bono_luvva
The Fly
if everything turns out ok then bush will just start a war with a different country...
Why Bush, Why???????
- Thread starter OzAurora
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
Dreadsox said:
I disagree too - with the term "collateral damage." These are people's lives we're talking about - not buildings that happened to get in the way and be destroyed. To dismiss that as just "collateral damage" is to dehumanise those people and claim their lives are unimportant and expendable. If the US bombs Iraq tens of thousands of innocent people will die. I'm sure people like to make themselves feel better about those deaths by distancing themselves from the reality, and dismissing it as "collateral damage" but that shows a complete and utter disregard for human life. The life of a person in Iraq is worth the same as the life of a person in the United States and I'm sure most people would hate to hear American citizens referred to as collateral damage so please don't use that term to refer to the Iraqi people either.
Saddam hasn't dared the United States to do anything - the US will bomb Iraq from the skies because that way it can almost guarantee the safety of US troops, no matter what the cost to the Iraqi people. You think there are any circumstances under which Bush would fight a war on the ground, which entailed less risk to innocent Iraqis, but more risk to the United States? Not a chance.
I know it'll be worse than Desert Storm, as horrifying as it is to imagine that. That's exactly why I don't simply "brace myself" for the start of bombing raids - I get involved in campaigning against them ever beginning.
Just a few points here. When the Police in your community are called on to use deadly force to stop a criminal, people in your community may get caught in the crossfire. No one dismisses this, but this fact cannot stop one from acting in order to prevent greater loss of life down the road. All lives are equal, but 100,000 lives do have priority over 10,000 as sad is that sounds. To not be able to act at all for the fear of the deaths of innocent civilians would mean that Hitler would rule the planet.
Our soldiers do everything they can to avoid civilian casualties including puting their lives at great risk. Also, ground operations can increase civilian casualties over airstrikes because the circumstances of and environment in which combat could erupt in an urban environment do not lend themselves to the lengthy well researched, thought out, and precision targeting that is involved with most airstrikes with modern US technology! This is in total contrast to a war like World War II where precision targeting from the air really did not exist. If we had bombed Baghdad with World War II technology back in the 1991 Gulf War, we would have killed millions of people. Now thanks to heavy defense spending and the resultant increase in technology, precision targeting while not 100% perfect, has saved perhaps hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives when the US goes to war.
It should also be noted that nearly half of Iraq's military losses came during the 4 day ground war, contrary to popular belief that the 1991 Gulf War was just an air war.
Our soldiers do everything they can to avoid civilian casualties including puting their lives at great risk. Also, ground operations can increase civilian casualties over airstrikes because the circumstances of and environment in which combat could erupt in an urban environment do not lend themselves to the lengthy well researched, thought out, and precision targeting that is involved with most airstrikes with modern US technology! This is in total contrast to a war like World War II where precision targeting from the air really did not exist. If we had bombed Baghdad with World War II technology back in the 1991 Gulf War, we would have killed millions of people. Now thanks to heavy defense spending and the resultant increase in technology, precision targeting while not 100% perfect, has saved perhaps hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives when the US goes to war.
It should also be noted that nearly half of Iraq's military losses came during the 4 day ground war, contrary to popular belief that the 1991 Gulf War was just an air war.
FizzingWhizzbees said:
Well, call it what you will. You are wrong to call it murder. Their leader is the person making thier lives expendable not our military. I did use the word "unfortunately" before the words "collateral damage". It is better than calling the soldiers who protect my country murderers.
The problem here is that we do not dehumanize people and claim their lives as expendable. However, it seems like it would be okay to allow this man to continue to violate UN Resolutions and Peace agreements again and again. It is okay for him to potentially develop a Nuke. This is a man who tryed to bring the whole region into the war by lobbing bombs at Israel during Desert Storm. Talk about "dehumanizing" people. If you remember Israel was not even involved in the war. Do you think he would not think twice about lobbing a Nuke/Biological weapon this time?
Maybe we should wait and let Israel do it themselves. Do you think the entire Arab world would sit back while Israel eliminates the threat on their own?
The United States would not have to act if the United Nations would enforce its own resolutions surrounding Iraq, period.
FizzingWhizzbees said:
I really resent this statement. Honestly, if you think a soldier takes pleasure in the use of deadly force there is no point in discussing this. I know of no person other than the truly sick people in this world who take pleasure in killing. You called it murder. As for hating to hear American Citizens call it "collateral damage" I am sure murder will fly much better.
No one said their life is not worth the same. It seems by the actions of their own leaders they feel otherwise.
