Who is Starving who?Posted by Bob R on 2/19/03 at 12:55 (109842)
Excuse me,Nancy who starved them? What has Saddam been doing with oil revenues?
Re: Who is Starving who?nancy s. on 2/19/03 at 13:02 (109843)
sanctions, bob. even the conservative media acknowledge what they have done to the everyday men, women, and children of iraq.
Re: Who is Starving who?Sharon W on 2/19/03 at 13:20 (109845)
The CONSERVATIVE media?? Are you talking about the media within the US?? I disagree with that characterization. To an extent, the media does try to report on what political leaders are saying and doing, and to reflect on the political ambiance within the country -- but I would hardly call them 'CONSERVATIVE'!
Re: Who is Starving who?nancy s. on 2/19/03 at 13:36 (109847)
i see and hear both liberal and conservative media in our country; i see and hear more of the latter than the former -- that's my own experience. but i see and hear both, sharon.
i was simply commenting on what those portions of the media considered conservative have acknowledged, sharon. it certainly is easy to be misread on the board these days. let's not get all worked up before doing a reality check on your impression or misimpression.
Re: Who is Starving who?BGCPed on 2/19/03 at 13:46 (109849)
Saddam has gold doorknobs on everything. He has SEVERAL huge palaces. He skims the oil money that should go to food and meds for his people but it is our fault? I thought he signed an agreement when we finished in 91 that he wouldnt do that?
He is a criminal and a sociopath so 'rules' and 'laws' dont matter to him. That is why I am sure when he gets killed they will dance in the streets, at least a large percentage of them.
We didnt take oil when we protected Kuwait so I really dont buy the ignorant easy argument that it is Bush being a cowboy to go over and steal oil.
An old wise dead white guy once said 'people deserve the government that they tolerate' Thank God we have the ability and guts to snuff him out. He is a rotten bastard and is not worthy of sharing breath up here wih humans. HE is responsible for the situation and the plight of his people
Whats the inverse? let him sell tons of oil all over, get more money? Maybe he will stop being nasty? No he will expand his empire and spread more death and hate. Sorry if I dont sound compassionate but that is the reality.
I wish we could send him a cyber hug, a caserole and some herbal tea and make him nice but that wont happen anytime soon. He has played games with inspections for over 10 years. The game is over
Re: Who is Starving who?Sharon W on 2/19/03 at 14:08 (109853)
'Conservative' and 'Liberal' are categories perceived differently by different people. I doubt if my perceptions of 'conservative' would agree with yours.
Re: Who is Starving who?nancy s. on 2/19/03 at 14:18 (109856)
this is very interesting. why is it that people get so mad -- so furious -- at those who suggest we ought to be looking for solutions other than war?
i'm no apologist for saddam hussein (come on now, really). i'm fully aware of what the man is like and has done. you, bg, are putting words in my mouth when you write about 'cyber hugs' and 'herbal tea,' and you are purposely misrepresenting the point of my post, in which i DID say that the world DOES have to remove dangerous dictators.
that we disagree on how that might be done seems to be impairing your civility, as i noticed it did earlier this week.
i tried to offer my thoughts calmly, and so far i've had three shrill responses. this is no dialogue, and it only serves to remind me that, historically, very few people make good leaders.
but continue to spew venom if you wish. i find it nasty, uncalled-for, and sad.
Re: Who is Starving who?orson on 2/19/03 at 14:20 (109857)
well welcome back nancy, that is just what it's been like for me these last few days.
Re: Who is Starving who?nancy s. on 2/19/03 at 14:56 (109860)
i doubt they would too, sharon. i don't have a problem with that. do you?
Re: Who is Starving who?nancy s. on 2/19/03 at 15:16 (109861)
thank you, orson. i read your earlier post and thought you made some very good points, on both sides of the issue. your reasonable tone was refreshing.
Re: Who is Starving who?BGCPed on 2/19/03 at 15:37 (109865)
Well Nancy I dont recall using your name, actually I never thought of you personally when I wrote that. I just used an example of what I think some people may feel would fix the problem.
Everyone and anyone can have an opinion. When I use a persons name, which I dont have a problem doing, thats when I mean it directed at a person.
