|By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 07:48 am: Edit|
Gentlemen, perhaps I am self righteous, but I believe that the people who kidnapped Daniel Pearl of The Wall Street Journal, and killed him on videotape, are evil.
That in the end it was clearly a 'political' (terrorist) act and not a simple criminal kidnapping for ransom, is quite clear.
That Pearl was coerced (e.g., tortured) into making propaganda statements, demonstrates the 'political' intent.
Daniel Pearl was a working journalist, he wasn't a soldier and he wan't a spy. Islam teaches that the killing of innocents is a sin. That it is evil. Therefore the majority of Islamic people throughout the world will (properly) decry Pearl's murder and will (incorrectly) doubt that this was done by their fellow religionists.
But it was.
|By Baz on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 06:34 am: Edit|
I don't at all agree about adding china, but I do agree with your statements about Iran. It depends on how you define "evil". Is it evil to supress expression? Does evil begin when you jail dissidents? Does it begin when you kill a few dissidents? What about when you experiment on prisoners or test your chemical and biological weapons on your enemies, like japan did in WWII?
If you define what "evil" is, it is much easier to assess, even if you are being self-righteous when doing so, who is evil.
|By Pablo on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 04:38 am: Edit|
One last point.
I do think that the current administrations ideas of taking a more proactive military role throughout the world against our enemies is what we should have been doing for years. Its about time. Hopefully it continues.
(pablo finally shutting the hell up)
|By Pablo on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 04:22 am: Edit|
And that in no way implies that I dont condone splattering him. I also dont claim to have a better solution, I just think that "speak softly but carry a big stick" should be our current motto.
We got the stick out, but we arn't talking softly.
my 2 cents worth
|By Pablo on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 04:13 am: Edit|
Every admistration claims to stand up for what they believe in. Its all a matter of how one sees it.
My concern with how this admisistration is handling the "war on terror" is for the future. We are insuring a continuing problem with terrorism from countries like Iran and Iraq. And all that does is eliminate more rights here in America.
There is a whole generation of people in the middle east who are growing up with nothing but hatered of the U.S.
These are the future terrorists. They dont care that cameras will be installed in airports across our country and we will lose more civil liberties all the time.
Osama Bin Laden stated that he wanted to change "America as we know it, forever".
If that was his objective, then he won.
(even when we do splatter him to pieces)
|By Drbeer on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 03:17 am: Edit|
When did I say or even imply that anyone was more sheltered than anyone else Nipple?
The extreme self-righteousness that you seem to find disagreeable could simply be someone standing up for their beliefs instead of letting lobby groups, other politicians etc. etc. change their mind every other day. So if I stand here and say, I am totally against murder, I'm self-righteous because I'm not letting my opinion be swayed? I don't feel Bush nor his administration is self-righteous. I see them as standing up for their beliefs and what they feel is right. They are not perfect by any means, but you have to respect them.
|By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 02:13 am: Edit|
Who said anything about "fuck the US up"?
Those three countries are farts in a windstorm. They however do have potential and clear intention of making some serious mischief.
And who says they have developed nukes? They would like to but they have not, and it is very much in everyone's interest that they are denied the capacity to ever do so, or to develop or acquire delivery systems for nukes or for the other more tractible WMDs that they already possess.
You want to open the list up to China?
Now who's being irresponsible?
I'd be happy to add Burma to the list though.
I'd be happy to add lots of African states to the list but I doubt you'd regard that as p.c.
|By Pablo on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 12:19 am: Edit|
I tend to be pretty left wing too, but I have to admit that Bush is doing an okay job. He's not the best at international diplomacy, but who is? Reagan is considered one of the best presidents we had, and for the majority of his presidnecy he was senile! Its not the president, its his staff. (Nixon may have been the exception that proves the rule)
As for N. Korea, I have to agree. Bush's phrasing may not have been the best, but they do have to be held in check.
South Korea is an economic power house in asia. Its now the #1 shopping destination in all of asia, and the Japanese are scared. Thats why Japan sells all kinds of military hardware to North Korea.
