Is this politics or art? (POLITICS, READ AT OWN RISK)

O.K. kids, I am sorry but you had to see this, it is pure propaganda in the classic sense, simplified and entertaining, well done image research , and just because it reflects my feelings, you don't have to feel the same. Just see it as art fun. I laughed and I cried...

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html

P.S.: I don't wanna start a discussion on this, just wanted to share it...

[ Edited by: bigbrotiki on 2003-02-25 10:00 ]

[ Edited by: hanford_lemoore on 2003-03-07 16:10 ]

I like Spike Jones ("Der Fuhrer's Face","Spike Jones and his Wacky Wuckatiians") as much as anyone but that is about as slanderous and preposterous a bit of lawsuit waiting to happen as I have ever seen. (A. Fleischer probably had a relative or two that could tell you about the holocaust first hand). I am a distant relative of Karl Wolf (Himmler's adjutant, original spelling), Thomas Wolfe (the author), and General ("Don't shoot until you can see the whites of their eyes") Wolfe of French-Indian War fame. Who would I rather be connected with? Certainly not Karl Wolf the Nazi. But I'm sure that if I was in the position that the U.S. is in, depite the fact that a little threat management in this region (who in my opinion should still be serving the English, French, Germans, and Dutch their tea in the afternoon -wherein this problem would have never had a petri dish to fester in) WILL save the lives of potentially millions of free people worldwide who stand only to suffer as targets if so much as a Pepsi cap of bio agent or an ounce of VX gas (enough to kill several hundred people) falls into the hands of any of the multitudes of Hussein's friends who wish us dead, I'm sure there will always be some liberal waiting in the wings speaking peace and love despite the fact that his family all just died in a mustard gas attack. (Ask any of the 21,000 Kurds that were mustard gassed by Saddam because they dared disagree with his politics...wait...they're all dead...oh, well...uh...peace, man....and George Bush is ....uh....A NAZI!)It's been proven countless times that this ambivalence has to end, most recently when three-thousand innocent people got pounded into the ground under millions of metric tons of World Trade Center.

[ Edited by: Basement Kahuna on 2003-02-25 11:09 ]

Somebody oughta alert Wendy Carlos to the use of her music from "Clockwork Orange"...

em

Yes artistically that looks like a great job of cut and paste but It would be alot more realistic to have saddem's face pasted there instead of President Bush's. How many BOT's are sold in Iraq?

A big hearty "Amen" to Basement Kahuna's post.

Oooops, now we ARE discussing this...
It's just...Hitler and his German believers did not care either what the rest of the millions of citizens around the world were thinking of his actions.

Oh, and you're right, they are not selling ANY BoTs in Irak, so lets nuke'em!

That's what makes living in a free country great...we're not going up against the wall for disagreeing.

Bigbro...did you see those (Witco?) candlesticks I put on the Collecting forum? I was wondering what they are.

Thank Gawd, Iraq doesn't have a Trader Vics or Sven would probably be over there acting as human shield.
On the otherhand, there are Vics in Lebanon, Oman, Bahrain and the UAE. If this thing spreads, we may all have some serious soul-searching to do (although I promise not to propose this as a Tiki Central project, ala Raise a Tiki at Tiki Gardens).:)

On 2003-02-25 12:27, Basement Kahuna wrote:
Bigbro...did you see those (Witco?) candlesticks I put on the Collecting forum? I was wondering what they are.

I did, but I haven't had time yet to peruse the catalogues, I did not recognize them immediately. I don't think they are from the "ID" line, which only ran during the early 60s and was purely sculptural, but then again he used that same esthetic in later wallhangings....
Actually what he USED were cheap surplus stock wooden rain gutters that he cut up and -Voila: modern art!

[ Edited by: bigbrotiki on 2003-02-25 12:51 ]

Well, it's a little less harsh than BigBro's!

Trader Woody

Ronald Reagan, a couple decades ago, faced worldwide opposition to deployment of Pershing nuclear missiles in Europe to counter Soviet SS-20's. He understood that if you turn your back on a threat, the threat only increases, but if you face up to it, you stand to decrease the danger. If Reagan had caved in to the demonstrator's pressure, would millions of eastern European people be free today? Would the world be safer?

Perhaps the world would be safer if the Bush family and other had never gone into business with, made lots of money for, and thereby helped into power the Bin Laden Family, the Ayatollah Khomeini, the Taliban...

Let's give money to terrorists, then create a war to push our administration's horrid numbers up. Nevermind a police action to remove Saddam's regime, let's just bomb the place. That'll fix everything. Certainly won't make more terrorists. Won't kill the economy, either.

When we get gassed, it won't be because we ignored someone that the CIA has REPEATEDLY said is not a real threat. It'll be because we pissed off a bunch of people so a F--G NAZI family could get richer off of my friends deaths, your friends' deaths, and EVERYBODY's deaths.

I'm with Sven.

On 2003-02-26 09:27, Rain wrote:

When we get gassed, it won't be because we ignored someone that the CIA has REPEATEDLY said is not a real threat.

....Boy, where the hell have you been? At the Phish concert? Or are you just Helen Keller blind and deaf? I don't know where you're getting your CIA "Facts-?-" but here's part of the current U.S. intelligence (C.I.A., N.S.A., U.N. Intelligence) dossier on the Hussein regime. You "peace whether it gets me dead or not" people should really check those facts. Now go hug some trees and save some whales.....peace, duuuuude. The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

[ Edited by: Basement Kahuna on 2003-02-26 10:34 ]

[ Edited by: Basement Kahuna on 2003-02-26 10:35 ]

[ Edited by: Basement Kahuna on 2003-02-26 10:38 ]

And AP and Reuters have reported on two separate occasions recently that CIA profilers have said that there is no serious threat that Hussein will use this stuff. I'll try to find the articles.

No one said (not me anyway) that he didn't have weapons. But there's another idiot I know of that has even more weapons, and his name is Curious George.

So, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hug some trees before you bomb them all for being unpatriotic.

Oh yeah, there's ANOTHER guy with nukes, too.

Kim Jong Il, or however that's spelled, supposedly has nuclear missiles capable of reaching the western United States and has said more than once that in the case of war with Iraq, he will use them.

But it's anti-American to not want the country blown up, and to not want soldiers coming back in body bags for no reason. Right.

Wait twenty years, and then check THIS fact: history is going to CRUCIFY this administration.

Call me a tree-hugger, but I'm not necessarily anti-violence. I'd love to get my hands on that asshole. (Not that OUR government isn't guilty of just as many atrocities in the middle east as Hussein is.) You should see my artwork from the first gulf war. But there are other ways to do this. If Bush wanted the CIA to find Hussein and kill him, they could do it. It's just much more profitable for him to go to war.

You think leftists are ignorant of the facts, but take a look at the DEMOGRAPHICS of who is for and against this war. Sure, there's a majority for it, and hell, we live in a democracy (for now), so let's go for it. But it's the Intelligentsia and Academia that are the most outspoken AGAINST it. These are people that don't speak without researching first. So maybe you should check YOUR facts before name-calling.

I'm going to drink some French wine before hugging that tree.

here's some more fun:
http://www.hermes-press.com/nazification_step3.htm

....Huh?....oh, I'm sorry...I was too befuddled by the mud.... Exactly what does any of this have to do with the fact that here we have a man capable of killing thousands of your brothers and sisters with a small backhand pass? Do you care? How long would you suggest we wait? Until France and Germany (Oooooh, now there's two peas in a pod!) say it's okay for us go? Until the next catastrophic attack? I could care less how you feel about Bush. To each his or her own. Nobody's gonna dig up Joe Mcarthy and prop him up for another go-round. But we are in a dire fix here if we have any intention of staying alive. And an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

See what you started, Big Bro!

This thread has gone from entertaining to informative to passionate and back again. It's a touchy subject but I'll add my simple comments here.

War is always a last resort. Are we there yet? I think not.

I totally disagree with the Bush Administration's policies and propensity to promote the war with Iraq. Does that make me un-American for expressing my personal views. I think not.

With the unfinished war in Afgahnistan, pending war with Iraq, and the looming conflict with North Korea are we setting the stage for World War III? I pray not.

I've been seeing some bad mana running through these threads lately. We are all entitled to our opinions but I hope we can continue to conduct ourselves respectfully and without all the name calling and fingerpointing. But that's my world. Welcome to it.

Peace.

P.S. since when does a leftist care what the "Intelligentsia and Academia" think? In Stalin's time you would be first against the wall. :)

Hussein COULD... CIA says Hussein WON'T.
Bush COULD... Bush probably WILL.

What I'm saying (and I'm not the only one) Is that the administrations actions now are the fuel provoking future terrorist action. The "ounce of prevention" is actually the vomit-inducer. Terrorists are extremely wacked-out nutso protesters, but what if they had nothing to protest?

As far as academia goes, I consider myself a part of that extended circle.

Anyway, I agree with Stentiki. I didn't join this board to fight (or even talk about) politics. I just couldn't resist jumping in to back Sven up. Not that he asked or anything, so I should keep him out of it. At any rate, I won't respond to this line of conversation any more.

For now, we still have our freedom of speech, so I'll spout my rhetoric somewhere else, you spout yours wherever you feel like it, and hopefully when the time comes to have a Mai Tai, we can do so without argument.

I'm getting sick of people using the reasoning that Saddam "gassed his own people" (in numbers that range from 5000 to 100,000 people) so he will attack us with chemical weapons if we don't attack him first.

A recent senior agent for the CIA wrote the following editorial in the NY Times on 1/31 which claims that it may was the Iraqis that used Mustard Gas during the Iran-Iraq war and those attacks by the Iraqis are what killed so many Kurdish people.

http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/warcrime.html

Do we really have the facts on those attacks on the Kurdish people? I don't doubt that Saddam has been developing chemical weapons for some time. In fact, he started his chemical weapons programs with funding and help from U.S. companies during the Iran-Iraq war. I also don't doubt that Saddam committed war crimes during that conflict. However, I think that Saddam knows he would be a damn fool to attack the U.S. with chemical or biological weapons. Unless of course we attack first and then he may choose to use whatever means necessary to stop us. We are asking for trouble so Bush should keep his slingshot in his back pocket and go back to playing with his marbles.

oops, I wrote:
"A recent senior agent for the CIA wrote the following editorial in the NY Times on 1/31 which claims that it may was the Iraqis that used Mustard Gas during the Iran-Iraq war and those attacks by the Iraqis are what killed so many Kurdish people. "

I meant to say "which claims that it may have been the Iranians that used Mustard Gas during the Iran-Iraq war and those attacks by the Iranians are what killed so many Kurdish people."

I am more appalled than most (apparently) that the axis of evil (GWB/Cheney/Rumsfeld) is taking this hardline stance towards Iraq. But what upsets me even more is the number of our "citizens" who are buying it all hook, line & sinker. It seems that all our administration has to do is point a finger at a tyrannical despot (and there are MANY of them out there), and everyone in the fly-over whoops and hollars about the need to depose the dictator by whatever means necessary. It's the public's ignorance that really gets to me.

I mean, if our government had never lied to us before, maybe I'd be more inclined to believe them on this. You can cite all the government sources you like to support one view or another, but how do you know if any of them are valid? You don't, so you go ahead and believe what you want to belive anyway ("George Bush knows what he's doing" or "Those towel-heads have been nothing but trouble for years - I hope we kill 'em all", or whatever).

I just don't think that most people really see what's at stake here. Regardless of what you think of Saddaam, invading his country will only destabilize both the Middle East AND the West, and will engender even more furious hatred of Americans around the world for generations to come (leading to much more terrorism), and further drive our economy into the ground, not to mention killing a significant number of American and Allied soldiers (who are only doing their jobs).

All I can hope is that people will educate themselves about the bigger picture here and understand the true horror that's about to be perpetrated in all our names. Installing a "democracy" (actually another American puppet regime) in a part of the world with thousands of years of entrenched Islamic culture is about the worst plan anyone has ever had. I hope to God I have to eat my words, I really do, but I fear I won't. This will be one God-awful mess.

On 2003-02-26 12:07, stentiki wrote:
War is always a last resort. Are we there yet? I think not.

I agree.

Make no mistake, war is nasty business. War means hundreds, if not thousands of human beings die -- American and Iraqi soldiers as well as innocent men, women, and children. It means our friends and family members return from the Gulf in BODYBAGS, just as they did from Vietnam. War is not pretty and it should ALWAYS be considered a last resort.

And I think trees are for carving tikis, not hugging. I hate Phish, I think hippies smell bad, and I only eat granola if it's dipped in chocholate so save the tired cliches for calls to the Rush Limbaugh show.

What kills me the most about the majority of the chicken hawks screaming for war is that they don't follow through with action. They are quick to argue for military action and talk about supporting our military and our president, but God forbid they should actually change their lifestyle one bit to help their cause. Take a cue from the Americans at home during WWII who supported our troops by recycling, conserving energy, carpooling, etc., all for the war effort. How many of you people crying for war are driving around the corner to the store when you could ride a bike? How many of you are carting yourself around alone in a gas guzzling SUV? How many of you are running your heaters all day and night instead of wearing warm clothes in the house?

If you're going to support a war, then do it with your actions because words are meaningless, and do nothing for your cause.

Muggler, fanning the flame just to see how high it will go...

On 2003-02-26 12:20, Rain wrote:
...and hopefully when the time comes to have a Mai Tai, we can do so without argument.

Yes! I think it is important to remember that we are just shooting the breeze here. I have no animosity towards my TC brothers and sisters, regardless of your ill-informed political views. :wink:

Just let me know when it's my turn to buy a round.

-Mike

Eye-popping fun!

[ Edited by: TheMuggler on 2003-02-26 13:48 ]

[ Edited by: TheMuggler on 2003-02-26 13:49 ]

Is there anyone in the "People's Republic Of California" that actually believes in anything? (Holden, I know you're out there, buddy). (Calipornnia is another good one I always hear :) )

A brief perspective from North of the border...

Protester: "You guys were really late on Bosnia! Many people died before you rescued the rest!"

Protester a few years later: "What the hell gives you guys the right to be the police force for the whole world?"

Geez, it must be fun being an American politician these days! Whee!

aloha,
emspace.

bigbrotiki wrote:
P.S.: I don't wanna start a discussion on this, just wanted to share it...

Heyyyyy! Pretty slick BigBro! I get it now! Reverse Psychology! Just tell'em you DON'T want a discussion and one will happen!

OK. Let's see if it works on everything...

I DON'T WANT TO HAVE LOTS OF FUN TIKICENTRAL GATHERINGS THIS YEAR!

My wife will be the first to tell anyone here that I am a VERY opinionated man, and perhaps a bit right of center (used to be a democrat, until Clinton's "Arkansas sudden death syndrome","I pardon thee" and various other shenanigans combined old age made me a bit wiser). I am also now, admittedly, a bit MORE right of center (hello, Swanky and Kiliki :) ). However you are all welcome to drink at my place anytime. Your mai tai awaits! -"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his
fools."

• --Ernest Hemingway

[ Edited by: Basement Kahuna on 2003-02-26 14:38 ]

On 2003-02-26 14:13, emspace wrote:
A brief perspective from North of the border...

emspace,

You do point out a very interesting irony. Strangely enough, it was the conservatives, many now clamoring for war, who wanted us to stay out of Bosnia, and a Democrat president and Congress who sent us in.

I think what the issue boils down to is commercial interests. The US had no interests in Bosnia (thousands of innocents being unjustly raped, tortured, and killed is not a commercial interest), and therefore conservatives didn't want to use military force to relieve the atrocities being committed there. "The US is not the world's police force" was the conservative rallying cry.

Iraq, on the other hand, is oil rich and therefore loaded with commercial interests. Ergo, conservatives want to protect these interests whereas liberals would rather seek a different solution (i.e. ban SUV's, raise CAFE limits on gas consumption, etc. to remove our dependency on foreign oil).

And let's not forget about the countless party-liners, who will support anything their political party wants without thinking about it first. These are the people who tend to spew the most rhetoric on both sides of the fight.

-Mike

I'm pretty sure George W Bush is made of cheese, but am convinced that Jacques Chirac is made of fromage.

Trader Woody

On 2003-02-26 15:15, Trader Woody wrote:
I'm pretty sure George W Bush is made of cheese, but am convinced that Jacques Chirac is made of fromage.

Trader Woody,

This is comon knowledge.

What I'd really like to know is what the heck Tony Blair is made out of.

-Muggler

I think he's still in the curds & whey stage.
Getting there, but still a little wet and flavourless.

Nah, Tony's ok, We've had worse...

Trader Woody

Tony Blair is made out of Bubble and Squeak (with an banger and a pint of best bitter on the side).

Don't forget the Spotted Dick! :lol:

I think very highly of the Prime Minister. Yesterday I received a letter from Mr. Matt Dowding thanking me for a note I wrote to Tony Blair in which I conveyed my great admiration for his courage. I don't think many Americans appreciate what he is up against. Bush has much more support here.
But like BK, I wouldn't have very many drinking buddies if my tiki room got politicized. Portland is no conservative hot bed and most of my friends are liberal, but we get along by being respectful and not going out of our way to step on each others toes. I think Humphrey Bogart said something like, "The world would be a lot better if everybody had a couple cocktails in 'em." Well that's my working plan anyway.

The U.S. has been playing a shell game with the countries in the middle east for so long now you need a score card to keep track. It's like Orwell's "1984"...who's the enemy today? We supplied weapons to the Afgahns to fight the USSR, then we backed Iraq to fight the Iranians, while we were trying to juggle another agenda in El Salvador, Panama & who knows where else. Now N. Korea is gettin' attitude. I guess it's time for that saucer guy and his robot Gort from "The Day The Earth Stood Still" to come down here again and set us all straight with "if I have to come back here one more time...we're gonna have a wrestlin' match and I'm gonna kick ass!"

[ Edited by: Shipwreckjoey on 2003-02-26 22:14 ]

"Gort!"..."Klaatu, Borada, Nikto..."
"Join us and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face obliteration...the choice is yours."

To TheMuggler I must ask, where were all the liberals when Clinton went into Bosnia without UN approval? They weren't marching in the streets then. How about when Clinton fired cruise missiles into Iraq? Silence.
These protesters appear to be less "anti-war" than they are anti-Bush / anti-Conservative / anti- capitalist. I didn't see too many signs at these rallies demanding that Hussein account for his biological weapons or demanding that he disarm, much less complain about his human rights abuses! Instead they were holding aloft signs with a Hitler-moustachioed Bush. Very telling. It's only okay to mount a military action if it is done by a liberal.

Some Iraqis tried to speak out at one of those anti-war rallies (this one was in London). Here is a report:

http://www.gulf-news.com/articles/opinion.asp?ArticleID=78689

Here is an article from ESPN about Uday Hussein's Iraqi Olympic committee with insight provided by some athletes that were lucky enough to get out:

http://espn.go.com/oly/news/2003/0120/1495655.html

To those who say "this is about oil", I respectfully say, "Duh". It is, partially. Like it or not, we need oil to keep this economy going. If we wanted to take over and control the oil supply of Iraq, we could have done that in 1991. Bush 41 kept his forces out of Baghdad in accordance with the UN resolution and there are many who criticize him for that to this day. When Saddam set his oil wells on fire, we sent in specialists to extinguish and cap them. Then we left.

The objections of France, Germany and Russia are hardly driven by altruism. These countries have entered into contracts with the current Iraqi government, contracts that may not be honored by a new administration and they involve - OIL!

To those who say that we need to develop other sources of energy, I agree with you. Until most of us are driving fuel cell vehicles, we still need oil. We have a large domestic source in ANWAR...

Another source can be found in the countries of Eastern Europe who have been liberated from Soviet domination. I think, not coincidentally, that these countries are solidly behind out efforts to liberate Iraq. On one hand, they know oppression. On the other hand, they welcome economic development.

I understand the concerns of those who fear a counter-attack on our soil. Destabilization of the Middle East is a hair-raiser, too. Turkey wants to put troops in Northern Iraq. They are concerned that the Kurdish in Northern Iraq may try to create an autonomous territory in that region and this may resonate with the Kurdish in Turkey. Iran is apparently itching to get a piece of the pie.

It would be easier for Bush to just walk away and let Saddam have a free hand, as some would apparently have it. It wouldn't make any difference to the left. They will just find another reason to call Conservatives "nazis" anyway. :)

[ Edited by: floratina on 2003-02-27 01:51 ]

On 2003-02-26 23:33, floratina wrote:
To TheMuggler I must ask, where were all the liberals when Clinton went into Bosnia without UN approval? They weren't marching in the streets then. How about when Clinton fired cruise missiles into Iraq? Silence.

Uhhh, I thought I explained that in a previous post. If it is still unclear let me know and I'll try again.

As for cruise missles into Iraq, there was plenty of outrage from the left, it just never took the form of protests in the streets because launching some cruise missles and shipping out your friends and neighbors to fight a war with questionable motives warrant different responses. Pick up any issue of THE NATION from the Clinton presidency and you will see nothing but criticism from the progressive left (the majority of the protestors).

These protesters appear to be less "anti-war" than they are anti-Bush / anti-Conservative / anti- capitalist. I didn't see too many signs at these rallies demanding that Hussein account for his biological weapons or demanding that he disarm, much less complain about his human rights abuses! Instead they were holding aloft signs with a Hitler-moustachioed Bush. Very telling. It's only okay to mount a military action if it is done by a liberal.

This is a simplistic portrayal of a large group of people. Kinda like saying all conservatives are fat, wealthy, ethically challenged businessmen who hide behind the "moral" cover of religion to justify their tax cuts for the wealthy and total lack of concern for anything or anyone other than making money.

Neither representation is remotely true (although there are plenty of both types in each group).

I was at an anti-war rally and myself and many others gave a woman carrying a sign that compared Bush to Hitler a VERY hard time about it.

The fact is there ARE many people who are against the war because it is led by Bush. Just as there are MANY people who have no understanding of the situation and support the war simply because Bush is for it. Unthinking party-liners exist on both sides -- I said that earlier but I guess it bears repeating.

I can assure you that NO ONE on the left "supports" Hussein. Hussein is clearly an evil man. The issue isn't WHETHER to deal with him, it is HOW we deal with him. THAT is why the protests center on the Bush administration. I think EVERYONE agrees that the world would be a better place without Hussein.

As for "anti-capitalist" that's just another simple stereotype that ignores the real issues in favor of a nice slogan that sounds good coming out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth.

The (left of center) Muggler

Eye-popping fun!

[ Edited by: TheMuggler on 2003-02-27 12:13 ]

On 2003-02-27 01:01, floratina wrote:

To those who say "this is about oil", I respectfully say, "Duh". It is, partially.

There you go. Ask yourself this question: which is more valuable -- blood or oil?

Like it or not, we need oil to keep this economy going.

Again, I say if we are in a state of war, why is the administration not acting consistently with their campaign? A war for oil requires that we support our troops by USING LESS OF IT. Yet Bush tries to push through TAX CUTS FOR SUV's! The Republican's KILL raising the CAFE standards! Conservative pundits go on TV and proclaim that they'll continue to drive their Lincoln Navigators because -- and this always makes me laugh since it is such a foolish thing for an adult to say -- "this is America!"

If we are going to shed US Military blood for oil, I would like to see the administration fight this war on both fronts -- home and abroad. Until I see that, I will continue to question the Bush administrations motives and continue to speak out against this "war."

The objections of France, Germany and Russia are hardly driven by altruism. These countries have entered into contracts with the current Iraqi government, contracts that may not be honored by a new administration and they involve - OIL!

Everyone has motives. Yep. Doesn't change my opinion of the Bush administration one bit. France, Germany, Russia, and the majority of the population of the UK have their own opinions and motives -- it is not all tied into one big "anti-Bush" coallition.

To those who say that we need to develop other sources of energy, I agree with you. Until most of us are driving fuel cell vehicles, we still need oil. We have a large domestic source in ANWAR...

What is ANWAR? Are you talking about the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge? Gimmie a break, I'm not even going to go there. Why don't we just slap oil wells off the coast of all out beaches?

The answer is very simple, and exists within the realm of technology today. Reduce our need for fossil fuels to a minimum. If America's need for oil is so great that we must go to war, then where is Bush's support for alternative fuel research? Non-existent, because Bush is an OIL MAN.

It would be easier for Bush to just walk away and let Saddam have a free hand, as some would apparently have it. It wouldn't make any difference to the left. They will just find another reason to call Conservatives "nazis" anyway. :)

Again I will say that the issue is not wether to deal with Saddam, but how to deal with him. Nobody wants to "walk-away" and let him have a "free hand." That's just more conservative rhetoric designed to simplify and confuse the issue at hand. As far as the Nazi name calling is concerned, I am against it. Whether it is Rush Limbaugh calling Hillary Clinton a "feminazi" or some progressive protestor holding up a sign comparing Bush to Hitler, I think it doesn't do either side any good.

And the left will ALWAYS find a reason to criticize the conservatives, and vice-versa -- it is politics, after all! :P

-The Muggler

The fact is there ARE many people who are against the war because it is led by Bush.
Still mad about those two elections, huh? I guess we did kinda "roll you up and smoke you" in those Congressionals and Gubernatorials. Did you ever stop to think "wow....maybe it's MY OWN party's policies that the breadbasket of America can see straight through and are really starting to dislike....hmmmm".. Funny thing about you leftists (Hi, Tom Morello!) is that you want to have your cake and eat it too...you want wealth, and yet you want the redistribution of wealth. You want a politically correct herd mentality for the masses, and yet you fancy your own self some sort of bourgeuosie "Academia". You don't give working people credit enough to lead them! Tell you what, you just keep fingerpointing and we'll just keep winning elections. Fair enough? :)

On 2003-02-27 08:21, Basement Kahuna wrote:

The fact is there ARE many people who are against the war because it is led by Bush.
Still mad about those two elections, huh?

BK, you forgot to include the second half of the line you quoted me on. Here it is again:

"Just as there are MANY people who have no understanding of the situation and support the war simply because Bush is for it."

I have no idea why you excluded that part. :wink:

I gess we did kinda "roll you up and smoke you" in those Congressionals and Gubernatorials. Did you ever stop to think "wow....maybe it's MY OWN party's policies that the breadbasket of America can see straight through and are really starting to dislike....hmmmm"..

Which party are you assuming I belong to? There are more than two, you know.

Funny thing about you leftists (Hi, Tom Morello!) is that you want to have your cake and eat it too...you want wealth, and yet you want the redistribution of wealth. You want a politically correct herd mentality for the masses, and yet you fancy your own self some sort of bourgeuosie "Academia". You don't give working people credit enough to lead them! Tell you what, you just keep fingerpointing and we'll just keep winning elections. Fair enough? :)

Really, I think the level of conservative discourse in this country is unfortunate. Perhaps conservatives should stop listening to the pundits and mouthpieces on the radio and start reading real conservative thought on the issues. Stop listening to Rush and start reading Buckley. I don't agree with either, but at least you'll have more than simplistic slogans to wrap your arguments up in.

I'm all for intelligent conservative thought, hell sometimes I even agree with it, but what exactly are you revealing about yourself when all you do is finger-point for a few sentences and then tell me to "just keep fingerpointing?"

The Muggler (realizing that most people on this list are tired of the political talk and agreeing to stop here).

Alright...I'm out, ladies......GO GREEN, DUDES! (insert bong hit sound here...) :wink:

floratina wrote:

"To TheMuggler I must ask, where were all the liberals when Clinton went into Bosnia without UN approval? They weren't marching in the streets then. How about when Clinton fired cruise missiles into Iraq? Silence."

I will answer this one. The real "liberals" were voting for Nader in '96 because we felt that Clinton wasn't that much different from the Republicans in his domestic policies (cutting welfare as just one good example) and foreign policies (you mentioned 2 good examples). There was not "silence" as you stated, you (and every major media source) just chose not to listen to Nader and other people who criticized Clinton. Everyone (Democrats and Republicans alike) was riding so high on the stock market boom and so busy buying SUVs and cell phones they didn't really care about what Clinton was really doing.

The fact that Clinton's foreign policy of intervention in conflicts was just a continuation of Bush Sr.'s shows that all our recent Presidents, and most of our elected officials, are serving corporate interests and not the interests of the citizenry. I wasn't compelled to re-elect Clinton in '96 just because he was pro-choice and a conservationist.

On 2003-02-27 08:14, TheMuggler wrote:

On 2003-02-27 01:01, floratina wrote:

To those who say "this is about oil", I respectfully say, "Duh". It is, partially.

There you go. Ask yourself this question: which is more valuable -- blood or oil?

Like it or not, we need oil to keep this economy going.

Again, I say if we are in a state of war, why is the administration not acting consistently with their campaign? A war for oil requires that we support our troops by USING LESS OF IT. Yet Bush tries to push through TAX CUTS FOR SUV's! The Republican's KILL raising the CAFE standards! Conservative pundits go on TV and proclaim that they'll continue to drive their Lincoln Navigators because -- and this always makes me laugh since it is such a foolish thing for an adult to say -- "this is America!"

If we are going to shed US Military blood for oil, I would like to see the administration fight this war on both fronts -- home and abroad. Until I see that, I will continue to question the Bush administrations motives and continue to speak out against this "war."

The objections of France, Germany and Russia are hardly driven by altruism. These countries have entered into contracts with the current Iraqi government, contracts that may not be honored by a new administration and they involve - OIL!

Everyone has motives. Yep. Doesn't change my opinion of the Bush administration one bit. France, Germany, Russia, and the majority of the population of the UK have their own opinions and motives -- it is not all tied into one big "anti-Bush" coallition.

To those who say that we need to develop other sources of energy, I agree with you. Until most of us are driving fuel cell vehicles, we still need oil. We have a large domestic source in ANWAR...

What is ANWAR? Are you talking about the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge? Gimmie a break, I'm not even going to go there. Why don't we just slap oil wells off the coast of all our beaches?

The answer is very simple, and exists within the realm of technology today. Reduce our need for fossil fuels to a minimum. If America's need for oil is so great that we must go to war, then where is Bush's support for alternative fuel research? Non-existent, because Bush is an OIL MAN.

It would be easier for Bush to just walk away and let Saddam have a free hand, as some would apparently have it. It wouldn't make any difference to the left. They will just find another reason to call Conservatives "nazis" anyway. :)

Again I will say that the issue is not whether to deal with Saddam, but how to deal with him. Nobody wants to "walk-away" and let him have a "free hand." That's just more conservative rhetoric designed to simplify and confuse the issue at hand. As far as the Nazi name calling is concerned, I am against it. Whether it is Rush Limbaugh calling Hillary Clinton a "feminazi" or some progressive protestor holding up a sign comparing Bush to Hitler, I think it doesn't do either side any good.

And the left will ALWAYS find a reason to criticize the conservatives, and vice-versa -- it is politics, after all! :P

-The Muggler

Jesus Christ (and not in a good way) my tiki brothers and sisters. Haven't we all (me too) learned our lessons when it comes to discussing politics, religion or Kahukini yet?

Man, I didn't pay attention to this thread after I read BigBro's initial post, but now I come back to it and it's all out class warfare!

(I'm taking the high-road only because I, for some reason I don't know, haven't been my usual a-hole self in this thread (ha ha))