Re: Who is Starving who?Ed Davis, DPM on 2/19/03 at 15:48 (109867)
There really is not much room to argue your point. The mainstream media is predominantly liberal in the US. One only has to look at the statistics concerning polls taken in national elections -- those in the media overwhelmingly voted for Gore in 2000.
Re: Who is Starving who?nancy s. on 2/19/03 at 16:01 (109870)
actually, ed, i think there's quite a bit of room to 'argue' that point, as there is to discuss most points. i've seen from my catch-up reading on the board, though, that you rarely seem to think there is room. and of course, that's your right.
would you agree that tom brokaw and the nbc nightly news are mainstream media? on the nightly news (sunday or monday, i forget which, i was on the road), he termed the weekend global protests 'horrible.' hardly a liberal, or even neutral, characterization.
Re: Who is Starving who?Sharon W on 2/19/03 at 16:35 (109873)
I have no problem with agreeing to disagree on the meaning of 'conservative.' But I actually DO have a problem with the way that the words 'conservative' and 'liberal' are frequently being used in these political discussions AS IF WE ALL AGREED on exactly what is meant by those terms. The truth is, there are many 'shades of grey' in each of these categories I'll bet it would be difficult to find two random people on the street who agree on exactly what they mean when they use those words.
BTW, a comment on your response to Dr. Ed, below: I don't know how Dr. Ed feels about it, but -- while I would happily agree that Tom Brokaw is 'mainstream' media, I would never call him 'conservative'.
Re: Who is Starving who?nancy s. on 2/19/03 at 17:04 (109878)
sharon, i agree with you: it would indeed be difficult to find two random people on the street who agree on exactly what they mean when they use the words 'conservative' and 'liberal.' these are convenient catch-all terms for the purposes of discussing different political leanings, but you're right that there are many shades of gray, and these terms -- like most terms describing categories of people -- really can be only generalizations and therefore are limited. for example, i am 'liberal' in many areas, but not all. and i usually vote independent or democratic, but have voted for republicans when i thought they were the best candidates.
i don't know what i'd call tom brokaw, but his characterization of the weekend's protests as 'horrible' is indicative of something, isn't it? actually, i think it matters little how people working in the media vote (in answer to ed's 'no room for argument' percentage). they have jobs to do, and they want to keep them. most of the mainstream media in this country are owned by a total of about six huge corporations. those working for them have to be mouthpieces for them, if they want to keep their jobs and remain upwardly mobile in their careers. the last time i checked, the huge corporations were not democratic mouthpieces; it's the republican party that is widely known to be pro-big-business.
we have a democratic governor in my state, plus two democratic u.s. house representatives and two republican senators, the latter of which sometimes agree with the bush administration and sometimes don't. our biggest state newspaper editorializes all over the place in favor of every bush attitude and proposal, including his war, whereas it prints tiny articles on page 17 about the u.n. inspectors in iraq turning up and squashing new saddam weapons. the newspaper is owned by gannett.
Re: Who is Starving who?john h on 2/19/03 at 19:31 (109898)
I do not think any of us would disagree that Ted Kennedy is a Liberal and George Bush is a Conservative. Numerous studies indicate a liberal bias by the national news tv networks. Fox is perhaps the only large network that would be considered conservative. Without question radio talk shows are Conservative by any means you measure them. Deomocrats have made attempts to try talk radio but have failed to attract listeners. Mario Quomo being one the latest to fail. On the various studies there were criteria used to measure what a liberal was and what a convervatie was. Many Liberals due not want to be labeled as Liberals especially members of Congress. I have no problem in my mind by obserrving their post who some would label as Conservative or Liberal. I make no bones about it I am a certified Conservative on most issues where Liberal and Conservatives differ. There may be some areas I differ and some subjets that are almost impossible to deal with such as The Right To Life or Womans choice. Our country seems about evenly split on this issue. Basically the South, Southwest and much of the west would be considered Conservative. The Northeast without doubt is the stronghold of Liberalism and to some extent California. There will always be Liberal and Conservatives and I seriously doubt we will change each others minds. As a nation I doubt we will ever see a President elected running as a Liberal. Democrats usually win at the presendial level running as a centrist. Like it or not voters run in mass from the word Liberal. Clinton was not really very liberal in his views. Hillary is very much so even when he was Governor of Arkansas. Who is the last President that could be really described as a Liberal as in the line of Ted Kennedy. Today John Kennedy would almost be described as a Conservative. Times change. The solid Democratic South is now the Solid Republican South. Unions and African Americans are solid supporters of Democrats. It is sad we vote along these lines but it is the result of politicans doing what ever they can to get the votes. One place I can get riled up about and that is putting politics into the securtiy of our nation. There is no room for that and I do not care who the Commaner in Chief is be he/she Democrat or Republican. When the troops go into battle you dont need protesters in the street.I still remember being cursed in San Francisco and watching Jane Fonda in a gun position in Hanoi while our planes and guys were being shot out of the air. We have an all volunteer force of young men and women who sitting in the desert and they will charge when the word is given and not look back. There are over 200,000 of them in the mideast as we talk. I wish i was young enough because I would be right there with them. We have survived as a nation and people can protest because men and women have died to give them that right.If men and women had not gone to war we would not be here.
