War and the Left

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So whose imperialism would you prefer? Or how about a bunch of nuclear armed rogue states, extending the Pakistan-India dynamic in dozens of new directions? And it's been at least 167 years of US imperialism, since you gringos stole half of México.

Well, if you want to look at it like that it's 227 years of imperialism.

I'm not saying that we should let a bunch of rogue states get nukes whenever we can prevent it without making things worse. I'm talking about trying to create and rule an empire, which is what we seem to be doing right now. I don't think such an empire will help the world the way the Roman Empire helped the world.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You didn't answer my question, che. Why was it pointless to oppose the aggressive war on Serbia?

Because it would achieve nothing. Support for the war was high, even before the war began. There was never a point at which we might have effected government policy. I don't believe in protesting just for the sake of protesting. I don't believe in political masturbation. Modern wars also tend to be quick, and small groups require time to build into a large movement. This is why it would be different to join a movement supporting lettuce pickers in Florida, as the issue isn't going to go away anytime soon.

Had the US not ultimately agreed to Yugoslavia's conditions and had the Russians not also cut Yugoslavia's oil supply at the same time, the anti-war movement might have had time to gain a critical mass, as it became ever more apparent that NATO was deliberately killing civilians.

[RGBVideo]

That's one reason I like Bush.
One always knows where he stands, and he doesn't take crap off terrorists.

What an odd logic. No wonder you elect such presidents.

Thier fault for attacking the American patrol in the Rio Grande area.

I have always been under the impression that the reasons for aggression against Mexico were actually bare excuses to gain more land.

[DuncanK]

Che,

Nice Ike quote.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Thier fault for attacking the American patrol in the Rio Grande area.

So why did you have an invasion force pre-positioned off the California coast? And land three weeks early, because you hadn't gotten the pretext in place?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Tuomerehu
I have always been under the impression that the reasons for aggression against Mexico were actually bare excuses to gain more land.

Don't let DinoDoc confuse you.

[Agathon]

This "war" is Bush's own creation. The idea that Iraq is or could become a serious threat to the region takes extreme liberty with the facts. The facts being that Hussein has proved himself to be a rational actor in the past. Iraq is a paper tiger and will be for the foreseeable future.

As for North Korea - again that is Bush's fault. Things were going pretty well with the North Koreans until Bush decided to basically tell them they were evil and he was going to get them. All the present shenanigans are an attempt by the North Koreans to get a non-aggression treaty from the US. If they get one, things will go back to normal.

And the guy who started this thread says he's on the left. Take it from me, when someone from the US says they are on the left they usually aren't.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So why did you have an invasion force pre-positioned off the California coast? And land three weeks early, because you hadn't gotten the pretext in place?

Like the Scouts say: Be prepared.

Seriously though if not for the incompetence of the Mexican government at both conducting meaningful negotiations with the US and in coordinating the defense of thier country, Mexico would probably still be holding the lands she lost in that war.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Like the Scouts say: Be prepared.

Seriously though if not for the incompetence of the Mexican government at both conducting meaningful negotiations with the US and in coordinating the defense of thier country, Mexico would probably still be holding the lands she lost in that war.

The US was the bigger stronger nation. They turned aggresive, and that's how Mexico lost their land.

[SirTweek]

I'm a leftist and I agree with the war (I'm also pro-law enforcement). I think to say anyone that is against the war is simply anti-bush or anti-US is wrong. I can't see how millions of people around the world could ride on simple anti-bush sentiment. I also hate to burst the American's bubble but the world doesn't revolve around the US president. Most people I've met, not living in the US, really could give a rat's a@@ who the US president is. Most of them don't see much diffrence between Republicans and Democrats at all. Yes there are some that haven't thought about the issues and only belive "US bad-Peace Good" and the assorted groups of anarchists and all-out pacifists but this is not a majority.

In fact, I think some people are pro-war simply because they are pro-Bush or ultranationalistic. I watched a chat where a person leveled an accusation at a european that the european would be pro-war if it was Clinton and not Bush. No one had even brought up Bush in the conversation. This seemed to be an important issue to this guy that people support Bush and anyone that opposes the war is anti-Bush. I'v'e met others that would support the US no matter what position the US takes. They would never admit the US has made mistakes, acted agressively, or done anything wrong ever in US histroy. My country right or wrong types. Those kind of people sicken me. This is only a small group of pro-war people, just like the small part of unintelligent anti-war people who don't want to look at the issues.

Like what was said it's best to attack the issues not the people.

.....waiting for Agathon and the leftist police to come strip me of my status and take away all my literature.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Yes, good old Oerdin, never misses a chance to paint his opponents black. By construing the anti-war crowd as anti-GWB, you attempt to make them look like morons who objects to everything Shrub does. This is in fact not correct.

You of all people have the gall to accuse someone of reducing issues to black and white (read US wrong-everyone else right) Please spare us your indignation. At least others have the courtesy of providing entertainment value. I mean you must seriously must have had a smile on your face when writing that cause it's the most extreme example of the pot calling the kettle black that i've seen on here in a long time. The sheer arrogance of the above statement astounds me.

You can go back your sniping now. I know you excel at it.

[GePap]

On UNSCR 262:
According to the letter of the resolution, Israel is not in compliance, as it has not yet come to an agreement over the Golan Heights with Syria.
As for the PLO, the PLO did recognize 262, which was what they had to do so that the US would open up diplomatic relations with them in 1988.

As for the topic:

I am anti-war, and anti-Bush, and they are not totally separated (even if someone things soemthing is to be done, who does it and how is as important). At the same time, I do think the majority of the anti-war movement is driven by knee jerk reactions and not by annalysis of the situation. I do think distrust of Bush, or simple fear, is a greater motivator than people thinking that this war will simply not make the world a better place, short or long term , for the US.

I think SirTweek is correct that much of the pro-war feeling is just a knee-jerk and based on dieology and politics and not on an annalysis of the sitation and its potentil outcomes.

As for "left-wing police", I think it is incorrect to try to pigeonhole all issue into two camps: that nears Idiobush notions of "Good V Evil" being the only distinction to be made. The world is grey, and that comes in many shades.

As for Bosnia and Kosovo: Neither of these acts were pre-emptive, but reactive. The Bush admin. could have called this war, from the beginning, reactive (reaciting to Saddam's failures at the UN and his cruelty) but instead has decided to focus solely on it as pre-emptive, focusing on a policy of fear and "meteors form the sky" scenerios as the "reason" they give to the public.

[Jack_www]

I would like to ask those who oppose to war, under what conditions would you support US going to war with Iraq (like inspectors find weapons of mass destruction and Iraq does not destroy them, ect.)?

From What I have seen, the only main reason they have stated that causes them to be against war is that the weapons inspections are working. Which from all that has happened in the past I dont think they ever will work, but that is just me. From What I have seen here in California it apears that a major motivation is that they hate bush. Now I am not saying all anti war people are like this, but this are the ones i have seen and heard on the news. In France I would say a lot of their opostion would be just anti americanism, and also that they think weapons inspectors are working. I think part of it too is that the French want more of a say in world then they do now. I also think that the fact that US is willing to go in by itself makes a lot of countries in Europe mad too.

[Jack_www]

One thing that would be nice to see, but I know will never happen, is that all the protesters of war go to Iraq and protest against Saddam and against his weapons of mass destuction. That I think would be a site to see. But all of this division I think make Saddam think that he can conitnue to keep his weapons and that what he did in past to mess up weapons inspectors will conitnue to work now.

[Jack_www]

ONe of major reason I think US wants to invade Iraq too, is not for the oil or US imperialism, I think is that they wanted to get rid of Saddam in the Gulf War, but were convinced not to. They really want to finish the job and correct a misstake, as they see it in their eyes.

As far as the UN goes, it is pretty much powerless to stop any wars or keep peace or dissarm anyone. With all that I have seen happening with this Iraq stuff is the UN will continue to be useless and just debating club, which I think most members of UN would like it to be.