Moore or Pig?

[ViPER1313]

Sigh, Saddam gassed the Kurds, invaded Kuwait, tortured people who he classified as enemies of the state, and his sons were known for raping random women. Saddam was a problem that needed to be taken care of. On the other hand, now wasn't the time to do it. If Bush senior hadn't pussied out during the Gulf war, we wouldn't be in this mess now (why did he decide to pull out of Iraq when he was 10 miles away from Bagdad??) The US is not the world's police force, and when it acts like one it doesn't do a great job at it (We put both Saddam and the Taliban into power...... worked out great didn't it?) Removing Saddam from power was a job that needed to be done, but Bush just invading Iraq through the use faulty intelligence claiming Iraq was an "emanate threat" was not a valid way of solving this problem. The sad truth is that 15 years down the road the same shit is going to happen all over again. Wherever religion and state are intertwined such as in the Middle East, it's just not possible to create a free and democratic society where men and women are viewed as equals, freedom of religion exists and different religions co-exist peacefully.

Enough ranting for now... :!:

[Evan]

interestingly enough (and conveniently overlooked by democrats at this time)
Clinton's administration stated multiple times that Saddam's actions were leading to an unavoidable military conflict. Many democrats and former members of Clinton's staff even supported the war.

and yes, John Kerry voted for the war, and later changed his mind when the democrats decided it would be more popular for him to do so.

[Evan]

ahem... let me tell you something about Mr. Hitchens. He is not a "liberal hawk" nor a regular writer to "the nation." He is a neo-fascist turned conservative who supports the war in Iraq. In an interview (link ) with frontpage magazine he said:

After 9/11, you publicly broke with the Left...

Watching the towers fall in New York, with civilians incinerated on the planes and in the buildings, I felt something that I couldnÔÇÖt analyze at first and didnÔÇÖt fully grasp.... As to the ÔÇ£LeftÔÇØ IÔÇÖll say briefly why this was the finish for me

Anyways, read the article still if you want. Read the interview if you want to be really bored. Either way, know that this guy is not unbiased as Evan suggested.

Well you obviously havent read any of his writings other than what you skimmed off of a Google search.
Christopher Hitchens did in fact write for The Nation for almost 20 years, from 1982 until just after 9/11. (and still listed as a columnist ontheir website <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/bio.mhtml?id=21">http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/bio.mhtml?id=21</a><!-- m --> )
and he was in fact listed as one of the Liberal Hawks by Bill Keller, the editor of the New York Times.
Hitchens was considered one of the main spokespeople for the Liberal front for quite some time up until his disagreement with the popular/political Left which is what you refer to.
He had a relatively recent break from the political left, not the idealogical left, because he had the guts (and willingess to think beyond partisanship) to disagree with the democrats and follow-the-sheep liberals of the country.
His ideals are in fact still extremely left bordering on socialism (in fact at one time he was a strong believer in socialism)
He has said his biggest problem with democrats is actually that they are becoming too conservative, worried more about discrediting republicans, and adjusting their views to fit the public whim than actually upholding the ideals of liberalism. ( he scathed clinton particularly hard in his book -- here is a synopsis <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.literaturehistoryhub.com/No_One_Left_To_Lie_To_The_Values_of_the_Worst_Family_1859842844.html">http://www.literaturehistoryhub.com/No_ ... 42844.html</a><!-- m --> )
here are some quotes.
But for the left, so-called, if they had been listened to in their majority, Bosnia would be part of greater Serbia, Kosovo would be a wilderness with ethnic cleansing, the Taliban would still be in charge of Afghanistan, Iraq would still be the private property of Saddam Hussein's family. This is a record not to be proud of. It's a very conservative record; it's a reactionary record. And they would take that as fine, by the way, as long as it was a status quo that denied credit to George Bush.