Re: Who is Starving who?BGCPed on 2/19/03 at 19:53 (109902)
Well said John. Thank God there are/were men like you in this country. I made a point the other day regarding this conflict. When the fighting starts you wont see but maybe 1 out of 100,000 us soldirs go awol or surrender. On the other hand, like Kuwait there will be several Iraqis that will lay down their gun for a sandwich and some water.
The point being they dont have much of a fighting spirit. One has to ask why they dont believe very strongly in their cause? Why will so many give up so easily? It is a rather simple question in my opinion
I am younger but my Father faked his birth certificate at 16 to go over in WW 2. I remember driving in the car when I was small and he would tell me to salute any military uniforms that were walking or in stores. We also had a national guard armory near me that had tanks and jeeps that would sometimes drive by.
Again thanks a million for you and any of your buddies that fought or died for this country
Re: Who is Starving who?BGCPed on 2/19/03 at 19:57 (109903)
Orson, I ws just curious, since you are a long time observer when did you start posting?
Re: Who is Starving who?nancy s. on 2/19/03 at 20:43 (109914)
john, you know i think the world of you!
much of what you wrote here makes sense to me and eloquently expresses the complexities of politics in our time.
i did get lost toward the end, and i know this doesn't surprise you. i agree that some wars have helped preserve our rights and freedoms, and i never forget that and the immense courage it must have taken to be a part of those efforts. (for one thing, my father served in the navy in the pacific from 1942 to 1945; one ship he was on was torpedoed and sunk, and he and only a handful of the hundreds of men onboard escaped with their lives.)
the rights we have that thousands have died for: aren't we supposed to exercise them? if the right to protest what millions see as a too-soon and possibly unnecessary war has been salvaged for us, do we honor those who salvaged it by keeping our mouths shut when we think our government has gone astray? and when we think hundreds of thousands of troops are being put in harm's way too soon and possibly unnecessarily?
the questioning of authority may not always be right in a given circumstance -- but i don't think we'd be here without intelligent questioning either.
i am deeply sorry you were cursed in san francisco. it was wrong, and it shouldn't have happened. but i protested then against the decision makers who continued for years to put you and yours in an untenable situation, and i will always do so when i think it's happening again -- unless *all* else has failed and war becomes absolutely necessary.
we each have to do what we believe is right. i know of no one who thinks protesting is a fun thing to do; most are anguished by today's situation and are acting according to their own consciences and values, and according to what they believe is right for you, me, our country, our world. right now, my 82-year-old world-war-two-veteran father is one of them.
Re: Who is Starving who?pala on 2/19/03 at 20:43 (109915)
bgcped, orson is a neighbor of mine who borrows my mac from time to time. he follows this board when he does because he is a runner. i do not think he has ever posted before. i hope he posts again. his post was a bastion of sanity in a sea of horridness.
i live in a ghetto and many folks here cannot afford a mac. they use mine. they have also been following some of this, and i have been discussing it with them. . one said she can't believe we are in foot pain and this is how we are spending our time. so, a few voices from the 'hood.
i am afraid you are stuck with me. and so far orson has not seen the comments back to him and he probably won't till he needs the mac again.
Re: Who is Starving who?Ed Davis, DPM on 2/19/03 at 20:52 (109922)
Tom Brokaw has taken liberal stances on the majority of issues in the past.
