equally well to men and women, whatever their sexual orientation... Referring to behaviour, and I don't mean sexual behaviour.

Julie Burchill is another one of those ... people who specialises in xenophobic comments, also against those nasty continental Europeans. No more a leftist, she...

There are a lot of good writers at the Guardian. A Guardian journalist who always talks about the human impact of situations like Palestine/Israel and now Iraq is Suzanne Goldenberg, not so much a commentator as an exceptionally sensitive reporter.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 03 February 2003 10:54 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Biatch.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 03 February 2003 10:55 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Non-sexist sub for bitch? That's tough.....

How about *drumroll* - "orifice".


From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 03 February 2003 11:00 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
MI6 TOLD: LINK IRAQ AND BIN LADEN
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 03 February 2003 11:05 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
‘Bitch’ is used freely, indeed objectively, at dog shows.

A good high-school friend of mine who is now the Chief Psychologist at a major hospital confided to me once that his cynicism after 20 plus years of dealing with everything from inmates to regular folks, had caused him to divide people into just two groups: assholes and non-assholes. (15 years of school with what could've been learned in one commute).

‘Asshole’ works for me. (no jokes please).

Oh yeah, still waiting....


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 February 2003 11:35 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am particularly fond of the Italian "stronzo". A stronzo (étron in French) is a turd, but it is used in the sense of asshole (or arsehole) in English. Sometimes for women, it is feminised as "stronza" (but it is no nastier for a woman than for a man, unlike salaud/salope in French - a salope is also a slut or slattern in the sexual sense, while retaining the moral infamy of a salaud).

Stronzo can even be used affectionately, usually in a diminutive form: "stronzino"

The Yiddish tongue is also extremely rich in vituperative insult.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Subotai
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3435

posted 04 February 2003 12:16 AM      Profile for Subotai     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What a terrible column. It presents a lot of rhetoric and very few reasonable points. I especially don't appreciate the name-calling in lieu of rational argument.

Most disturbing is this phrase "Islamo-fascism." It displays the same confusion and conflation of enemies with which the Bush administration intentionally lard their statements.

Here's the thing about Saddam Hussein. He's not Muslim. He's definitely a fascist, but his regime is stridently secular. In fact, Osama bin Laden has a history of disgust for Hussein. No intelligence agency, Western or otherwise, believes there is any real link between Al Qaeda and Hussein's Baath Party.

Now to address Burchill's points... such that they are.

1) "So what if it's about oil, in part? Are you prepared to give up your car and central heating and go back to the Dark Ages?"

On one hand, she's trying to dismiss the argument that this war is more about oil (more precisely, oil revenue) than human rights. But in her dismissal, she tacitly admits this is true. Essentially what she is arguing is that if thousands of civilians have to die so that she can continue to drive her car, so be it. This is exactly the kind of thinking the anti-war movement cannot abide. We simply don't think human life for "security of supply" is a moral trade. And to personally answer her question, yes, I would be happy to consume less energy if it meant that a war would be averted. Hell, the environment would probably be better for it.

2) "If the west sold him the weapons... then surely it is our responsibility to redress our greed and ignorance..."

Right. And if the Bush administration actually wanted to redress that greed and ignorance, there'd be a radical shift in foreign policy and the industrial economy. They'd stop making so many weapons. Stop selling so many weapons. Stop making weapons deals with regimes when it suits American interests. But in platform and legislation, the Bush admin is pursuing the exact opposite course of action. The U.S. continues to be the global leader in arms production and trade. And the numbers aren't going to get lower in the foreseeable future. Which leads me to believe that redressing greed and ignorance is actually pretty low on the Bush admin's priorities.