on post 9/11

Here was a time for the Left to demand a top-to-bottom house-cleaning of the state and of our covert alliances, a full inquiry into the origins of the defeat, and a resolute declaration in favor of a fight to the end for secular and humanist values: a fight which would make friends of the democratic and secular forces in the Muslim world. And instead, the near-majority of ÔÇ£LeftÔÇØ intellectuals started sounding like Falwell, and bleating that the main problem was BushÔÇÖs legitimacy. So I donÔÇÖt even muster a hollow laugh when this pathetic faction says that I, and not they, are in bed with the forces of reaction.

regardless of how you want to classify Hitchens, whether he is a "true liberal" or "free thinker" or even "neo-conservative", it is undeniable that he has the guts to stand up to any partisanship, is one of the most intelligent political analysts in the world, and has more knowledge of both present and past politics than any of us.

Personally, I find his writings incredibly refreshing, most writings now are just "we are always right because X, they are wrong because Y"

btw- here is what he had to say about Reagan a couple weeks ago (just in case you still think he is a conservative ) <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://slate.com/id/2101842/">http://slate.com/id/2101842/</a><!-- m -->

[Mike]

Sigh, Saddam gassed the Kurds, invaded Kuwait, tortured people who he classified as enemies of the state, and his sons were known for raping random women. Saddam was a problem that needed to be taken care of.

Again, who put us in charge of policing the world?

Politics make my head hurt.

[Sijray21]

No one put us in charge, it's just no one else is willing to offer a helping hand to innocent victims. It's the 'right' thing to do. I do however believe that before foreign policy comes domestic progress and improvement.

Politics make my head hurt.

long discussions of this nature also make my head hurt

[.RJ]

Again, who put us in charge of policing the world?

I wish that Bush had gone into Iraq with the premise of stabilising the ME and removing the dictator rather than "war on terrorism". IMO that's more important, it will reduce the terrorist risk in the future.

[JackoliciousLegs]

One at a time:
Evan, I know he made a recent change to being a conservative and my research on him was more than a skimming Google search.

Rob... rob rob rob...

Bush will get reelected.
Terrorists want Kerry to be elected so our troops will pull out of the Middle East and continue killing. So I guess he has international support.
WE WERE ATTACKED ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. Have we been attacked since?
I didn't think so.

ahem. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/powell.terror/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ ... index.html</a><!-- m -->
We are not safer because Bush made us attack an unrelated country. Don't make blanket statements like that.

Why did terrorists not attack when Clinton was in office? Probably chance, but could be that Clinton actually put money into foreign aid. Could be that he worked towards peace by promoting it... not promoting war. Yes, we reacted similarly to the raid of Pearl Harbor, but there, we had an enemy with an army and a clear cut war plan. now, the only enemies we've made are because of our reputation. We were not helping that by bombing Iraq... without international support. We are angering the world with our "Americentrist" view...(ROB) That's why we're still a huge target for terrorist attacks. Bush doesn't realize that it matters what other nations think of us.

[Sijray21]

We are angering the world with our "Americentrist" view...(ROB) That's why we're still a huge target for terrorist attacks. Bush doesn't realize that it matters what other nations think of us.

For the most part we are becoming targets of terrorist acts because of what we have and how we view it. We have incredible opportunity and promise in further economic, technological, and social progress, but the majority of americans are not as hard working, not as appreciative as the rest of the world with what they have. I think if we net to realized and appreciat more of what kind of opportunity we have and just how lucky our lives are.

I don't agree that Bush should've entered Iraq with the claim of weapons of mass destruction, but i think he just should've entered claiming to help the Iraqi people. I still think it was the right thing to do even if i don't believe he did it the right way. I do believe however that terrorists hold a much more spritual, non-business, mentality.

[Mike]

stabilising

George is getting to you...

[ViPER1313]

Sigh, Saddam gassed the Kurds, invaded Kuwait, tortured people who he classified as enemies of the state, and his sons were known for raping random women. Saddam was a problem that needed to be taken care of.

Again, who put us in charge of policing the world?

Politics make my head hurt.

Did you read my entire post?

[Mike]

Sigh, Saddam gassed the Kurds, invaded Kuwait, tortured people who he classified as enemies of the state, and his sons were known for raping random women. Saddam was a problem that needed to be taken care of.

Again, who put us in charge of policing the world?

Politics make my head hurt.

Did you read my entire post?

:lol: Nope, I just did now though. I got pissed off enough by the first sentence that I quit, I apologize

[Maengelito]

We are not safer because Bush made us attack an unrelated country. Don't make blanket statements like that.

isnt saying that we're not safer a blanket statement. personally i like the fact that our current administration isnt lying down when people fuck with us.

Why did terrorists not attack when Clinton was in office? Probably chance, but could be that Clinton actually put money into foreign aid. Could be that he worked towards peace by promoting it... not promoting war. Yes, we reacted similarly to the raid of Pearl Harbor, but there, we had an enemy with an army and a clear cut war plan. now, the only enemies we've made are because of our reputation. We were not helping that by bombing Iraq... without international support. We are angering the world with our "Americentrist" view...(ROB) That's why we're still a huge target for terrorist attacks. Bush doesn't realize that it matters what other nations think of us.

again, more blanket statements. and we did get attacked during the clinton administration. world trade '93? the uss cole? there were more, but i cant remember the name of the place i'm thinking off. just clinton was too pussy to do anything except launch tomahawks that didnt hit anything significant. al qaida wasnt founded on 9/10/01. they've been around for a long long time, and their views on terrorizing others has gone way past promoting muslim ideals and basically is pissing everyone off, not just americans.

W. '04!

[G.Irish]

While I don't particularly agree with Bush's policy I do think that responding to the threat is better than nothing at all. I think that his black and white world view is dangerous and could cause more problems than it solves.

Then there's the questionable conduct of his cabinet. His cabinet has amassed quite a record of questionable conduct including disregarding Freedom of Information requests, trying to circumvent the constitution, ignoring the Geneva conventions, outing a CIA operative, and the infamous no-bid Halliburton contract. This has definitely been the shadiest cabinet in a long time. Looks like Ashcroft will not be with Bush next term at least.

I can find many reasons to dislike Bush other than some of his misteps with foreign policy but for the life of me I find few reasons to like Kerry. I hope one day the 2 party system gets overhauled so we don't have more races of choosing the lesser of two evils.

[JackoliciousLegs]

Efforts to pass a constitutional amendment to effectively ban gay marriage failed in the Senate on Wednesday afternoon. :HOORAY: No discrimination in the Constitution!!!

[.RJ]

NIMBY

[Feersty]

Efforts to pass a constitutional amendment to effectively ban gay marriage failed in the Senate on Wednesday afternoon. :HOORAY: No discrimination in the Constitution!!!

Yuck.

[Mike]

sounds like rob is a homophobe.

[Sijray21]

sounds like rob is a homophobe.

he sure likes the ladies, don'tcha rob :wink:

[paint's picture]On the way home from hyperfest weekend Rob's head out the window checking out the brunette chick from the promoters of afterhoursonline.com[/paint's picture]

i would have looked too, but i was driving...and she drives a cavalier... :roll:

ps: went to site (afterhoursonline.com), it's not free so therefore it sucks

[Evan]

Jack Im still waiting for you to try to talk your way out of this comment

Why did terrorists not attack when Clinton was in office?

[Ryan T]

I know this was talked about back on page one, but heres my view on guns:

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I think everyone has the right to own a gun if they want too. I personally own 3: two rifles and a handgun. But do you guys see me shooting people? no. If personal gun ownership was banned people would just find another way to murder people.
I do hunt on occasion, but even if I didn't, I would still own a gun or three. Whether we need a militia or not has nothing to do with whether or not I should own a gun. If there is something threatening in my house or on my property, I'll call the police, but not before I make sure that I am armed. Thats my view, take it for what its worth.