I don't think I would question his liberal credentials just because he diverged one one issue.
Re: Who is Starving who?nancy s. on 2/19/03 at 21:17 (109928)
what tom brokaw said two or three days ago was simply one example, ed. he was not the main point of my post, as i'm sure you're aware. nor was he the main representative of my view of the motivations of the mass media, which i went on to express to sharon and see no need to repeat to you.
Re: evasionLarson on 2/19/03 at 22:02 (109935)
Fascinating Clitonesque evasion tactic on the part of Nancy. Bring up a subject, then deny that was the point. Guess it depends on what your definition of 'is' is.
Re: Who is Starving who?john h on 2/19/03 at 22:24 (109940)
Once the shooting starts it is my opinion as one who has been two years in a hot war the time for protesting should cool down. I or any veteran who ever was alive in her time will never forget Jane Fonda in Hanoi in that gun turrett while our people are being shot down. There have been protesters in every war including both World Wars. Sometimes the protesters may be right and sometimes they may be wrong. Being wrong on the wrong side of a war and their will be no protest. You do not see any protest in Bagdad. If for no other reason than human rights violations Saddam should be brought to justice. We heard a lot of noise about getting involved in Kosovo with a different administration but we stopped the killing and senseless slaughter of people and brought another mad man to justice. If one thinks Saddam is just going to go away, stop killing his own people, making war on his nighbors, and plot to kill Americans then protest a possible war. Eleven years of UN sanctions have done nothing but empower him. We have looked the other way on other occasions. In the early 30's even France could have stopped Hitler. Their are some people like Saddam,Pol Pot, Hitler that do not go away. Sometimes you have to defend your freedoms. There is a price we have to pay and it is sometimes in the blood of our defenders. I have never been more frightend in my life than in war so I do not take lightly the consequences of war.I cannot imagine anyone hating war more than someone who saw it up close and personal. There is no glory on the battle field only death and destruction. War as seen on TV is not like being there. You do not have the smells, feel the fear. and know you will be dead at any moment. Still we as a nation are here because we took up the cause and fought the battles. Some may not have been necessary but you never know which battle is necessary and which on is not. You had better not lose a war and sometimes not getting into one can ultimately lead to your downfall.If you live long enough you see the same mistakes made over and over. We rarely learn from history.
Re: evasionnancy s. on 2/19/03 at 22:27 (109941)
i'll try to make this as simple as possible for you, larson:
i asked if tom brokaw and nbc would be considered mainstream media.
i mentioned tom brokaw's use of 'horrible' to describe the protests.
i mentioned it as an example of the fact that the mainstream media do not always paint the info they put out with a liberal brush.
i did not say that tom brokaw is a conservative.
i did not say that tom brokaw is a liberal.
i did not speculate on whether tom brokaw votes democratic, republican, independent, green, or purple.
i don't care how tom brokaw votes. i care about the adjective tom brokaw used on monday night when describing the protests.
if this is 'evasion,' i think you have some studying up to do, my friend.
hope that's simple enough, because this little point has died of boredom.
Re: Who is Starving who?BGCPed on 2/19/03 at 23:00 (109954)
Thanks for the honest response pala. I was just pointing out that orson only had 2 posts in 2 days. Nobody is stuck with you pala. dont leave or stop posting, I enjoy reading your opinions. Us conservatives are very tolerant of other views. Lets all keep talking until it gets old but dont bail due to some feelings of being treated bad
Re: Who is Starving who?pala on 2/19/03 at 23:05 (109956)
why bgc, something decent being said to me? i'm gonna plotz.
Re: Who is Starving who?nancy s. on 2/19/03 at 23:15 (109958)
hey, that's nice, bg. Thanks for making this post (to pala), and also for clarifying for me earlier what you meant by another post. i really do appreciate it. it's been nuts here today. of course, i actually like a lot of nuts! but some have been, um, over the top.
Re: Who is Starving who?D.Thomas on 2/20/03 at 09:02 (109986)
I would add Stalin to that list of people who do not go away.
Plus, I believe that I can disagree with a war, but once our troops are sent, I give them 100% support, no matter what, even if I disagree with the President or whatever is going on at the time, I will always support the people who are on the front line.