3) "And when [the U.S.] is not [interfering in other countries], it is derided as selfish and isolationist. Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

The anti-war movement is not arguing that the U.S. should stop being an active member of the global community. We're arguing that the U.S. should stop acting like the playground bully in a game of King of the Hill - only involving itself to knock down others and maintain its elevated domain. As Burchill has already conceded, the motives behind this war are far from purely humanitarian. Why can't she admit that the primary motivation behind most U.S. exercise of its tremendous power and position... is the pursuit of greater power and position? This war is no different. The anti-war movement says that if the global community is to survive, this attitude must change.

4) "If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you're... not any sort of socialist that I recognise."

I can't believe she's trying to make it out like war is the least destructive option. What makes her think that fewer people are going to die during this "brief attack?" Let's talk about the fact that the U.S. has been consistently bombing Iraq for the past decade. Let's talk about the 88 000 tons of bombs (equivalent to more than six Hiroshimas) the U.S. dropped on Iraq in 1991 alone. Let's talk about how U.S. defence officials say that their new war plan involves dropping ordnance that dwarfs the 1991 bombing.

Make no mistake. War on Iraq means a lot of civilians are going to die. Just like last time. I do not want the Iraqi people left to suffer under Hussein. But somehow I don't think blowing them up will lessen their suffering. Burchill wants it to be an either/or situation. But these are not our only options. These are the options that maintain American interests above all else.

5) "We may be saddled with Bush and Blair, but you've got Prince Charles, the Catholic church, et al..."

Now Burchill's really reaching. For lack of a better argument, she's turned the debate into a celebrity pissing match. Apparently, she doesn't like Sean Penn. To drag out a tired cliche, politics makes strange bedfellows. This debate is between those who want war and those opposed to war. This isn't about whose friends are cooler. Although, personally, I'm more impressed by Nelson Mandela than Condoleeza Rice.

Burchill's last paragraph is the worst.

"So let's do each other a favour and agree not to rattle each other's cages until the whole thing's over. Free speech and diversity - let's enjoy it! Even though our brothers and sisters, the suffering, tortured slaves of Saddam, can't. Yet. Still, soon."

Sure, free speech - as long as it doesn't have any effect on pro-war policy and action. Burchill is basically saying that there should be a war no matter what. No matter how rational the anti-war arguments. No matter how moral the objections. No matter how many members of the global population oppose it. Say whatever you want, we're just going to do it anyway.

She again falls back on the unsubstantiated presumption that Iraq's human rights problems will be solved with war. That the Iraqi populace will actually be the better for having bombs dropped on them. I'm sure that thousands of Iraqi civilians will thank us as they're being torn to pieces by airstrikes because hey, we say we're doing it for their benefit.

I am no ally of Saddam Hussein. I also think his regime needs to be ousted. If it would avert a war, I'd kill him myself. But that's as unlikely to happen as his deposition by military force. It didn't work twelve years ago. It's unlikely to work now. And even if it does work... it will be paid for in civilian blood. Buckets. There have to be other ways. If we truly consider ourselves a just and humane society, there must be other ways.

"...my argument's bigger than yours."

No. It's not.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 04 February 2003 12:56 AM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Kudos, Subotai, on a thoughtful and excellent post. If not stopped, this muderous war will be a stain on the Western conscience for decades.

drg


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Adam Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3034

posted 04 February 2003 03:04 AM      Profile for Adam Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Very well said Subotai, and since it is only your second post to babble I must say welcome we are glad to have you here.
From: Manitoba | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 04 February 2003 03:11 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ditto. (or is that too cliche?)

What Subotai said. (cliche again? I know, but what can you do?)

Ed. because my fingers are in a shitty typing mood.

[ 04 February 2003: Message edited by: Flowers By Irene ]


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 04 February 2003 03:44 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Go Subotai.

One thing about this whole mess is it's bringing all the imperialist leftists out of the closet. The holier-than-thou "we've got the bombs, so we decide what the problems are and we create the solutions and nobody else gets a say and that's what makes us so compassionate, unlike people who don't want to bomb anyone" crowd.