FizzingWhizzbees said:
OK. You are not listening to what I said.
to quote myself:
"They WILL be in the cities, next to schools, mosques, and hospitals and he WILL dare us to conduct another air campaign."
Saddam had his troops out in the open last time. They will not be this time. They will be placed next to churches, schools, mosques in the event of a war this time. This WILL increase the civilian casualties because he is trying to eliminate the effectiveness of the air campaign. When I said he will "DARE US" I was referring to this strategy. I never said he "IS" daring us.
As for any circumstances at a ground war... We had a ground war last time after about 45 days of bombing I believe. Was it effective at protecting the lives of people who put their lives on the line for my country yes. It is absolutely sound strategy to bomb them. Is it horrifying that this time more civilians will be a risk, absolutely. The problem is we are dealing with a coward who would rather see innocent people risked by placing his troups in highly poulated civilian areas.
FizzingWhizzbees said:
This is where we differ. If the United Nations does not enforce the cease fire agreement then the United Nations is a useless organization. Their agreements and decisions will mean absolutely nothing in this world. If that is true, then there is no hope for peace in this world.
You said in your last statement it is not personal. I hope that is still so. I am not "bracing myself" either. I have called my congressman and senators and emailed them in support of the president of my country. The nice thing is that you and I can differ on things and still do our part. Although it seems like things are working with the strategy of my president.
The fact remains that President Bush, no matter how much people do not like him, has gotten the UN to act. Through diplomacy Egypt and Saudi Arabia have pledged to support UN action if it is deamed to go through. It is FACT that Saddam seems to be backing down and is moving towards inspections. It is a FACT that we are not at war, yet and I hope the UN can continue to apply the pressure.
Sounds like things are going great.
OzAurora said:For any of you who are Bush lovers than I think I better warn you that you probably should not read any further. In this post you are going to hear my true feelings towards this guy- and it aint nice, yes all of my opinions will probably be flawed by your standards if you like him, but I dont care, no amount of persuasive rhetoric will make me change my mind-call my thoughts here subjective or whatever you like- just dont rant and rave pro-bush crap, this is a thread for those who oppose this mans beliefs to discuss why it is that he is the way that he is. So after saying that I would just like to know why this man wnats to single handedly try and start or lay the foundations down for what could be WW III, a war based on escalating the already established conflicts between christian and muslim, why does he believe that he can do this- no one apart from Blair adheres to his campaign- I for one certainly dont, I see him as an arrogant war monger trying to finsih off what his Daddy started. I realise three things for certain,
The war machine fuels the American economy
There is oil in Iraq
Sadam is a product of the Reagan adminstration's own doing- remember the Iran/Iraq war- one of their own 'puppets' who they now want to bomb the crapper out of- how hypocritical, just look back to Vietnam guys, it probably wont work or it will esculate out of and beyond control...
Why does Bush feel that he can over ride the wishes and concerns of both the UN and practically every 'western' country in the world- does this man have a plank of wood between his head??? is he a sadist and gets great pleasure from killing, maming, seeing countries struggle into economic dissaray and having countless people the world over despise both him and his policies........
Now to the issue of Sadam- sure I can congress that he is a mad-man, but in all honesty from where I stand both he and Bush dont really share to many disparities at the moment, it is kinda like who is the lesser evil?????? and really if Sadam wants to make chemical weapons, how on earth is he going to do this, where on earth is he going to get the weapons grade plutonium from???? anyway this could go on for ages but I just want to let you know that I despise Bush and everything that he stands for why does he think that he can act as a supreme, benevolent dictator to the world???? I wish he would go an nuke himself and all of his propaganda bullshit up instead
If you ever wonder why conservatives criticize liberals as children, look no further! It's a wonder to me that 99% of this trash comes from the Europeans and Australians. I guess you can't help it since the vast majority of your politicians and media are ultra-liberal and you've basically been brainwashed with only one political point of view.
Every point you make in this thread is based on pointless conjecture. To suggest that attacking Iraq will cause WWIII is to assume that the Muslim countries around Saddam will support him in an all out attack on the west (or just the USA). First, the countries around Iraq that could join him in such a war would never support him. There's no way Iran is joining in because of their conflict with Iraq. The Saudis are out of the question because we have decent relations with them and they sell 16% of their oil to us so they are also financially bound to us. Jordan is close allies with the U.S. so they are out of the question as well as Kuwait. So, who exactly is willing to perpetuate such a Muslim vs. Christian war other than terrorist groups, which we are already at war with?
"The war machine fuels the American economy"
Does it every bother you liberals that these phrases are used so often and without regard to logic that they become cliches? While it is true that war-time economies see a boost in certain sectors, we're definitely going to lose a lot of money fighting this war. Make up your minds liberals! Half of your are bitching that the war is too expensive and the other half are bitching that the war will make us money.
