Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

turbo- wow.. i agree and disagree with several points on an even scale.. but i just wanted to applaude the post, and the manner in which it was written. i dont agree with everything, but i respect that fact that you wrote it.

see, who says we cant be civil while talkin bout politics..

bigjohn

I present you with an animated history of Saddam Hussein, for those too busy or lazy to read up on him.

That's a great link. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of how much of our problems are by our own creation. Our government utilizes it's "Assets" until they outlive their usefulness and then act surprised when they come back to bite us in the ... I would, however, be curious to see source material for the references to us expressing no opinion about their invasion of Kuwait.

Just to show that I am not a die-hard Bush lover, take a look at this link: Buchanan Commentary
This is a document written by Pat Buchanan, who is quite obviously a conservative, in which he lays out a damning case against the administration's motivations for war. I'm not a big fan of his, but I am impressed with his willingness to break ranks w/ the Right. It's not an easy read, but it's very eye-opening. Truthfully, it's some pretty scary stuff.

Let me know if the link doesn't work. It's my first time...I'm a link cherry.

consider yourself popped. Link worked fine. I've bookmarked it for later reading, as it seems it needs more of my attention than I can give it from my desk at work.

ditto.. i want to read it with time to properly digest.. plus, i would like to cut and paste some of the paragraphs to send to my republican friends..

it might make them think if one of their own its doubting his leadership.

bigjohn

In order for people to change their minds, the following must be true:

-First and foremost, people must be open to the idea that their currently held beliefs may be wrong.

- Second, any evidence that is contrary to their beliefs must be presented delicately. Nobody likes to have the rug pulled out from under their feet; it usually results in denial.


The problem is, the majority of people still on either extreme of the pro-con spectrum regarding the war on Iraq have not come to those conclusions through independent research and digging for information outside the mass madeia, but through allying their viewpoints with various pundits and party mouthpieces. This applies to both the right and the left.

The moral of my post is this: if you're not already open to the possibility of truth on both sides of the fence, then you're not going to change your mind at all anytime soon.

"In order for people to change their minds, the following must be true:

-First and foremost, people must be open to the idea that their currently held beliefs may be wrong."

Unless you can see into the future, you cannot say whether the Iraq War was right or wrong.

IMO, it was a morally just war. Who would not be in the right in deposing a tyrant such as Hussein?

Politically, we will have to wait and see. Was it the best move to ensure the safety and security of the US? We cannot possibly know at this point.

Buchanan's long rant is dated march 2003. Maybe somebody knows what he thinks now?

Buchanan is part of the religous right, the Christian conservative wing of the GOP. Allegedly, he is someone who harbors no fondness for Jews. Even so, it is surprising that he sees Judaism as more of a threat to America than Islam. I don't see how either religion in itself could be a threat, but, judging by events, orthodox Jews are no threat while radical Muslims are.

Certainly, our aid to Israel has put us on poor terms with the Arab world. Why do we take sides? Because of the influence of American Jews on our foreign policy? Or because the state of Israel has a democratically elected gov't and the people of Israel hold values more closely aligned with our own?

Maybe establishing Israel was a mistake (as were many well-intentioned efforts in the past), but what do we do about it now? From what I have seen, heard and read, the Arabs want no Israeli state at all. Maybe the Jews could buy Baja from Mexico and start over. Or maybe they will just have to accept their annihilation. I dunno, any ideas? LOL

Other than briefly acknowledging the despotic nature of the Arab regimes (as if it were just a quirky little thing those Arabs do), Buchanan has nothing harsh to say about them. Every paragraph of his article is directed at a perceived Jewish conspiracy.

Questions we need to ask ourselves:
In the long run, how will it affect the US if the trend toward repressive, anti-American gov'ts in the Middle East continues? Short of war, how can that trend be stopped and reversed? If it cannot be stopped without bloodshed, does the region pose a threat to the US?

IMO, this is not Vietnam all over again. We're not talking about impoverished rice-farming peasants in a backwards, insignificant country. Oil revenues that fund nuclear aspirations - combined with institutionalized anti-American education and a culture that does not value human lives (especially those of infidels) - make our interests in the region very keen.

I don't know how to quote on here, so I'll cut and paste...

>>IMO, it was a morally just war. Who would not be in the right in deposing a tyrant such as Hussein?

If he had WMD and was a threat to us it's one thing to go in and take him out.

But, without the proof what right do we have to go in and oust him? We as a country don't agree with the methods he uses to run his country? So just because we have the power to do what we want and what we think is right we should? No wonder a large part of the world sees us as evil and bullies.

It's hard to do, but try to take a step back and look at things from the other sides view.

Was Saddam a threat? Perhaps he was, perhaps not. But don't go in under the assumption that he is, find no WMD, and then claim it was still a good thing because we got rid of a tyrant.

A lot of people would not have wanted to go in in the first place if the reason was just to get rid of a tyrant who ruled in a way we don't agree with.

Going after Bin Laden was a different story....he is an obvious threat and does need to be taken out. It appears that N. Korea could be a bigger problem then Saddam was though.

*Disclaimer* No, I don't watch all the news shows or keep up to date a lot with this, so I don't have a lot of media influence involved in my views. I'm just trying to look at things from both sides.

"But, without the proof what right do we have to go in and oust him? We as a country don't agree with the methods he uses to run his country? So just because we have the power to do what we want and what we think is right we should? No wonder a large part of the world sees us as evil and bullies."

The above statement would fall in the "politically correct or not?" category. BTW, nice euphemistic quote there, "...the methods he uses to run his own country." As if all methods of ruling are equally moral or just?

By morally just, I meant, "Whose side would God be on?" (not that God would choose sides, or even saying that God exists. Just simplifying "right and wrong"). An imperfect democracy or a murdering tyrant? Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me - and apparently to his own people, as they flooded the streets and celebrated.

"IMO, it was a morally just war. Who would not be in the right in deposing a [former US puppet/]tyrant such as Hussein?"

Well, I guess if we made him, then we have the right unmake him, right?

But in all seriousness, only time and the resulting condition of the Iraqi people can really tell us whether or not the war was worthwhile for humanitarian reasons.