They've given up...

[DCillusion]

In 2000 - Bush won the election, but lost the popular vote.

In 2004 - after 2 years of war, Bush won the election AND the popular vote.

At this point, I guess it doesn't matter if Bush can justify the war, or weapons of....you know.  Apparently, it's what the majority of Americans want.  It isn't a democratic president's job to do the right thing.  Their job is to follow the demands of the people.  If MORE people voted for him after the war....I guess he's doing his job.

As a native American, I can't really fault Bush.  For 8 years president Clinton & Vice President Gore championed a little-known Indian relocation program, (that Bush promptly halted).  Many of my wife's family members were kicked off their ancestrial land because of their oil rights.  The response was "reclaiming" wetlands, (anyone remember that?), but after they were moved, large derricks were installed & started pumping oil.   Everyone knew what the Iraq thing was since the begining.  America has been about oil for a lot longer than people realize.  I'm just glad the current president isn't attacking the people of his OWN country.

P.S. - No,Questioning Hippies after 9/11 doesn't count as attacking Americans....eventually, they get to go home

[DGMacphee]

I've been hearing a lot of people say things like "as an American consumer of oil-based products, I think the war was justified" or "At least he isn't killing people in his own country" or "He's just following what the American public wants". I wonder when did the life of an American civillian (and the ability to purchase cheaper oil-based products) outweigh the life of an Iraqi civillian? And why all of this demonising of Iraqis, many of whom had nothing to do with Sept 11, in the first place? I've seen footage of Iraqis mourning the loss of their families, killed during the war. And yet it seems the best people can come up with it that it was what most of the American public wants.

But I disagree with this line of "it's what the American public wants" thinking being based on Bush's re-election. I've read polls that show most Americans thought the war has done more damage than good. I've also read that the most common reason for Bush's re-election was more his stance on moral issues (such as abortion and gay marriage) than national security. Also, take a look at the electoral map. Notice than most of the pro-Bush states are in the middle (such as the bible belt) while most of the costal states were pro-Kerry. I thought if national security was a big concern then the costal states would prefer to vote for Bush. That's why I don't think Bush's reelection validates the war to the extent of public desire for more national security.

And I don't understand how so many Iraqi civillians were killed because of a false reason. Sure, there are legitimate reasons that have been stated in this very thread: oil, US pride, freeing them, etc. And yet, the main reason the US government gave (national security) is turning out to be more and more false as each year goes by. It's now come to the point where it's completely false. And even the US Government has admitted that.

I've heard people mention the term "casualties of war" before, but try explaining to an Iraqi widow that her husband was a "casualty of war". Likewise, explaining to the family of a US soldier killed in the line of combat that he's a "casualty of war". Sure, I can understand a soldier dying for freedom, but how was Iraq oppressing the US? When did Iraq's existence (and Saddam's control) constitute oppression of US citizens? How were Iraqi's opressing US citizens' right to freedom? And think about these question with the additional thought that the US hasn't found any WMDs in Iraq and has given up the search for them. People died for that lie. They were unnecessary deaths.

I don't know if there is a right way or a wrong way to do things. But I do know this: the way it was done didn't make any sense. It was senseless violence for no real reason.

And as Grundislav and Naranjas say, there was very little scrutiny by the media. And sometimes that makes me ashamed that I studied journalism.

[DCillusion]

It's tough to say look at Bush or Kerry states - Kerry only had about 8, (out of 50), so I don't know if that's a good argument.

Also, can any American that has roots in imigration NOT believe that horrible actions are justified if they lead to a good end.  I mean.....it's pretty much the reason it's a country at all.  It seems that we are simply following suit to what we ALWAYS do.  What makes this time special or different?

[DCillusion]

Killing innocent Iraqis is, also, a tough issue.  Depending on what footage you see, it's either cheering or cursing.  If you buy the freedom story, it's like this......

The are different groups of Muslims in Iraq.  Sadam was, systematically, killing one group, and doing nothing to his group.  During WWII, allied forces liberated Jews in Germany, but killed a lot of Germans.  Almost ALL Germans during that time were a peaceable people with awfull leaders.  Most had no idea what was going on, and killing them was tragic.  Nobody talks about that EVER.  When the Germans were taken to the camps they were appalled by what they saw.  The, unfortunate, difference in the Iraq setting, is the Muslims that Sadam belonged to; don't really care to know what is, or what was, happening to their countrymen during the regime.  Many thought everything was fine, and wonder why anyone showed up in the first place.