Also, it seems like all of you children seem to use the "worst case doomsday scenario" a little too often. Everyone remember all the fear the left was trying to spread in response to our war in Afghanistan? What happened there? WWIII? Nope.
Will Iraq escalate into Vietnam? To even suggest that it would shows that you have no idea what went wrong in Vietnam. Even Bill Clinton is quoted as saying that he would be surprised if the war took longer than a week. Really, there is no comparison between a guerilla war in Vietnam and a potential war in Iraq.
" is he a sadist and gets great pleasure from killing, maming, seeing countries struggle into economic dissaray and having countless people the world over despise both him and his policies........"
How many wars have we fought so far during his administration? One. Let's not forget that the country paused for quite some time before pursuing a war in Afghanistan. He could have just jumped into it, but he didn't. He took his time and built a broad base of support among our allies. He delivered speeches at mosques asking for tolerance towards Muslims and he met with dozens of international leaders. Maybe these comments might be legitimate if there was no 9-11 and we just attacked Afghanistan for fun, but we didn't. Similarly, he didn't have to go to the UN and give this speech. He could have just attacked since he already had a lot of support within congress to do so. Why shouldn't we cave into the pressures of a bunch of socialist pacificists you ask? Are Americans no longer in charge of our own destiny? Has our representative democracy failed us to the point where we need a bunch of nations (who are mostly economically dependent on us) to dictate our foreign policy for us? NO!
"Now to the issue of Sadam- sure I can congress that he is a mad-man, but in all honesty from where I stand both he and Bush dont really share to many disparities at the moment, it is kinda like who is the lesser evil??????"
What is the difference between Bush and Saddam Hussein?
Hussein:
-Used nerve gas to kill thousands of Kurds in his OWN country (the most widespread use of such a weapon ever). In the town of Halabja alone, an estimated 5,000 civilians were killed and more than 10,000 were injured.
-Launched a war against Iran killing nearly a million people.
-Builds mosques in his honor on every birthday using billions of dollars he could be using to feed his people.
-Only taking advantage of half the amount of UN aid (in the U.N. oil-for-food program), which amounts to a 4 billion dollar loss of aid that his people can't use.
-Destruction of over 3,000 Kurdish villages. The Iraqi government's campaign of forced deportations of Kurdish and Turkomen families to southern Iraq has created approximately 900,000 internally displaced citizens throughout the country.
-the violent suppression of the 1991 uprising that led to 30,000 or more mostly civilian deaths
- the draining of the southern marshes during the 1990s, which ethnically cleansed Hussein's southern flank of thousands of Iraqi Shiites
-execution of thousands of political prisoners
-Invasion of Kuwait in 1990
-Following the invasion of Kuwait, Iraqi authorities killed more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians, held foreign diplomats hostage, unleashed environmental crimes on a colossal scale, looted Kuwaiti property, rained missiles down on Israeli civilians and committed war crimes against American soldiers. The fate of more than 600 missing Kuwaiti citizens remains unknown.
Bush:
You fill in the blank here and try to make it match what I listed above. Clearly you've done a lot of thinking about this comparison, so I'm looking forward to your list.
"and really if Sadam wants to make chemical weapons, how on earth is he going to do this, where on earth is he going to get the weapons grade plutonium from???"
Where is Saddam going to get a nuke or chemical weapons!? Are you freaking serious!? Come on!
According to UNSCOM findings, Iraq has produced 19,000 litres of botulinum, 8,400 litres of anthrax, 2,000 litres of aflatoxin (produces liver cancer) and clostridium (gas gangrene). Iraq
has admitted to arming ballistic missiles with botulinum, anthrax, and aflatoxin. Saddam said the VX nerve project was a failure. He has now admitted producing four tons of VX nerve agent. Over 600 tons of VX precursors are not accounted for. These could make 200 tons of VX. One drop of VX is enough to kill dozens.
Since the end of the Cold War, a murky nuclear black market has emerged in and around the former Soviet Union. Facilities in the new republics where weapons-grade nuclear materials are stored are poorly guarded and there have reportedly been many cases of smuggling of nuclear materials to unknown buyers outside Russia, usually by transnational criminal organizations.
Let me say again how much I hate ultra-liberals. Let me count the ways.....Your baseless generalizations, thoughtless analogies and general stupidity is almost endearing....almost. whenhiphopdrovethebigcars & FizzingWhizzbees deliver no surprise once again.
MORE TO THE POINT! Why are all the moderators of such a political forum lefties? Stinks of something bad.....very bad.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Well said garibaldo.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
Re: Re: Why Bush, Why???????