According to these folks,the opinions of the people of Iraq are worth nothing, their lives are worth nothing, all that matters is that we save them from this ruthless dictator.

Huh? Would you like to run that by me again? I don't think I heard that correctly.

The most faulty point in this whole argument is the inordinate amount of trust it has in the Bush administration to do the right thing. Where is this trust coming from? Granted there have been a lot of corrupt evil administrations in the US (who have commited horrible atrocities), but this may be the most openly and obviously corrupt of them all. Half of Bush's team are oil executives, fer christ's sake! They have stopped caring about Afghanistan now that they have their pipeline, and they will stop caring about Iraq once they have the oilfields! There will be no liberation, no democratisation. All this is an obstruction to their plan to control Iraq's resources and strategic importance.

There are no examples of the US rolling in the stormtroopers and leaving a stable democracy in their wake, but there are plenty of examples of them destroying them. And some of these were under the very same people who are now in power.

So what is with these so-called leftists who suddenly think that Bush will be a force for good in the world? Based on what? Have they been co-opted or are they really this stupid? It boggles the mind.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 04 February 2003 04:17 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
War makes me a sad panda. And when I'm a sad panda I don't feel like saying much about it.

*sits back, breathes a sigh, and thinks a moment's thought for the people who will be in harm's way on both sides of the conflict to come*


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 February 2003 07:38 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why we shouldn't go to war: The hubris of the warhawks:

http://tinyurl.com/5b9x


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 04 February 2003 08:49 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Subotai, it was a very sweet evisceration.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Vee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3477

posted 04 February 2003 10:46 AM      Profile for Vee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I do not understand why we are so willing to slaughter our troops. We sent them to the Gulf War and exposed them to chemical warfare that is still killing them now that they are home and for what? What will be achieved that will be worth exposing our troops to that kind of situation again? If the Americans want to remove one tyrant, they should be looking at removing all of them. The Americans only want to remove Saddam Hussein because he has remained defiant to the them.
From: East Coast | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 04 February 2003 11:29 AM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What always bewilders me about the pro-war crowd of this stripe is that they accept the idea that Saddam Hussein has to go -- an idea that disarmament and human rights groups pushed before 1991, before the Bush family ever discovered Saddam was Evil(TM). And then they make the leap of faith to "therefore war is necessary." Never do they address the argument that perhaps this goal can be achieved without war.

Occasionally i link to an article making the case that helping democratization in Iraq is possible without killing large numbers of Iraqis. This is the latest, from an article currently on rabble's main page. There have been several cases of non-violent pro-democracy movements advancing democratizaiton in recent years. Morocco has been mentioned, Indonesia is another case, so is Serbia.

Some day, i would like to see a pro-war person actually address this argument.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 04 February 2003 12:58 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What bugs me is that every pro-war talking head out there bases their scnario on the assumption that the Iraqi people will be better off after Hussein is ousted. America, so the story goes, will win a swift and bloodless (well, for "our" guys, anyway) victory, and will promptly establish a benevolant democracy while directing piles of money to rebuild an Iraqi nation that has been crippled for more than ten years. Bullshit. This is either abject stupidity, breathless naivete, or a bold-faced lie. The U.S has demonstrated time and again (in examples ranging from Chile to Afghanistan) it has little interest in democracy or the human-rights and well-being of the citizens of the nations it chooses to "liberate". No, friends, the Saddam-less Iraq will look very much like the one we see today, only it'll be American companies pulling the oil from the desert and American Quislings in the halls of power who will grow fat on oil revenue while the people will continue to starve. The new boss, as they say, will look very much like the old boss; a Saddam by any other name is what the Americans want.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 04 February 2003 02:50 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"It is clear that Hitchens disagreed very little with Savio's ideas about the U.S. position in the Vietnam War. Perhaps Savio might have shared Hitchens' ability to distinguish between, for example, deposing Allende and removing the Taliban. This ability seems to have been removed from, or worn down in, the minds of so many in today’s anti-war left.