[DGMacphee]

It's tough to say look at Bush or Kerry states - Kerry only had about 8, (out of 50), so I don't know if that's a good argument.

Kerry won more than 8 states and most of them were costal states, which is what my point was since Costal states provide a better line of defense than states in the heartland of America. So it is a good argument.

Also, can any American that has roots in imigration NOT believe that horrible actions are justified if they lead to a good end.  I mean.....it's pretty much the reason it's a country at all.  It seems that we are simply following suit to what we ALWAYS do.  What makes this time special or different?

I don't think the deaths of civillians (US or Iraqi) constitutes a good end. Nor do I consider a country that's practically in rumbles a good end. There was no oppression against any Americans by Iraq before the war, so American citizens gained no extra benefits in regards to the right to freedom. How can the ends justify the means when the ends are negative for Iraqis and US soldiers and pretty much non-beneficiary for individual US citizens?

The are different groups of Muslims in Iraq.  Sadam was, systematically, killing one group, and doing nothing to his group.  During WWII, allied forces liberated Jews in Germany, but killed a lot of Germans.  Almost ALL Germans during that time were a peaceable people with awfull leaders.  Most had no idea what was going on, and killing them was tragic.  Nobody talks about that EVER.  When the Germans were taken to the camps they were appalled by what they saw.  The, unfortunate, difference in the Iraq setting, is the Muslims that Sadam belonged to; don't really care to know what is, or what was, happening to their countrymen during the regime.  Many thought everything was fine, and wonder why anyone showed up in the first place.

But that wasn't the reason for the US government's invasion, which is also my original point from my very first post. Also, are you're justifying the war by saying that US rights are more important than the rights of Iraqis? And are you also justifying the deaths by saying that some Iraqis deserved to die because they didn't know or care about what was happening to another group of Iraqis? If so, that doesn't make sense to me.

[Anarcho]

DCIllusion--

It doesn't matter that Kerry only won 8 states, what matters is WHAT states he won.  The electoral college doesn't elect a president on a one state--one vote system.  It's determined by population...kinda.

For example, this is how people usually depict "RED/BLUE" (but mostly red) America:



But this is very deceptive, because for the most part, relatively few people live in those red states.  Relatively.  Even though a state like Wyoming is huge, you can drive endlessly and not see a single human being.  So let's look at a cartogram:



Looks different, right?  That's because this depicts each state by it's population.  You've still got lots of people in places like texas, but you get a feel for how many people live in the "blue" states in relation to the red.

But let's look at one more:



This shows population and vote by county.  Check out how most of the red states are completely flat, i.e. small population and then you've got enormous blue counties.

So, America isn't "RED" no matter what the talking heads say.  Furthermore, it was a good arguement, in looking at Kerry and Bush states.   Lastly, to bring this back to the topic, uh, Bush is a SOB, the war was unjustified, and I agree with DGMacphee 100% (i think)!

[DCillusion]

Also, can any American that has roots in imigration NOT believe that horrible actions are justified if they lead to a good end.  I mean.....it's pretty much the reason it's a country at all.  It seems that we are simply following suit to what we ALWAYS do.  What makes this time special or different?

DGMacphee, you answered ...

I don't think the deaths of civillians (US or Iraqi) constitutes a good end. Nor do I consider a country that's practically in rumbles a good end. There was no oppression against any Americans by Iraq before the war, so American citizens gained no extra benefits in regards to the right to freedom. How can the ends justify the means when the ends are negative for Iraqis and US soldiers and pretty much non-beneficiary for individual US citizens?

I don't think you understood that statement.  The death of civilians happened in this country at its formation, and there was, certainly, NO oppresion by early Americans to colonists who came to America.  If Imigrated Americans, (those with non-native roots), like living here, then they must believe these actions may, possibly, have a "good end" since it allowed them to flourish in their own "new-found" country.  The good end is hope of what comes next.  The only thing that happened in America, originally, was a big plate of death.

I was wondering where the surprise comes from.  The United States & England are, at their core, Imperialists.  Sorry, we are.  When ANY interest of ours is threatened, we attack.  That's how Imperialists handle foreign problems.

[Grundislav]

One thing to consider about the 2004 election is that it was by no means a landslide victory for Bush.  I think the end result was Kerry 49% Bush 51%.  I can vouch for Florida and its voting practices.  The day after the election, my univeristy's paper ran a breakdown of voting precints, and Kerry won every single one in Alachua county.  My parents told me that he also won Miami-Dade county and Broward as well.  Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a bit of a generalization, but the rest of the counties in Florida are mainly populated by the "conservative Christian" voter.  The big issues in this election, aside from the war, were gay marraige and abortion, two big no-nos in the eyes of the conservative christians in the United States.  Now, the sad thing is that these two issues pretty much determined Bush's re-election.  I'm sure if Kerry had been against the issues, he would have won, but then that's just my opinion.

I remember seeing a news report where they had a group of Americans who were voting for Bush. They asked each person to raise their hand if they had a relative or knew someone who had a relative fighting in the war.  The majority raised their hands.  Then they asked how many knew a gay person who wanted to get married.  Very few, if any raised their hand.  Then they asked them if they knew someone who'd had an abortion.  Again, very few raised their hands.

A friend of mine had this as an away message right after the election.  I don't know where he got it from, and I'm going to paraphrase because I don't remember it exactly, but it went something like this:
When your son comes back from Iraq in a box, as they lower him into the ground, at least you'll have the peace of mind that those damn gays can't get married.

[DGMacphee]

Sorry, I misread your original statment, DC. I thought you were focusing that question more so on Iraq.

However, I still don't think I understand your rationale: Are you trying to say that the people who've died in the Iraq war died so the standard of life can improve in the grand scheme of things? I'm sure that sounds very noble, but I think you'd have a hard time describing that notion to someone (Iraqi or US) who has lost family members in Iraq. I don't think I could, say, let the US bomb my family members just so I could get a BMW.

Maybe a Lamborghini though.

In any case, Imperialism is a flawed argument for justification. Many cultures have a ideal of what a "good end" is, and I don't think there's a way to determine which one is universally better, and that goes for hegemonic cultures too. I don't think by saying "We're imperialists, this is how we handle foreign problems" is a good way to justify invading Iraq in the name of freedom and liberty. It's like Hitler saying "I'm a Nazi and I handle cultural and genetic issues this way" to justify creating the master race.

[DGMacphee]

Excuse the double post, but I think this related item deserves a post of it's own:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=638&e=1&u=/nm/20050113/en_nm/people_cohen_dc

[DCillusion]

I think that's why the majority seems to be for the war.  I'm not saying I agree with them, but I understand people's reasoning behind it.  I don't think Imperialism is great, either, but I think, once again, that a majority of people in this country are apt to be, (meaning when something happens to them, the first thing they yell is FIGHT!!!). 

They also feel, after 9/11, that they must make a choice which people they value - (Americans vs. ANYONE that said Horrah for 9/11).  Sadam said it was great, that made it an easy sell for people.

The real issue to change is the SERIOUS media problem in the U.S.  It only caters to liberal coastal peoples.  When reporters, constantly, say this guy did "this" or "that", liberals, often, want blood, "Get Him Out of Office"  ARGH!!

It was mentioned earlier that Bush only had the "Bible-Thumper, Small-Town, &/or Rural" vote.  Since he won the populars, they MUST be the majority.  I grew up on a small, rural, reservation.  This is how rural people think - (the more a reporter says "he did this or that"  the farther in the OPPOSITE direction a rural person will go).  That's where the term "backwards" comes from regarding farm people.

If reporters would do less Bush-bashing, the majority would stop following him into Hell all the time.

[DGMacphee]

Actually, I think the problem with the media isn't so much that's it's criticising Bush too much. I think the problem is that it wasn't asking the right critical questions about the war while it was happening. The big problem with the media is that it's become a very visual medium. You see, television news is the most popular news source in the US. However, to gain attention, you need visuals and conflict. The war provides the conflict, and the cameramen filming the bombings or gun battles provide the visuals. The problem with this is that it only presents a superficial picture of the war without any background, or even analysis. And when they do provide analysis, it's usually the typical binary opposition (liberal versus conservative; left verus right; democrat verus republican). There's no substance to it and it becomes theatre. Much like pro-wrestling, only pro-wrestling is more educational.

Keep in mind this isn't necessarily the media's fault. It's just as easy to blame the audience for not picking up a couple of newspapers or borrowing a few books from the library and reading about current events. Watching the tube is durn easy cuz yer don't have ter think about it plus it's gosh-durn-golly entertainin' hyuck hyuck hyuck!

Only after the war are critical reports coming out. But the damage has already been done. It's too late. And it makes me queasy when I think about the fact I've gone to university for this sort of thing.

By the way, just thought I'd mention I don't believe in the whole "left-wing liberal conspiracy" or "right-wing conspiracy" of the media. There's no conspiracy. Media owners are after one thing: viewers. More viewers means more ad revenue means more money *$$$KA-CHING$$$*. The media works like most business work -- they're after profits. And the media will pretty much cling on to whatever will attract more viewers, especially war. And how can you call it a conspiracy when it's so plainly obvious?

[DCillusion]

Watching the tube is durn easy cuz yer don't have ter think about it plus it's gosh-durn-golly entertainin' hyuck hyuck hyuck!

Those are the people that will put us in or take us out of a war.  There are LOTS of them, and with that attitude, they're going to side with the one person who doesn't act like they're stupid........HMMM.....If only there were such a man....like THE PRESIDENT

- Newspapers & Nonfiction Books are, actually, also considered parts of media -

Media owners are after one thing: viewers. More viewers means more ad revenue means more money *$$$KA-CHING$$$*. The media works like most business work -- they're after profits

True enough, and people in coastals cities have more money.  They're also much more liberal.  Not like "Damn Liberal".  People in coastal towns tend towards "less strenuous" jobs.  They can spend more time focusing on actualization.  Nothing makes you feel like you've made a difference like preventing an injustice.  The media feeds off this, (to make money), and presents news in a way that suits this "higher-consciousness" at it's most carnel.  The media must have SOME responsibility.  It's their job to tell what's happening.  The press isn't supposed to be a business; it's supposed to be an institution.  If it's okay for the press to be after ad revenue, then it's okay for a country to go to war over oil. 

Morality is morality - it either exists or it doesn't.  We can't let one side go & hold another side to it.  Sure, the government has bombs, but knowledge really IS power.  People have gone to war over knowlege, and today, the press are the keepers of it.

[DGMacphee]

Newspapers & Nonfiction Books are, actually, also considered parts of media

They are, but you missed my point. I'm saying that newspapers and nonfictions books provide more background and analysis as opposed to hardly any on television news. The problem isn't so much media bias because the media isn't just one big entity. There are several media organisations each with their own policies and gatekeeping ideology. For example, the news values at FOX for example are different to that at CNN. The problem is more the focus on the superficial yet entertaining aspects on news, which television has come to represent. Like I said, it's easier to watch TV news than read a paper or a book. With TV news you can just sit there, zone out, and watch the pictures.

True enough, and people in coastals cities have more money.  They're also much more liberal.  Not like "Damn Liberal".  People in coastal towns tend towards "less strenuous" jobs.  They can spend more time focusing on actualization.  Nothing makes you feel like you've made a difference like preventing an injustice.  The media feeds off this, (to make money), and presents news in a way that suits this "higher-consciousness" at it's most carnel.  The media must have SOME responsibility.  It's their job to tell what's happening.  The press isn't supposed to be a business; it's supposed to be an institution.  If it's okay for the press to be after ad revenue, then it's okay for a country to go to war over oil.

Morality is morality - it either exists or it doesn't.  We can't let one side go & hold another side to it.  Sure, the government has bombs, but knowledge really IS power.  People have gone to war over knowlege, and today, the press are the keepers of it.

But you forget, I'm not defending the press here. I feel they have a great deal of responsibility... not just some. And even though liberal audiences have different tastes to conservatives, they still enjoy sitting in front of the boobtube and zoning-out to the TV News. The same applies to conservatives -- they like to watch TV. Most human beings do. In fact, I've read studies that show the TV media really just hovers between liberal and conservative -- basically, it doesn't care who it attracts, just as long as it attract. And to do so, it will show the most bland, mediocre programming. No insight or anything.

As for the media as a business, I agree. It shouldn't be a business, but it is. That's how a "free" press survives. I don't like it anymore you don't like imperialism, but there are not very many other options. And  remember I'm not validating what the media does. I'm not saying "oh relax it's cause it's a business". Like I've said, they're as much a part of the problem (more like a big part) as Bush, Saddam, whoever else.

In the end, it's people like the soldiers and the civilians on both sides who get screwed. And like you say, a majority voted for Bush so a majority of US residents must be happy getting screwed.

[DCillusion]

In the end, it's people like the soldiers and the civilians on both sides who get screwed. And like you say, a majority voted for Bush so a majority of US residents must be happy getting screwed.

I'll drink to that.

And I tip my hat.  I don't know how well, or poorly, you think this debate has gone, but I have reached my end in it, & have, very much, enjoyed myself.

[DGMacphee]

Aye, I think the debate has gone rather well so far. But if this debate is ever going to reach TV we need some more headkickings and name-calling ala The O'Reilly Factor. 

[Miez]

I'm just glad the current president isn't attacking the people of his OWN country.

Sorry to say so, but that is one of the most ignorant and short-sighted remarks I've read in a long time. So it's all okay as long it's not happening in your own country?

[DCillusion]

I probably shouldn't reply to this remark, as I said I was finished, but it seems some people of other countries don't understand some unfortunate aspects of North American culture.

There are times, although not at this time, when the United States will throw its help all over the planet.  Then, in the same breath, attack it's own people.  They steal their homes, land, lives, etc.  When the United States turns its attention somewhere else, these people are just happy to be able to BREATHE.

You see, when Iraq kills Iraqis U.S. complains/pressures, when Russia kills Russians U.S. complains/pressures.  When America kills Americans, it isn't like France or Japan or Italy steps up & says, "Hey those are innocent Americans you're hurting, and you need to stop or we stop trading."

Oppressed Americans have no allies, & that makes it VERY difficult to feel empathy for other people.

What would you do, Miez, if soldiers came into your country & conquered it by killing most of your people.  Then they made you live in designated camps where no one wanted to live, taxed the HELL out of your meager living, and sent all that money overseas.  To top it off, if ANYTHING valuable was found in these camps, you were "relocated" or killed.  NO ONE from other countries say anything about it.  Suddenly, people in other countries are being threatened, & the conquerers all rally in support of THEIR freedom & well being.

EXACTLY how empathic would you be towards them Miez?

Before you call MY statements "ignorant & short-sighted" in defense of Iraqi freedom, please explain to me how many times you've stood up in defense of the American Indians being killed off for their oil rights, or displaced Africans, completely removed from their language & culture, being burned at stakes even still.  Have you done anything about it?  Said anything about it?  Have you ever even thought about it?

We asked for support long ago, I'm waiting on an encouraging letter from the Iraqi government - where up to about a year ago, the wealth of the people outweighed the wealth of the people here.  I guess they didn't care about us.......if you don't want friends you won't have them.

[Miez]

I'm not saying that what America does against it's own people is good, or excusable. Not at all. I'm just saying that as long as we (ALL of us) keep saying "it's not that bad, because it's not happening to us" we will never change the world and the way we live in it.
I did not make my remark in defense of Iraqi freedom - I'm just fed up with people turning a blind eye and ignoring shit that's going down just because it happens to be on the other side of the globe.
I did not mean to single you out - sorry for that - it's a problem I have with all humanity.
And believe me, I know that native Americans got an incredibly shitty end of the stick.

[DGMacphee]

Bump!

Guess which country will be the next battlefield in the War on Terror?

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

Reports also indicate they eat babies and have sex with your mothers.

Other news stories:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7348599
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/01/17/hersh-iran050117.html
http://here-now.org/shows/2005/01/20050117_1.asp
http://www.geo.tv/main_files/world.aspx?id=60370
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1283747.htm
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=57711&d=18&m=1&y=2005