But the South Korean youth are a bunch of simpering wimps!
When I was there I kept hearing how the U.S. was no longer needed there. How S.K. could take care of itself etc.....
If the U.S. military wern't there, all those spoiled south korean students would be in a fucking world of shit. (and I thought american students were spoiled)
My response to them was always "fuck you. We fought your war the first time. We'll fight it again."
(here my rant ends. please exit in an orderly manner)
|By _Blackjack on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 11:33 pm: Edit|
I dunno. China'd have to be pretty far up there. I mean, they aren't as evil as they were 30 years ago or so, but they make up for it in sheer numbers. Algeria would be on my short-list, too. Honestly, there are a number of African regimes which might qualify, except I think most of them have been overthrown recently enough to reset the counters. We have yet to see if the Democratic Rep of Congo is going to be any less evil than Zaire, for instance. Somolia, Sudan, Angola and Ethiopia have all had their fare share of evil in recent, albiet with rebel forces doing half the work.
Really, Iran doesn't deserve to be in the A-League right now. Thier primary human rights violations these days are suppression of expression and dissent. There is enough outright slaughter in other parts of the world that Iran pales in comparison. I'd put Israel higher on the list, really.
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 11:22 pm: Edit|
Don, doesn't your list equate "evil regimes" with "small countries who can develop nukes and fuck the U.S. up?"
You are the international expert: can you say that there are not any other undemocratic, deadly to their own citizens countries?
|By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 11:01 pm: Edit|
Well, sorry, but if I was tasked to list the most evil regimes on the planet, I'd start with
Where fat Kim rules over his well fed military while his people starve.
where lunatic Saddam makes a practice of nerve-gassing his own people, mustard gassing his enemies, murdering anyone he cares to, and manufacturing WMDs while ignoring the UN inspectors.
Buyers of missiles from N.Korea, dabblers at WMDs, patrons of various terrorist organizations, and altogether assholes.
I do not believe that 'evil' is an inappropriate adjective for these rogue states, I just think it has been over-used.
|By Meat_Nipples on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 04:36 pm: Edit|
Not to suggest that these other countries aren't doing their part to have our attention and to provoke conflict, but calling them "evil", well just as everyone is a hypocrite everyone is evil in some ways too. Talk about a blanket statement. I just can't identify with this mindset. The use of the word "evil" is more of an assault on the American intelligence than anything Michael Moore wrote. Perhaps I am part of an insignificant minority that actually takes offense to this.
|By Meat_Nipples on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 04:24 pm: Edit|
I understand that everyone could be accused of hypocrisy, but when it is coupled with extreme self-righteousness (more blanket statements, right?) in the political arena where decisions and actions should be diplomatic because they affect a lot of people, it offends me. Plain and simple. And Dr. Beer, can you offer me an example of how you are any less sheltered than I, a college student, in a way that is relevant to what we are discussing (by the way, the students at my school have a largely disproportionate right-wing bias, the teachers are obviously usually left)?
And also, if I am not to be idealistic then should I be cynical? In that case, f**k it, I welcome WWIII. People have outstayed their welcome on Earth any way. Let's provoke worldwide violence. Maybe it will hasten the second coming of Christ.
|By Pikkle on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 03:34 pm: Edit|
No president is elected... that's the oldest joke in the world...
|By Mvario on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 03:31 pm: Edit|
He was not elected for his intellect
uh... he wasn't elected.
I'll go back to my corner now. I'm way outnumbered here in my leftist ways, and have found that arguing it never accompishes anything. I'll save my efforts for the undecided.
|By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 03:06 pm: Edit|
Well, we are unlikely to be attacking Iran.
And we are VERY unlikely to be attacking North Korea -- because China won't wear it.
We are very likely going to be attacking Iraq, but probably not just yet, as we have some cleaning up to do in Sudan and/or Somalia first.
Meat Nipples, you want the US President to be concerned about his rhetoric?
You should study the rhetoric of our enemies first.
And Mr Rabid, I don't see any nuclear powers on that list of three. I see wannabe nuclear powers, that if they had a single bomb would use it in a heartbeat. While we on the other hand could obliterate, say, Teheran with ours even if they didn't go off.
Bush is pissed off because Iraq is cranking out chemicals and biologicals like it's business as usual, N.Korea is being its meddlesome self, and Iran -- an ostensible ally in the WOT -- can't control the actions of its own paramilitary forces. The "reformers" are not in control; the lunatics are. It wasn't the reformers who decided to leave their border w/Afghanistan unsealed. You are betting on a lost cause, "reform" in Iran. The Shah fell because HE was a "reformer" and modernized the country, he fell not because he was too repressive, but because he wasn't repressive enough. In the jargon of country specialists, he forgot the 'basic tenets of Persian rule'.
No, we're not going to invade Iran but I think we will have to see to it that Iran does not try to take any advantage of what is now inevitably going to transpire in Iraq and that is the fall of Saddam Hussein. So maybe we will have to create and enforce a no fly zone, a DMZ along the Iran/Iraq border.
Just how long do you think it would take for us to take out the entire Iranian air force, mostly on the ground, and the entire Iranian navy, mostly in port? If Iran gave us any cause for concern their military power can cease to exist in a surprisingly short time and without our having to lift a non-conventional finger. Same goes for their armor and artillery. But they know all this and they are not interested in a fight.
|By Arj on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 01:01 pm: Edit|
I disagree Rabid. These guys need to be put on notice. The A team is back in power in the U.S. and we're not going to overlook the hostile actions of these backwards thugs anymore, or at least for the remainder of Bush's term. If Clinton had been as clear with this message, we could have avoided a lot of problems. Sending this message will actually help the majority of people in Iran who want reforms to go forward. By further isolating that country, the U.S. is helping its reformers gain the leverage to stand up to the clerics who are making them a pariah. Our warnings will probably prevent greater bloodshed in the long run. This is something the president understands, and our weak-kneed European allies (and sheltered blame-America-first college students) fail to grasp.
|By Mr_Rabid on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 12:21 pm: Edit|
Evil Pot Pie!
Saying to an irresponsible nuclear nation (especially one in which words like Evil are not used so lightly) that you don't like them much, in fact consider them the antithesis of all that should be suffered to live in the world- that is just plain dumb.
You never tell an enemy they are an enemy until you have no choice. There is no point tipping anyone off.
Unless- you would very much like a good excuse. Y'know, to go in there and drop a few bombs, and maybe 'free' their people to live like our people, with a democratic pro USA govt.
And where does one get a good excuse? Egg that guy at the bar on, till he takes a swing at you.
"Axis of eevil, nahnah nahnah! What? You've gone and... gasp!... attacked American Interests(tm)? Well that's it!"
|By Drbeer on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 11:51 am: Edit|
Don pretty much said everything else I was going to add. I agree with him 100%.
|By Drbeer on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 11:50 am: Edit|
Nipples, hypocrisy is interesting, as everyone is a hypocrite, no matter what. It usually isn't a good thing to make blanket statements of any kind...
I've found that idealism often clouds the mind to reality. To be idealistic is a good thing, but not if you cannot see reality.
|By Baz on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 09:01 am: Edit|
one of my friends met dick cheney at a meeting in canada in the mid-eighties. All the big oil execs were there. They were discussing what the price of oil would be for the next 12 months.
That would probably be the least crooked moment of his life.
|By Larsbogart on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 08:09 am: Edit|
Bush should just keep his mouth shut and let someone with brains talk. He was not elected for his intellect. Thats a fact of life, Trudy.
The "evil" he sqawks about is right out of the missal booklet in each pew.
When I think of evil I think of Dick Cheny.
|By Baz on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 07:53 am: Edit|
What was the name of that Dead Kennedy track that had the state dept calling thatcher to remind her that we have too many young people with nothing to do so it is time to start another war?
