Saddam and 9/11 - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-19-2005, 02:06 PM   #61
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 15,635
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox



I will slink back out. Have fun. Clearly I do not know what I am talking about.
Dread you're a nice guy, but it looks like you have taken my comments directed at your post as a personal affront to you. I like you, you've been wonderful to me for a long time. Because I have a lot of respect for you, I won't debate in here with you anymore because I'd rather continue to hold you in that high regard than to have to wonder when you come up with, a statement like the above, which I view as unprovoked and uneccessary.

Have a nice weekend. Take the wife out to dinner. Dessert too.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 11-19-2005, 02:24 PM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,880
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Because I have a lot of respect for you, I won't debate in here with you anymore because I'd rather continue to hold you in that high regard than to have to wonder when you come up with, a statement like the above, which I view as unprovoked and uneccessary.
Not to sound glib but, So?

I posted numerous MAINSTREAM media articles before 2005. Shall I link to the 9/11 Commison too?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 02:26 PM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,880
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


The whole adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," during the Cold War really just came back to bite us in the ass. After all, Saddam was our best friend when we hated Iran in the early 1980s.



I'm sure Donald Rumsfeld would love to see this image destroyed.

Melon
It was the way foreign policy worked for YEARS. Not just a Reagan policy.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 05:40 PM   #64
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:52 PM
Ludicrous.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 06:31 PM   #65
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,763
Local Time: 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
It was the way foreign policy worked for YEARS. Not just a Reagan policy.
Ahem...

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
You can blame the leadership of the 1950s for overthrowing elected leftist governments in favor of loyal dictatorships too. All the "moderates" just ended up dead.
Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 07:56 PM   #66
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The Bush administration is responsible for the war, the flaws in planning post-war and a litany of other mistakes. But this thread is truly telling in that it seems that people are more than willing to both have their cake and eat it too in regards to who built up the threats about Iraq .
So...at what precise point does holding the Bush administration "responsible for the war, the flaws in planning post-war and a litany of other mistakes" cross the line into "having one's cake and eating it too"? Is melon, say, less worthy than Dreadsox of holding the Bush administration accountable for their mistakes because he's more opposed to them generally, and less inclined to insist on exhaustive cross-examination of all criticism of them? When you encounter firm Bush supporters equating media focus on this Administration's Iraq mistakes with "Bush-bashing," do you likewise insist that they be able to unpack their arguments and provide a long paper trail to back up their own claims of hypocrisy? Do you insist on this same level of nuance, distinction and close self-scrutiny when analyzing the trajectory of, for example, Islamist politics?
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 08:23 PM   #67
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Judah
It's not that hard to imagine that many American people, pre-9/11, thought Saddam led a terror state and maybe had terrorist connections. Not to disparage the general American publics' knowledge about world affairs or mid-east politics, but it would be easy enough to understand if they thought of Bin Laden, Iraq, Iran, Syria, PLO, Hamas, and all those other groups as generally being the same one-big enemy.
And that is certainly what I remember the popular perception being at the time. Clinton administration insiders and armchair foreign policy wonks were well aware of al-Qaeda and bin Laden, but the average American was quite unfamiliar with these names prior to 9/11--the 1993 attacks notwithstanding--and would have been at a loss to define who they were in context. Saddam, on the other hand, was nationally known and perceived (rightly or wrongly) as the symbol par excellence of armed-and-dangerous anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 08:40 PM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Oh but we do. How many in the Bush Administration have actually fought in a conflict? Blowing off your National Guard service and getting five draft deferrals don't count.

Melon
So you are advocating a form of military dictatorship here. In this type of world nobody would have been able to dismiss McArthur and frankly that would be a pretty fucked up world.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 08:48 PM   #69
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,763
Local Time: 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
So you are advocating a form of military dictatorship here. In this type of world nobody would have been able to dismiss McArthur and frankly that would be a pretty fucked up world.
I think you've made too many assumptions about what I've written. First off, I think that civilian presidents are perfectly capable of waging war. But the Republican Party made a huge fuss over Bill Clinton when he had never been in the military. They were the ones campaigning on "military dictatorship" for years, not I.

And since nbcrusader talked about "armchair generals," we have plenty in the Bush Administration. It's easy to be pro-war when you never ever have to be in one, now isn't it?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 08:54 PM   #70
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:52 PM
Not as easy as it is to be anti-war I assure you.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 09:01 PM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,763
Local Time: 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Not as easy as it is to be anti-war I assure you.
For what it is worth, I'm neither. But I do think it is valid to question your leaders who, at the very least, misled the public regarding the nature of this war and now have us mired in a conflict with no apparent end. I certainly think we can do better on the leadership department, even if that means having a Democratic president or a different Republican president.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 09:33 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,880
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Ahem...



Melon
That ahem is duely noted,,,I stand corrected.

Interesting to see you type ahem. It is pretty much the noise I made tonight to make Steven Tyler of Aerosmith turn around at the movie theater. He was watching Harry Pottter one row in front of my family.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 10:37 PM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Not as easy as it is to be anti-war I assure you.
Self serving nonsense.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 10:46 PM   #74
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:52 PM
Isn't it, to advocate war is to be advocating the killing of innocent people.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 11:00 PM   #75
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,763
Local Time: 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Isn't it, to advocate war is to be advocating the killing of innocent people.
Ah, but in the spirit of postmodernism, are they really "people" if you never have to see them? Would all the pro-war "armchair generals" be so fervently in favor of the war if they were forced to humanize the conflict?

"War," to those of us not in Iraq, is nothing but a simulacrum. In the most literal sense, we support--or condemn--the war based on what we are selectively told and what we are selectively permitted to see on television.

But, for the record, "dehumanization" is not solely an American phenomenon. With Arab television, the roles are just switched. With the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, American television will tell you the name and sometimes a picture of the Israelis killed. The Palestinians are merely given a number--i.e., "20 killed in retaliation" or something. The opposite is true for the Arab world. Killed Palestinians are given a human name and face, whereas Israeli fatalities are merely a number.

When the Bush Administration, rather naively, complained about Al-Jazeera's media bias, they neglected to realize that American media was guilty of the same, if opposite, bias. News, for better or for worse, tells stories just as much as Hollywood. It just happens to be very entertaining to frame everything in a "good versus evil" doomsday scenario. Life, of course, is not that simple.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com