Sorry this is going to be a very short reply, I don't have much time online but just wanted to respond very briefly to these points:
I'm not sure how much you know about European politics, but to describe Europe as having "ultra-liberal" politics is simply incorrect. There's been a massive increase in the power of the centre-right in European politics lately. France is a prime example - Chirac won the election, but his opponent was the extreme right Jean Marie Le Pen - it was hardly a triumph for the left that Jospin was defeated in the first round. Berlusconi is in power in Italy and I don't think anyone would dream of calling him a liberal! In Germany the centre-left Schroeder isn't doing particularly well in his bid for re-election, and Spain isn't exactly known as a stronghold of the left either. Even in Britain Tony Blair is showing his right-wing colours by backing war with Iraq. Perhaps someone from Australia would like to chip in with some more info, but last time I checked, John Howard was hardly a left wing politician either.
And quite frankly, to say people have been brainwashed is nothing less than insulting. Many of the people I've talked to here (yes, both left and right of the political spectrum) are well-educated people who research issues throughly before coming to their own conclusions on them - they haven't been brainwashed by anyone.
It's not a contradiction at all. The concern is that wars are extremely costly for the state and mean that money raised through taxation must be spent on the military. Many people on the left believe that this money would be better spent on education, or on healthcare, or social security. However, it's also true that wars are good for the economy - WWII is perhaps the best example of this, as many historians actually believe it was only WWII that finally brought the United States out of the depression of the 1930s. Whether you agree with that point or not, you still have to acknowledge that the US economy was much larger and stronger in 1945 than in 1939. There's really no contradiction between arguing against war because of its cost and stating that it benefits the economy.
Point one - I don't think talking about how much you hate people of certain political persuasions really strengthens your argument. Perhaps in future we could keep discussions focused on the issues and avoid resorting to personal insults.
Point two - I'm not a liberal. Thank you.
Sorry this is going to be a very short reply, I don't have much time online but just wanted to respond very briefly to these points:
garibaldo said:
I'm not sure how much you know about European politics, but to describe Europe as having "ultra-liberal" politics is simply incorrect. There's been a massive increase in the power of the centre-right in European politics lately. France is a prime example - Chirac won the election, but his opponent was the extreme right Jean Marie Le Pen - it was hardly a triumph for the left that Jospin was defeated in the first round. Berlusconi is in power in Italy and I don't think anyone would dream of calling him a liberal! In Germany the centre-left Schroeder isn't doing particularly well in his bid for re-election, and Spain isn't exactly known as a stronghold of the left either. Even in Britain Tony Blair is showing his right-wing colours by backing war with Iraq. Perhaps someone from Australia would like to chip in with some more info, but last time I checked, John Howard was hardly a left wing politician either.
And quite frankly, to say people have been brainwashed is nothing less than insulting. Many of the people I've talked to here (yes, both left and right of the political spectrum) are well-educated people who research issues throughly before coming to their own conclusions on them - they haven't been brainwashed by anyone.
It's not a contradiction at all. The concern is that wars are extremely costly for the state and mean that money raised through taxation must be spent on the military. Many people on the left believe that this money would be better spent on education, or on healthcare, or social security. However, it's also true that wars are good for the economy - WWII is perhaps the best example of this, as many historians actually believe it was only WWII that finally brought the United States out of the depression of the 1930s. Whether you agree with that point or not, you still have to acknowledge that the US economy was much larger and stronger in 1945 than in 1939. There's really no contradiction between arguing against war because of its cost and stating that it benefits the economy.
Point one - I don't think talking about how much you hate people of certain political persuasions really strengthens your argument. Perhaps in future we could keep discussions focused on the issues and avoid resorting to personal insults.
Point two - I'm not a liberal. Thank you.
Fizzing,
Aside from bringing down the price of oil over the long run, could you explain what the economic benifit of the 1991 Gulf War was to George Bush I and the US economy? World War II is sited as helping the economy in the USA and in this particular circumstance it probably did, but the US economy would have grown with or without the war, the economy was already rising out of the Great Depression. Its true that countries go to war to defend their economic interest, but not for economic gain unless their planning on raping or stealing another countries assets as in the case of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
Aside from bringing down the price of oil over the long run, could you explain what the economic benifit of the 1991 Gulf War was to George Bush I and the US economy? World War II is sited as helping the economy in the USA and in this particular circumstance it probably did, but the US economy would have grown with or without the war, the economy was already rising out of the Great Depression. Its true that countries go to war to defend their economic interest, but not for economic gain unless their planning on raping or stealing another countries assets as in the case of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
Salome
you are what you is
I'm sick of this stuffgaribaldo said:
even it it were true (and I would say it isn't) then it adds nothing to the rest of your post + I don't see what the political inclination of mods has anything to do with the threads and posts that are in fym
not that many threads are closed and when mods do close threads it usually is because of the way people act instead of the (political) content of the thread at hand
it gets nearly impossible to moderate this forum in any way when you are (for no particular reason) being labelled as a biased leftie every day
everyone going out of his way blaming the mods for the state FYM is in will be reported to the admins
There is no excuse for the US to do this unilaterally. Period
IF the united states launches a preemptive strike on iraq, we will lsoe any moral ground to tell any nation not to take back any disputed land
Pakistan could occupy all of kashmir and the US wouldn't be able to say anything
Russia could take georgia and the US wouldn't be able to say anything
Israel could just go in and take all of palestine...we wouldn't be able to say anything
The UN is the only method by which this shoudl go. if the UN says no....the Us can't act. if Iraq deifes the UN ...we will get our resolution eventually..if the US defies teh UN....that is a sever blow to the long term health of the UN.
This is the reason the UN exists.
Bush is being a sore loser right now. They wanted weapons inspectors back in...they let them back in and UNTIL they are kicked out...he should just keep his mouth shut...and not send Colin powell to congress today to get a use of force bill. This refelcts badly on the US and the Bush administration. He essentially looks like a war monger.
what the administration is doing is WRONG period. and if The US defies the UN...iraq is the real winner no matter if there is a regime change or not.
Multi lateral support is the ONLY solution to this period.
get the economy back on track...and fight al qaeda.
that is what the focus should be and this iraq deal is a dangerous distraction .
IF the united states launches a preemptive strike on iraq, we will lsoe any moral ground to tell any nation not to take back any disputed land
Pakistan could occupy all of kashmir and the US wouldn't be able to say anything
Russia could take georgia and the US wouldn't be able to say anything
Israel could just go in and take all of palestine...we wouldn't be able to say anything
The UN is the only method by which this shoudl go. if the UN says no....the Us can't act. if Iraq deifes the UN ...we will get our resolution eventually..if the US defies teh UN....that is a sever blow to the long term health of the UN.
This is the reason the UN exists.
Bush is being a sore loser right now. They wanted weapons inspectors back in...they let them back in and UNTIL they are kicked out...he should just keep his mouth shut...and not send Colin powell to congress today to get a use of force bill. This refelcts badly on the US and the Bush administration. He essentially looks like a war monger.
what the administration is doing is WRONG period. and if The US defies the UN...iraq is the real winner no matter if there is a regime change or not.
Multi lateral support is the ONLY solution to this period.
get the economy back on track...and fight al qaeda.
that is what the focus should be and this iraq deal is a dangerous distraction .
This will be a post where I claim ignorance again Arun.
Can anyone clear something up for me with hard evidence please?
I know the press is reporting that Iraq is allowing inspectors back in. I am also hearing on the radio news that they are "limiting" inspections to military facilities only. If this is true is this in violation of the UN Reslolutions?
Arun, I agree this situation has much at stake for the world. The UN is in jeopardy of losing a lot of respect in this instance. I think that is bad as well.
As for the president seeking aproval of our congress....I believe he must do this even if the UN Approves action. Sounds like he is making sure all is in line. As for attacking Iraq without UN approval, he MUST make his case to the US. Notice his approval went up when he went to the UN. I honestly believe the US Citizenship believes we need UN approval. I may be wrong though.
Can anyone clear something up for me with hard evidence please?
I know the press is reporting that Iraq is allowing inspectors back in. I am also hearing on the radio news that they are "limiting" inspections to military facilities only. If this is true is this in violation of the UN Reslolutions?
Arun, I agree this situation has much at stake for the world. The UN is in jeopardy of losing a lot of respect in this instance. I think that is bad as well.
As for the president seeking aproval of our congress....I believe he must do this even if the UN Approves action. Sounds like he is making sure all is in line. As for attacking Iraq without UN approval, he MUST make his case to the US. Notice his approval went up when he went to the UN. I honestly believe the US Citizenship believes we need UN approval. I may be wrong though.
Last edited:
Arun,
There is a UN ceacefire agreement that Iraq is in open violation of. The UN is required to enforce that by resuming offensive operations that were put on hold in 1991. If the rest of the UN is ready to defy its own resolution, the USA will have to go it alone to enforce it.
The old inspection regime failed to do what the ceacefire agreement called for. A new UN inspection regime would be needed to insure that the ceacefire agreement conditions are met. If these ceacefire agreements are not met, then the inspection regime has to have a large military force behind it to force open or search anywhere it needs to. Either way, large numbers of US troops will have to go to Iraq to either change the regime or perhaps be apart of the only possibly effective inpection regime, one that is backed up with force. No more BS where were not allowed to check this place for the next 3 hours while they take things out the back in trucks. What a load of DUNG! Its either going to be inspections anywhere anytime, backed up with military to enforce it, or regime change. Simply letting the inspectors the way it was 4 years ago to inspect only military bases is a joke. I can't believe there are people here that believe that is sufficiant.
There is a UN ceacefire agreement that Iraq is in open violation of. The UN is required to enforce that by resuming offensive operations that were put on hold in 1991. If the rest of the UN is ready to defy its own resolution, the USA will have to go it alone to enforce it.
The old inspection regime failed to do what the ceacefire agreement called for. A new UN inspection regime would be needed to insure that the ceacefire agreement conditions are met. If these ceacefire agreements are not met, then the inspection regime has to have a large military force behind it to force open or search anywhere it needs to. Either way, large numbers of US troops will have to go to Iraq to either change the regime or perhaps be apart of the only possibly effective inpection regime, one that is backed up with force. No more BS where were not allowed to check this place for the next 3 hours while they take things out the back in trucks. What a load of DUNG! Its either going to be inspections anywhere anytime, backed up with military to enforce it, or regime change. Simply letting the inspectors the way it was 4 years ago to inspect only military bases is a joke. I can't believe there are people here that believe that is sufficiant.
OP
OP
OzAurora
Refugee
Good on you Garibaldo- your a right wing kind of person, would you like a medal for this????? you are free to have your views and opinions- I dont agree with them and just because I dont does not mean that I am an un-educated person who is fed a diet of lefty policies etc, etc and when you say 'liberal; I have to remember that this word means something quite different here in Australia- the political party who run our country at the moment are the 'liberal' party and they are extremely right orientated and John Howard our PM is the most conservative leader that our country has had in decades so anyway I will get back to you soon with a detailed post- you say you want to see facts and 'hard evidence'=- well I will see what I can do, but then I wonder why bother- you will always believe what you want to believe and vice versa- guess its what makes the world go around
Lilly
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
garibaldo said:
listen up. you have no right to come in here accusing us of what we do and do not close and question our motives around it. when a thread is going well be it "liberal" or "conservative" it is going well and will be left alone. when threads are reduced to personal bickering, then there is no point in keeping the thread alive. ATTACK THE ISSUE, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL. it's something that we have said many times, but still, people do not get it.
when were your threads "censored." what was the topic?
and next time you think about making sweeping generalizations about the mods, i would advise you not to, as you clearly don't know any of us.
if you have more issues with this, i urge you to pm us, this will not be spoken about any more in the thread.
thank you,
lilly.
BAW
The Flower
Lilly said:
This should be the new FYM slogan.
Lilly
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
while we mods always appreciate support, i said no more discussion on it in here, and i meant it.
thank you.
lilly.
thank you.
lilly.
Dreadsox said:
All Im saying is...I'd liek to avoid a war of I can, I dont' liek to hear teh sound of war drums beating before they need to be sounded.
If he kicks the inspectors out....then go to the Un..then go to congress.
NO matter hwat happens the most inportant thing is that we get support from teh region ie saudi and egypt. and that can only be accomplished through the UN.
Also...I think its' irresponsible to go to congress right now.
JIm davis of florida said today that he feels that Congress and the American people have been left out of the loop and that the administration needs to present a full case to the american people beofre anything more.
The gulf of tonking was an exageratted incident that led us into one of the bloodiest wars ever...I'd rather force the president to make a full case the the US public rather than repeat the mistake that occured with Tonkin. American lives are on the line if we go to war with iraq and I feel that bush needs to make a stronger case right now to jusify the risk
If the administration gives me hard evidence....I say go in and take saddam out.
listen up. you have no right to come in here accusing us of what we do and do not close and question our motives around it.
I have every right to do so until you choose to cancel my account. Why are you so afraid of airing this issue in this public forum? Why ask me to use PM? Are you afraid that this is a legitimate issue. The fact that you believe that you are above criticism is very telling indeed. Just as it's not good for a government to have only one political point of view, it's unhealthy for a forum to be controlled by moderators of only one political persuasion. I think to most conservatives on here that it's an obvious fact that the moderators are all liberals.
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE MY ASSERTION THAT YOU ALL SWING TO THE LEFT, THEN PLEASE ASK ME TO MAKE A WHOLE POST ABOUT IT AND I WILL LITERALLY GO BACK AND DOCUMENT A TON OF EVIDENCE TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS.
Ok, getting back to my issue here and lower case letters, I have been censored when I've posted something fairly controversial concerning the environment and a while ago when I posted about Afghanistan. I don't remember the exact details of the post because I simply don't keep records, but I'm sure it's happened several times. I'll post a message, see the post come up at the end of the thread and come back 1-2 hours later and see that it's gone. That's what happens. I'd find it hard to believe that I alone share this experience. Also, what you consider a good stopping point for a thread is open to all sorts of bias and political manipulation. If someone on this forum posts a right-wing msg (let's say someone posted pictures of war planes *ahem*), I think you're much more like to think of it as extremist than when someone says that Bush is no difference than Hussein or some other ultra-left msg, which I personally find very offensive. I have put a lot of time into making this thread factually relevant, so please don't accuse me of simply attacking the individual (in fact, someone even mentioned that I used the fact to make a good arguement in this thread).
I'm tired of the threats coming from mods and members of this forum. If you believe that you have absolute power because you put extra time into this and that entitles you to do whatever you want, then please allow someone else (me, Z-edge, diamond, achtung bubba, etc) the opportunity to step in or just simply state OPENLY that you don't care about fairness in exercising the rules.
It has become painfully clear to me that this forum cares nothing about issues of fairness and balance. Ample evidence comes from threatening PMs in my box that state things like:
"you pay nothing, therefore you are entitled to nothing. They do their job, you put up and shut up, because youre here by their good graces, nothing else. If they feel the need to close down a thread, they will do so, whether you like it or not."
I also believe that the moderators ignore instances when liberals make outright generalizations and insults about conservatives when the opposite would cause quite a scene. I can document evidence of this too.
This forum, in my opinion, would be best served by a balance of viewpoints in its administration. Further, like someone holding a political position in the government, they should never answer questions of their objectivity with threats and suppression, but with a valid arguement. Arguing that your extra effort justifies any means of administering the rules which best pleases you is well...totalitarian in a way.
OzAurora:
I can see your point about how "liberal" can be taken two ways as well. It's a valid point. However, Americans don't often focus on foreign political groups (i.e. Australia) to make such a comparison between foreign ultra-liberals (i.e. radical socialists) and domestic liberals. I'd be surprised if many right-wingers are even aware of militant socialists or the far-left policies of countries like Sweden to make such a comparison. Also, our country does not often make public criticisms of foreign left-wing groups in other countries. Several Europeans governments and activists DO focus on political groups in America and we hear of criticism from Europeans of our government (and especially Republicans) nearly every day, which is why I think it's more important that Europeans distinguish between their own right-wing political groups and ours.
Also, you asked why you should bother to look for hard evidence. Why bother to come to this forum and engage in the first place, right?
I have every right to do so until you choose to cancel my account. Why are you so afraid of airing this issue in this public forum? Why ask me to use PM? Are you afraid that this is a legitimate issue. The fact that you believe that you are above criticism is very telling indeed. Just as it's not good for a government to have only one political point of view, it's unhealthy for a forum to be controlled by moderators of only one political persuasion. I think to most conservatives on here that it's an obvious fact that the moderators are all liberals.
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE MY ASSERTION THAT YOU ALL SWING TO THE LEFT, THEN PLEASE ASK ME TO MAKE A WHOLE POST ABOUT IT AND I WILL LITERALLY GO BACK AND DOCUMENT A TON OF EVIDENCE TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS.
Ok, getting back to my issue here and lower case letters, I have been censored when I've posted something fairly controversial concerning the environment and a while ago when I posted about Afghanistan. I don't remember the exact details of the post because I simply don't keep records, but I'm sure it's happened several times. I'll post a message, see the post come up at the end of the thread and come back 1-2 hours later and see that it's gone. That's what happens. I'd find it hard to believe that I alone share this experience. Also, what you consider a good stopping point for a thread is open to all sorts of bias and political manipulation. If someone on this forum posts a right-wing msg (let's say someone posted pictures of war planes *ahem*), I think you're much more like to think of it as extremist than when someone says that Bush is no difference than Hussein or some other ultra-left msg, which I personally find very offensive. I have put a lot of time into making this thread factually relevant, so please don't accuse me of simply attacking the individual (in fact, someone even mentioned that I used the fact to make a good arguement in this thread).
I'm tired of the threats coming from mods and members of this forum. If you believe that you have absolute power because you put extra time into this and that entitles you to do whatever you want, then please allow someone else (me, Z-edge, diamond, achtung bubba, etc) the opportunity to step in or just simply state OPENLY that you don't care about fairness in exercising the rules.
It has become painfully clear to me that this forum cares nothing about issues of fairness and balance. Ample evidence comes from threatening PMs in my box that state things like:
"you pay nothing, therefore you are entitled to nothing. They do their job, you put up and shut up, because youre here by their good graces, nothing else. If they feel the need to close down a thread, they will do so, whether you like it or not."
I also believe that the moderators ignore instances when liberals make outright generalizations and insults about conservatives when the opposite would cause quite a scene. I can document evidence of this too.
This forum, in my opinion, would be best served by a balance of viewpoints in its administration. Further, like someone holding a political position in the government, they should never answer questions of their objectivity with threats and suppression, but with a valid arguement. Arguing that your extra effort justifies any means of administering the rules which best pleases you is well...totalitarian in a way.
OzAurora:
I can see your point about how "liberal" can be taken two ways as well. It's a valid point. However, Americans don't often focus on foreign political groups (i.e. Australia) to make such a comparison between foreign ultra-liberals (i.e. radical socialists) and domestic liberals. I'd be surprised if many right-wingers are even aware of militant socialists or the far-left policies of countries like Sweden to make such a comparison. Also, our country does not often make public criticisms of foreign left-wing groups in other countries. Several Europeans governments and activists DO focus on political groups in America and we hear of criticism from Europeans of our government (and especially Republicans) nearly every day, which is why I think it's more important that Europeans distinguish between their own right-wing political groups and ours.
Also, you asked why you should bother to look for hard evidence. Why bother to come to this forum and engage in the first place, right?
brettig
New Yorker
What Tyler said.
Also, I'd like it if yanks and others didn't make assumptions about our country, its people or its politics without first checking it out - what garibaldo said about us 'having just about all liberal politicians' is utter crap.
Also, I'd like it if yanks and others didn't make assumptions about our country, its people or its politics without first checking it out - what garibaldo said about us 'having just about all liberal politicians' is utter crap.
BAW
The Flower
Lilly said:
Sure Lilly, it won't happen again.
Lilly
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
garibaldo said:
my purpose in asking you to contain this to a pm was so as to not disturb this thread more than it has been. if you've tried to save it thus far, you will fail if you continue to digress from the issue and attack myself, the mods, the admins, or the board itself.
this discussion will continue via PM. it will not, NOT continue in this thread.
lilly.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Re: Re: Why Bush, Why???????
garibaldo said:
Lilly
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
if this thread doesn't head back toward the issue pretty quickly, i'm going to close it.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
garibaldo your complaints about this forum, the moderators and the administrators of this site are not backed by fact from these posts. They are also not relevent to this thread. By all means, air them, but not in this thread. It is no secret that threads will be closed if they stray off topic too far and lose base - ie, no grounds for biased modding if this does get closed as a result. You also cannot make grand assumptions about our political affiliations and keep to fact, as I am not a liberal. Call me whatever you need, but do not make it innacurate.
We would appreciate if everyone can refrain from discussing this further. It has been stated this will be closed if it does not stay on topic.
Thankya's all.
We would appreciate if everyone can refrain from discussing this further. It has been stated this will be closed if it does not stay on topic.
Thankya's all.
MadelynIris
Refugee
After reading this thread....
1) Yes, It's definitely a mistake to try to assume anything about anyone's political views from a bulletin board. Sometimes some of use sarcasm in ways that is not always understood. Plus, you probably will find that many here are actually closer to the middle but because we speak out on ONLY a few issues, we are mistakenly understood as far right or left.
2) I have no idea what the original topic is/was. It's about Bush obviously, but is also about liberalism/conservitsm, political parties, Iraq, Oil, among other things. Hard to nail down completely. Can anyone help me here?
3) If one does feel like they are being censored, or concerned with moderation, can one voice it publically? Where and how?
1) Yes, It's definitely a mistake to try to assume anything about anyone's political views from a bulletin board. Sometimes some of use sarcasm in ways that is not always understood. Plus, you probably will find that many here are actually closer to the middle but because we speak out on ONLY a few issues, we are mistakenly understood as far right or left.
2) I have no idea what the original topic is/was. It's about Bush obviously, but is also about liberalism/conservitsm, political parties, Iraq, Oil, among other things. Hard to nail down completely. Can anyone help me here?
3) If one does feel like they are being censored, or concerned with moderation, can one voice it publically? Where and how?
Lilly
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
MadelynIris said:
3) If one does feel like they are being censored, or concerned with moderation, can one voice it publically? Where and how?
i urge you to PM any one of the mods if you feel there is injustice. please bring this to our attention first. if there were a relevant thread to the way mods operate in here, then post it in there, but this is not the proper thread to do so in.
thank you for respecting this policy.
the mods.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
Why, is there still anything to say to the issue?
Similar threads