It’s not that those of us who can make the distinction between one act of aggression and another (and who and reject trite moral equivalences) are pro-war; we simply acknowledge that war (or the threat of war) is sometimes a necessary evil, a lesser evil. What’s interesting is that most of the antiwar left would agree with that proposition; they believe (in principle) that there are some things worth fighting for.

Of course, some are antiwar because they are strict pacifists; killing, for them, is never justified. While I am filled with both empathy and disgust for their idealism and naiveté, genuine pacifists exist as a very small group; it will be a long time before Quakers start affecting public policy.

But most people who were and are against the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq are either ignorant or hypocritical, or both (they are not mutually exclusive adjectives). Either they do not know that, for instance, the "Not In Our Name" and "International ANSWER" antiwar movements are fronts for the world workers party (the same group that defended Milosovich’s right to slaughter Muslims) or they do know. Those who do not know are guilty of the sort of lazy posturing that is all too common among those who strike the subversive pose. Those who do know are acting in bad faith, demonstrating anti-Americanism rather then a desire for peace or human rights."

- Genesio Zenone, Feb. 3



From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 February 2003 02:55 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know can-am, that sort of nonsense is exactly the sort of nonsense that kills debate and causes me to not want to take you seriously or provide you with any respect.

It is no different than my arguing that every person who supports the war supports it because they prefer dead Iraqi mothers and babies than more expensive fuel for their SUV's.

If you would consider that argument offensive and belittling be aware it is no different than the argument you just provided in another's name.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 04 February 2003 02:58 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Subotai:

Your post is superb. That was the most cogent, reasonable anti-war argument I have yet seen on babble. It will take me a while to digest your points. So refreshing to see a first-class mind at work, and a refusal to join the gutter-dwellers.


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 04 February 2003 03:04 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re the quote above, I would ignore Zenone's predictable left-bashing and focus instead on the very legitimate argument that the WWP has in the past and still does today openly support mass murderers such as Milosovic. I for one do not wish to slander peace activists, but I do agree with Zenone that getting mixed up with the WWP is serious step in the wrong direction. That organization has demonstrated only the ability to manipulate. Their interest in "peace" is wafer thin, compared with their interest in insurrection and revolution in the West.
From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 February 2003 03:04 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
and a refusal to join the gutter-dwellers.

He left you alone, did he?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 04 February 2003 03:08 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sadaam Hussein is being interviewed by Tony Benn on newsworld right now. It's a taped 40 minute interview. Sadaam's first interview in 12 years.
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 04 February 2003 03:09 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He left you alone, did he?

Q.E.D.


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 04 February 2003 05:18 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The crazies in the WWP have received almost no support, and a great deal of criticism, on this board. (Kinda like Saddam Hussein eh?) And there is a thread on the WWP role in the antiwar movement here.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 04 February 2003 06:42 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Very well said Subotai.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 04 February 2003 07:02 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's a report on Hussein's interview.
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 04 February 2003 10:09 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Of course, some are antiwar because they are strict pacifists; killing, for them, is never justified. While I am filled with both empathy and disgust for their idealism and naiveté, genuine pacifists exist as a very small group; it will be a long time before Quakers start affecting public policy.

Gosh, heaven forbid we have some principles or anything...


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 04 February 2003 11:31 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh crap, it's late.
quote:
There are no examples of the US rolling in the stormtroopers and leaving a stable democracy in their wake, but there are plenty of examples of them destroying them.
Japan and Germany don't count? Even Wingy concedes this...

From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 February 2003 11:38 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Even Wingy concedes this...

Yes, but Wingy concedes this in the context of the cold war.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
rubble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3517

posted 04 February 2003 11:49 PM      Profile for rubble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 04 February 2003: Message edited by: rubble ]


From: Earth | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 February 2003 01:16 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moving this to the Middle East forum.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca