(Post a new comment)

	sagralisse 2003-12-04 04:18 pm UTC (link)
	::sigh:: The online discussion is so limiting. If it'd been RL, they might have started punching each other out and that would have been cool. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	nevadafighter 2003-12-05 12:41 am UTC (link)
	And you could have the sheer joy of eating Doritos popcorn while you're watching the ass-kicking. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sagralisse 2003-12-05 05:07 am UTC (link)
	Damn straight. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply from suspended user)

	shoiryu 2003-12-04 07:00 pm UTC (link)
	Eat meat? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sagralisse 2003-12-04 07:09 pm UTC (link)
	Get a Secret clearance? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	smo 2003-12-04 07:42 pm UTC (link)
	Strong enough for a hippie, but made for a capitalist imperialist pig. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sagralisse 2003-12-04 09:31 pm UTC (link)
	*snerk* (Reply to this)(Parent)

	rann 2003-12-04 10:40 pm UTC (link)
	Comprehend that reality doesn't conform to their extremely idealistic views? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

panthea 2003-12-05 12:15 am UTC (link)

While I think it's rather disingenuous to think that the Iraq conflict could only have been resolved by war (hello, there's a middle gear somewhere, right?), I agree that these people seem to need a hefty dose of realism injected into their little community. If only because their insular "don't post opinions we don't agree with!" mindset isn't really conducive to, y'know, getting things done. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: rann 2003-12-05 12:39 am UTC (link)

While I think it's rather disingenuous to think that the Iraq conflict could only have been resolved by war (hello, there's a middle gear somewhere, right?) We tried the middle ground for a decade or so. n.n;; Didn't work. We went every step from not doing anything to saying "Okay, we've given you every chance, clean up NOW or it's war", and none of it worked, 'cept war. I dunno, a lot of the whole "We could have tried another route!" seems to ignore our entire history with Iraq, the sanctions, the treaties, the international law, the letting them get away with dodging inspections... they make it seem like Iraq twitched and Bush screamed "WAR! WARWARWARWAR!!!!!" I agree that these people seem to need a hefty dose of realism injected into their little community. If only because their insular "don't post opinions we don't agree with!" mindset isn't really conducive to, y'know, getting things done. Yup. Disallowing dissenting opinions is... well, basically what was going on in Iraq until America came in. *cough* Uh, that aside, stifling any other point of view isn't fostering discussion, it's an ideology circle jerk. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

panthea 2003-12-05 02:13 am UTC (link)

Yarg. Sanctions were such a bad idea-- they just punished the wrong people. Don't get me started on sanctions. I just think the whole thing was handled badly from beginning to end. I honestly can't say I know what should be done-- I'm not educated enough on the situation, and hey, that's why I'm not in politics. I just think Bush's whole rush to war was... well, unseemly. Yes, we liberated Iraq, go us (though we're not doing so well with the cleanup, but give us credit for sticking with it, unlike in Afghanistan)... but don't even try to tell me that's why Bush declared war. I mean, if we're the Great Liberators, what about Burma? What about Liberia? What about any number of other countries suffering under a dictator as bad as Hussein? So he might've been trying to build up a nuclear arsenal-- hello, North Korea, anyone? I'm not on Hussein's side, which seems to be a tactic many use to discredit anti-war protesters. But neither do I believe that the reasons given for this war were justified. I just think if America puts itself in the position of policing the world, well... we're setting ourselves up for a loooooong fall. I don't know. I honestly don't know what's the right thing to do. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. :-p (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Since I didn't start the seriousness. sagralisse 2003-12-05 04:49 pm UTC (link)

I'm vaguely unhappy about us being in Iraq, but whatever. I wasn't going to vote for Bush anyway, and that's as much impact as my little political opinion would ever make on the big picture. However, I think it's stupid when anti-war people set themselves up as arguing with individuals in the military. The men and women in the military are serving their country and have no control over how the president chooses to use that service. When they're deployed, they really have to believe that it's for a good cause. It's just too hard a thing for a person to consider that his life is being thrown away to suit some presidential whim. Much of the strongest anti-war sentiment is about sending our guys into danger... whether that danger is physical or moral. There shouldn't be such a gap between anti-war groups and the military families... and it's really on the shoulders of the anti-war people to bridge that gap. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Since I didn't start the seriousness. panthea 2003-12-05 05:16 pm UTC (link)

However, I think it's stupid when anti-war people set themselves up as arguing with individuals in the military. Oh, definitely. No argument here. That's one of the most tragic parts of this farce-- that Bush is sending the people of this country out there to die, and doesn't seem to give a damn about them. There's a reason one of the anti-war slogans is "Support our troops-- bring them home". People who set up the members of the military as the enemy are totally missing the point. ...Wow. Did I start this whole serious thing? My bad. Quick, someone please bring Teh Funneh! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Since I didn't start the seriousness. rann 2003-12-06 12:43 am UTC (link)
	that Bush is sending the people of this country out there to die, and doesn't seem to give a damn about them. Sorry, that massive load of bullshit buried "teh funneh". (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Since I didn't start the seriousness. panthea 2003-12-06 03:52 am UTC (link)
	Sorry-- telling the opposing army to "bring it on"? That's just not a thing you say to the people whom you are sending people out to kill. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Since I didn't start the seriousness. smo 2003-12-07 02:18 am UTC (link)
	Right, because what if the opposition is all, "It's already been BROUGHTEN"? Then we're all fucked. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Since I didn't start the seriousness. panthea 2003-12-07 02:20 am UTC (link)
	Especially if you don't know where it's been broughten to. Then you gotta, like, run around and try to find it, and meanwhile they're killing your ass. Bad scene all around. Except, you know, for the enemy. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Since I didn't start the seriousness. smo 2003-12-07 03:04 am UTC (link)
	Totally off-topic: what's an extractor fan? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Since I didn't start the seriousness. panthea 2003-12-07 03:20 am UTC (link)
	Well, while it appears to be a British thing, I believe it is a fan that sucks cigarette smoke (or any other noxious fumes) out of the air and blows them somewhere inoffensive, i.e., Not Here. Hee. Pete Wisdom rocks my socks. He's, like, the X-books mutant who really didn't want to be there. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Since I didn't start the seriousness. smo 2003-12-07 02:33 pm UTC (link)
	Ooh, I could use one of those. My downstairs neighbors smoke, and it's always wafting up into my apartment. I can only burn so many scented candles, you know? (Reply to this)(Parent)

Politics and Wank? Oh my... deoridhe 2003-12-05 05:04 pm UTC (link)

I have to respectfully disagree with you, honestly, but I tend to think both the pro-war and the anti-war people take it too far. My biggest problem with the whole situation is that we went out on a limb to attack Iraq without agreement from the UN, and that we did it for spurious reasons (i.e. WMD - which were never found). My biggest problem now is that good people who joined the military are over there right now dying in droves; I have respect for someone who can kill on command for an ideal, and I don't like seeing them die at the hands of the people they came to liberate. ...but of course, now I'm being all serious in the middle of a wankfest, which is just wrong!!! 8) (Reply to this)(Parent)

pyratejenni 2003-12-05 09:56 pm UTC (link)

Considering the report on the BBC today that more intelligence agencies than ours were wrong about Iraq's weapons programs, the whole argument about going to war over WMD falls flat. If Bush truly believed Saddam needed to removed because he was a sadistic son-of-a-bitch the world was better off without, he should have argued that. However, that line would have been a much harder sell than the "imminent danger" spew. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	iczer6 2003-12-05 12:43 am UTC (link)
	I wuv you! *humphumphumphumphumphump* (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: rann 2003-12-05 12:45 am UTC (link)
	Eepeepeepeepeepeep! Wait 'til I get in the right positi~on!! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	virago 2003-12-05 01:42 am UTC (link)
	Hey now! To the right wing there is ONE position, missionary, lights off, and you'd better not like it or else, you bad bad pre-verts! (Reply to this)(Parent)

rann 2003-12-05 02:59 am UTC (link)

Heh... I notice that the first guy to respond pretty much lumps the group as being "anti-war/gov/whatever"... kinda leads me to believe they're most likely just anti-Bush. And I'm not saying this because I dislike most protesters and for the most part support Bush... just that someone on a site I patron pointed out, "Where were all these protesters when Clinton was ordering bombings? Where was all this indignant anti-war outrage from Democrat politicians during same?" IE, that most of the people who gripe about war, and bombings, and the poor innocent civilians who get caught up in military actions, were strangely silent when a Democrat president ordered bombings (extremely close after an embarrassing revelation about what he'd been doing in the oval office), which would lead one to believe they're not so much anti-war as just anti-Bush, and the war provides them a nice, big moral standpoint to attack him on, since they can make it all about the poor innocent civilian bystanders or about racism or something. I'm not saying that all of them are, obviously... I'm quite sure there's a large portion of protesters who really are just standing by their ideals. But the ones who just lump in anti-war, anti-government, anti-whatever, all in together... well, one must strongly suspect. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	panthea 2003-12-05 03:29 am UTC (link)
	FWIW, I was myself extremely peeved at Clinton's order of bombings. And by "peeved" I mean "engraged". I generally try my best not to be a hypocrite and examine my reactions to things for evidence of such. And if you think that makes me not much fun at parties, you're exactly right you're... well, you're not wrong. Unless I'm very stoned. :-p (Reply to this)(Parent)

	iczer6 2003-12-05 07:23 am UTC (link)
	This makes me think of a really great essay someone posted on another board that gave [IMO] a very thoughtful and honest look at why the Anti-War people's stance was so poorly presented. I dig out the link accept A I'm very lazy and don't want to go through thread after thread of bitching, and B that board has really started to flat out annoy me so I'm trying to avoid it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Bombings deoridhe 2003-12-05 05:15 pm UTC (link)

I'm an anti-Iraqi-war person, but I was all for it in Afghanistan! I'm only anti-spurious-war, and based on what knowledge I have, I believe that the Iraqi war is spurious. For all I know, I could be wrong, but I'll speak up about what I believe to compare notes with other people and see if my beliefs change. The fact that we went alone on this one, though, disturbs me because I believe the world should be governed by a democracy of the countries involved in that world, instead of the anarchy that our recent actions seem to be implying is more 'just.' I'm afraid I don't remember the bombings Clinton ordered; would you mind refreshing my memory? I can't think of what I thought of them at the time! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Bombings rann 2003-12-05 05:24 pm UTC (link)
	About three days after the whole Lewinski scandal broke, Clinton ordered a strategic bombing... I forget exactly where, I'd need to look it up. It was supposedly a bombing on a chemical weapons factory, whilst the government that got bombed claimed it was a baby formula factory. (I find that bit highly doubtful.) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Bombings deoridhe 2003-12-05 06:41 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, that. I think I wrote that off as 'lets see if I can get them to stop investigating my pants.' I mean, I think we're damn silly to have impeached a President because he was getting some on-the-side nookie, but I figured that was a ploy in any case. Wasn't he a lame duck President at that point? Silly politicians. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Bombings rann 2003-12-05 06:53 pm UTC (link)
	I mean, I think we're damn silly to have impeached a President because he was getting some on-the-side nookie We didn't, we impeached him because he lied under oath about getting some on-the-side nookie. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Bombings pyratejenni 2003-12-05 09:54 pm UTC (link)
	No, he was impeached because the House stupidly believed that voiting to impeach him "wasn't really doing anything." The whole Lewinski thing was a joke. If every politican who got some on the side and lied about it had to step down, there'd be damn few politicans in the House and Senate. On =both= sides of the aisle. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Bombings rachelmap 2003-12-06 07:08 pm UTC (link)
	If every politican who got some on the side and lied about it had to step down, there'd be damn few politicans in the House and Senate. On =both= sides of the aisle. You say that like it's a bad thing. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Bombings pyratejenni 2003-12-07 01:30 am UTC (link)
	We need some people willing to make the tough decisions that the rest of us can be pissed at. (Reply to this)(Parent)