I think it was off "give me convenience or give me death"
|By Meat_Nipples on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 07:46 am: Edit|
I think there are people out there who don't like the fact that things are so upwardly mobile in today's America, and am very suspicious of actions by our government that may limit that. From my stand-point going to war would be a great solution for the wealthy business elites because unless your a "senator's son" your ass is in trouble. But this like I said is just paranoid speculation and I donít want to dwell on it.
On to a more concrete topic, I agree with you Don that Iraq, Iran and North Korea are participating in activities that are "less than desirable" to the United States, but calling everything evil is inflammatory and suggests a religious element that should not be present in his public statements. When he suggested a "crusade" against terrorism in the middle east, (the word crusade historically has a lot of significance in that region when it comes to how they view the west) I nearly fainted from disbelief because that is just adding fuel to these Muslim extremists fire. I see these statements, if they were not intended to provoke, to be careless and at least not thought out to any degree.
|By Baz on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 07:46 am: Edit|
A collection of crapulence.
If the reforms in Iran were genuine, it certainly put a damper on them. From what I saw they were genuine, and a lot of the young people in iran were interested in better relations with the west. It was the old guard that was slowing things down. Now the youth are told by the west that they are the evil enemy of the west. Will they still feel the same way? Probably not. Another generation of hatred may have been spawned by that statement.
Was that statement true?
Do a lot of the people in Iran support al'queda?
|By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 06:44 am: Edit|
A chop suey of malice.
An amalgam of angst.
Spite on a stick.
I agree that Bush's phrase was clumsy; I always cringe at his over- and misuse of 'evil'.
But not irresponsible.
|By _Blackjack on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 03:40 am: Edit|
An axis is a central hub about which things revolve. While this way have applied to Germany, Japan and Italy, who were a united force, it hardly applies to 3 nations with no allience, two of which are mortal enemies. They are, at best, a Hodge-Podge of Evil.
|By Pablo on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 12:11 am: Edit|
My one and only (major) gripe with America is the so-called justice system. Justice in the US varies from person to person and income to income. OJ was a prime example. Locally I have seen a case where a judge wanted to make an example of someone who got a DUI. He threw the book at this poor bastard who had no priors, and the guy had to spend thousands just to get what he should have gotten in the first place!
One standard for the rich, and one for the poor.
|By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 12:00 am: Edit|
So you don't consider the proliferation of missiles and missile technology and weapons of mass destruction by Iraq, Iran and North Korea to be an axis of something "less than desirable"?
Three "irresponsible" regimes, one les by a monomaniacal mass murderer, another by a Stalinist nutball mass murderer, and a third probably complicit in the escape of Al-Qaeda leadership elements?
|By Elbongo on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 10:10 pm: Edit|
"Actually it is a bit of paranoid delusion. Or at least I hope it is.... "
Delusion it is. If you do decent in school, get your ticket punched (graduate) and then unleash some whop-ass when you get your job you can succeed, no mater what your back ground is. That is what makes America great.
|By Meat_Nipples on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 09:44 pm: Edit|
To answer your question; What?
That's what I call the real world. Heh heh.
Actually it is a bit of paranoid delusion. Or at least I hope it is....
|By Elbongo on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 09:18 pm: Edit|
"Bush has personally made some very irresponsible statements since his presidency, in particular this recent "axis of evil" bullshit"
It's called the real World
"Perhaps there are too many middle-class 18-21 year olds who are soon going to be leeching the job market because Clinton got them all into college and now they think they deserve high-paying professions that rich kids ainít giving up?"
|By Meat_Nipples on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 08:52 pm: Edit|
Perhaps it is because I am young and inexperienced but I think Bush has personally made some very irresponsible statements since his presidency, in particular this recent "axis of evil" bullshit. I say statements and not actions because I am not sure his cabinet and congress believe him competent enough to make his own decisions. It seems to me that this man wants to start WWIII (I know, come back with; "no it's Osama that wants war not bush" or some other tripe). Perhaps there are too many middle-class 18-21 year olds who are soon going to be leeching the job market because Clinton got them all into college and now they think they deserve high-paying professions that rich kids ainít giving up? Who knows? I give him full credit for staying sane during our on-going national crisis however; I know I wouldn't hold up in his shoes. It really angers me though when everyone hates Clinton because he lied about an affair in a phony trial when it was nobody's business except his own and Hilary's. And now, what hypocrites, we elect Gulliani "Man of the YearĒ because he's mayor of NY under these traumatizing (but opportune for him) circumstances and forgot his personal immoral escapades (remember his affair and divorce?). Don, I expect you to get really angry and flame the hell out of me for this but I am going to express how I feel wartime or not. I still stand behind America, it has been wonderful to me and I am very gracious, but when I sense injustice and hypocrisy I can't hold my tongue. I am merely venting right now, and I respect everyone on here's opinion and would like everyone to respect mine. But then again you have every right to tell me I am dead wrong and irrational and I won't take it personally.
|By Sicboy13 on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 06:18 pm: Edit|
To interject, anyone see Don Imus on Larry King last week, WHAT A FREAK!!!!
|By Scanion on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 06:15 pm: Edit|
For the specificied references, Moore is either being dishonest or doesn't know any better. I'm betting that he knows better.
Did you happen to see Moore on the O'Reiley Factor? He was on the show some time last week.
|By Drbeer on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 06:11 pm: Edit|
Bush is not perfect, but I'm pleased with what he has done. It's a lot more than many other presidents can lay claim to.
|By Pikkle on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 05:41 pm: Edit|
and you have what proof of their honest or dishonest?
|By Scanion on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 05:16 pm: Edit|
Mister Moore could have been more forthright in his arguments. Instead he chose says things in a way that are less than honest. For example, he states that Bush allowed the 401(k) accounts of Enron employees to shrink, as if there was something to gain for that. In reality, it is federal regulations that forced the accounts to be frozen for a specified period of time.
I don't knock Moore for any accidental lack of truth. Some of his statements are dishonest. That speaks to his character.
|By Pikkle on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 04:04 pm: Edit|
Hey, I think the man's doing a good job given the circumstances... and each and every politician in the world has his hand in the cookie jar, so what? It's not called politics for nuttin...
|By Don_Walsh on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 03:49 pm: Edit|
We've got troops in the field, guys, and this is still wartime. Give the man a break while he is doing his #1 job.
After 8 years of Grade A Clinton sleaze, I haven't seen much yet stick to Buch.
|By Meat_Nipples on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 03:37 pm: Edit|
His agenda seemed obvious to me...... Anytime you write an opinionated piece like this isn't your agenda to persuade some one to accept your position? I don't see how he went to great lengths to "disguise" his political slant either.
|By Pikkle on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 03:27 pm: Edit|
Well, Mr. Moore is a hometown boy and like everyone, is entitled to his opinion... I'm sure there is much there that is not the full truth but then again, is there ever such a thing? Why don't you try writing your own piece next time...
|By Scanion on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 02:48 pm: Edit|
Micheal Moore discredits himself by quoting misleading characterizations. For example, the referenced "Enron gift of $250 million of our tax money" is in reality the result of reductions in the AMT. Inidividuals can make their own decision on whether this is a good or bad thing.
To summarize this op-ed, Mr Moore believes that the Bush adminstration is guilty by association. This is not sufficient to prove or suggest guilt of some wrong doing.
As a comment on Mr Moore, there are several refernces throughout his op-ed that are revealing to his personal stance on politics. It has several similarities to the Green Party platform. If you have read the platform, you probably know it has many similarities to Marx Communist Mannifesto.
My point is, Mr Moore has an agenda, but disguises it in this op-ed. He does not present his agenda in an honest and direct way, and that says something about what he thinks of you, the reader.
|By Drbeer on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 02:31 am: Edit|
Interesting article. It actually reminds me of something I read once, though I do not remember where.
It said that the American democratic system, in fact any democratic system, is merely a dictatorship of the center over the rest of the people (the left and the right). Even with multi-member districts I suppose this would still hold true.
|By Pikkle on Sunday, February 24, 2002 - 02:36 pm: Edit|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation