Forums | MacLife

That was a load of crap.  If I were a liberal, I'd flame that guy.  He basically calls liberals empty-headed sheep who follow the Dems and oppose the GOP just because that's the way of things.  Yet, he is so enlightened for siding with Bush.  Puh-lease.

I think that pretty much goes both ways unfortunately.  It seems you aren't allowed to formulate an opinion without either side calling you a "sheep."   

The constant equating of liberal with Democrat shows how out of touch that guy is.

If he only lives among party-line Democrats, then his idea that many of them are somewhat sheep-like, who are anti-Bush and anti-war because "that's just what Democrats do" is probably close to on the money.

But the vast majority of liberals are beginning to see the Dems as the centrists and maintainers of the status-quo that they really are, and they vote Dem only for lack of a better alternative. Their (our) reasons for being anti-war in this case are founded on ideals that the Dems no longer represent, and those ideals run much deeper than being anti-Bush for the sake of being anti-Bush.

I stopped reading about halfway through. Maybe the rest of it isn't such a joke. I'll wait to see if someone finds something worthwhile to post about it.

Tell me how a military action against Iraq would be *ANY* different from removing Slobodan Milosevich from power.

Hussein isn't currently carrying out a massive genocide for one.

Aren't the Kurds trying to overthrow Hussein?

I don't know much about the Marsh Arabs, I'd have to look it up.

The tyranny thing I'll laugh at though. The US supports dictators all over the place, and we had no problem making tyrannical dictator Saddam Hussein our friend right until he invaded Kuwait. He was even our friend when he gassed the Kurds. And I'm pretty sure we gave him the weapons to conduct that gassing.

Most of these arguments fall into two categories: #1 Why is it such a big deal now? #2 Are we going to go all around the world now liberating everybody else? Africa? Tibet? (Nope.)

If we are going to try to justify our imperialistic invasion of Iraq with human rights issues, we should stop ignoring the many other human rights abuses all over the world.

How about the treatment of the people in Chechnya for a start? Why haven't we invaded Russia and deposed Putin? The Russians even gas their own people.

That's not my point.  This guy starts by saying that liberals are opposing Bush just because he's Republican.  Then he says that they should support him just because all these other people do.

He calls them sheep, and then tries to herd them in.  He makes no good arguments for anything, and that my friend, is a sheep's trait.  No one is going to call anyone else sheep if they can provide a solid reason for doing what they do.  This guy doesn't.  And his grammar sucks.

I know it wasn't your point.  I was just making a tangent remark.   

Opposing or supporting the war has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. Lots of liberals support the war. And, it's worth noting, lots of conservatives oppose it.

The best example is Bob Novak, a right-wing columnist who has about the most solid right-wing credentials out there, yet he's passionately opposed to invading Iraq (and doesn't hesitate to say so).

Anyone trying to make this a partisan issue is a scumbag. The next thing you know, we'll be blaming Republicans for 9.11 just because Bush was in the White House at the time.

I thought it an interesting read, too.

Too bad it doesn't make its point too clear.

So, here here, folks. All you Bosnia interventionists, hawkish anti-Taliban feminists, grown-up human rights activists, and would-be hawks-if-only-Gore-were-leading-the-charge, listen up. Like you, I?m a registered Democrat. And I stand unflinchingly against Saddam and with all the democratic forces in the world poised to depose him. Have a stiff drink, give the Bushophobia a break, and get over here. It really is okay. Only the jerks on the fringe will call you a traitor or a right-wing extremist. There are plenty of others from the Democratic Party and the left here already. Christopher Hitchens, Salman Rushdie, Ron Rosenbaum, Thomas Friedman, Steven Spielberg, Camile Paglia, Arianna Fallaci, Oprah Winfrey, Dan Savage, the "War Liberal" blogger, Bob Kerrey, Gary Hart, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Zell Miller, Kenneth Pollack, the staff of The New Republic magazine, and even last year?s Al Gore model. If foreigners count, throw in Vaclav Havel, Shimon Peres, and Tony Blair as well.

Intelligent folks fully realize that we have a case against Iraq.  Saddam Hussein is a purveyor of everything that is Muslim Fundamentalist. (the argument that Hussein is not a Muslim Fundamentalist flies in the face of logic)He is a tyrant and actively supports terrorism. 

The above mentioned names in this article realize that, too. 

The problem as it stands isn't necessarily with our case against Iraq, in my opinion.

It is the manner upon which we are pursuing this commitment to depose worldwide terrorism, including Iraq, that bothers me.

We've wasted lots of time with appeasement, also wasted time with trying to line up allies, when we have the military strength to practically go it alone and prove our righteousness to the rest of the world.

But Bush keeps wavering on this issue.

Don't you think those in Europe and other developed countries see this?

We look like a bunch of buffoons who lack the courage of our convictions.  The developed countries see this and point to Bush's lack of fortitude on this issue.  They think we are worse than bluffing.

I thought it an interesting read, too.

Wait a minute. I was just looking again at how crazy that post was. You're not Best Buy's evil twin, are you?