the band plays on

[mnaz]

Britney Spears sold 1 million CDs of Hot Bubblegum Snatch or whatever last year, and the collected works of Alexander Scriabin probably sold 1000, if that. So is Britney 1000 times better than Count S?

No, but in your example, Hot Bubblegum Snatch or whatever has the popular support of the people, which you (erroneously) tried to claim the Iraq war also has, via the polls, as a means of justifying Bush's continual warmongering as "the will of the people".

Give War a chance

We did.

And Ax... those nukes (and nuke waste) are not a joke.

[Axanderdeath]

yeah maybe--but whos to say "life" will not go on--have you ever read comic books--"comic" books seem to look on the bright side alothough some good mutants will have to fight bad mutants--and the mind reading thing...

[Totenkopf]

No, you are misconstruing what I wrote. I said there are various polls and different results, depending on what source you refer to, and that support for the war waxes and wanes (and the polls show that). So using polls as some proof of something is not really convincing--and I do think the pop music analogy is relevant. The other point is simply about consensus: liberals continually suggest that consensus (say a popular vote) is good, even when idiots of left and right are voted into office. Even VI Lenin had no problem ending votes, whether at parlimentary level or via the population (of course, an old socialist gal put a couple of bullets in VI for doing that).

That said, I agree nukes should be dismantled: tell that to the Russians who have been developing nukes at about the same rate as the US for the last decade or so (google some pics of the "Tree", or the new Migs for phunn, or say the Chinese infantry (outnumber us by probably 3 to 1))

[Axanderdeath]

No, you are misconstruing what I wrote. I said there are various polls and different results, depending on what source you refer to, and that support for the war waxes and wanes (and the polls show that). So using polls as some proof of something is not really convincing--and I do think the pop music analogy is relevant. The other point is simply about consensus: liberals continually suggest that consensus (say a popular vote) is good, even when idiots of left and right are voted into office. Even VI Lenin had no problem ending votes, whether at parlimentary level or via the population (of course, an old socialist gal put a couple of bullets in VI for doing that).

okay lets keep it simple:

do you A think the war is good and ha ha
Bthink war is going to happen weather we like it or not so might as well be a cynical prick
c hate war and have to laugh so you won't cry

----you two are funy. the polls and links are fucking stupid--you all do it--look if you read something do every one else a fav. and dumb it down give the jist of it!!!

[Totenkopf]

Let's put it this way: in chess, there are a variety of strategies and tactical methods. And sometimes you can like do really well strategically by sacrificing a few pawns. Not pretty, but your opponent ain't there to chant sutras with ya. Maybe when Muslims put down their Korans and pick up, say, Hobbes---or Thomas Jefferson--people might stop playing chess or engaging in battles. But the USA may be inexorably phucked anyway, and in a situation where strong US military presence in Middle East is needed to prevent total collapse, and more carnage (and if you want some ugly gonzo read about the Iran-Iraq battle of 80s--probably a million dead ). Yr in the asshole of the world, whereever you izz. RedrumVille. (On occasion I sympathize with some of the radical lesbians [at least the more rational ones] who more or less claim that males--- of all races---- tend to be more or less genocidal freaks).

[mnaz]

.... support for the war waxes and wanes (and the polls show that).

.

Yeahbut... the major polls (even FOXNews) have been continuously below 50 pct. for well over a year, and now we're at a record low. I'm not sure what polls you're citing.

So using polls as some proof of something is not really convincing

Weren't you the one who brought it up?

The other point is simply about consensus: liberals continually suggest that consensus (say a popular vote) is good, even when idiots of left and right are voted into office.

You could substitute "right-wingers" for "liberals" in the above statement.
The vote is polling, right? So first you use ("fluctuating") polls to argue that Bush must have some sort of mandate from the people to wage ill-conceived war endlessly, and now you (apparently) express contempt for polling altogether. Which is it? Should we ditch any pretensions to representative government and essentially separate the President from any accountability whatsoever to "the people"?

That said, I agree nukes should be dismantled: tell that to the Russians who have been developing nukes at about the same rate as the US for the last decade or so (google some pics of the "Tree", or the new Migs for phunn, or say the Chinese infantry (outnumber us by probably 3 to 1))

Can't argue with any of that. I think we need a bigger army. Ar-ma-ged-dun's a comin..

[mnaz]

Let's put it this way: in chess, there are a variety of strategies and tactical methods. And sometimes you can like do really well strategically by sacrificing a few pawns.

Yeahbut, at some point, continuing to sacrifice pawns and treasure for an obstinate, boneheaded failure of a foreign policy strategy misadventure is counterproductive, no?

But the USA may be inexorably phucked anyway, and in a situation where strong US military presence in Middle East is needed to prevent total collapse, and more carnage (and if you want some ugly gonzo read about the Iran-Iraq battle of 80s--probably a million dead ). Yr in the asshole of the world, whereever you izz. RedrumVille.

Alternatively, in a situation where a strong US military presence (and narrow insistence on a political solution acceptable only to a dwindling few hardcore neocon illusionists and Bush himself) in the Middle East is exactly what's not needed, due to its manifest, unfolding steady progression toward total collapse and more carnage...

Speaking of devastation, the Iran-Iraq war of '81-'88 is a prime example. Once again, self-interested, hypocritical U.S. militarism disguised as "foreign policy" prolonged that eight-year tragedy, though no US troops were actually deployed to my knowledge. But the US backed Saddam's aggression for years with helicopters and various weapons and other military assistance, turning a blind eye the whole time to SH's use of chemical weapons. Ahh, what a wonderful world we populate.

[Totenkopf]

I'm no expert in the Iran-Iraq conflict, but it does appear the Iranians were invading Iraqi territory and attempting some type of coup. And the Baathists were considered the more "western" of the two countries. I don't think the US had that much to do with it; muslim hysteria of course did--tho' yeah there was probably an issue about who was going to control the oil fields. And the Iranians were using gas and modern weaponry as well. And yeah like maybe you, Poet, could pen a cool ode to like chemical warfare, or say Mustard Gass......"O faire Gas.................."

[mnaz]

I'm no expert in the Iran-Iraq conflict, but it does appear the Iranians were invading Iraqi territory and attempting some type of coup.

Well, the Iranians were (vocally) displeased at Saddam's sudden, violent rise to power (as we all might have taken note from Day One, all ye newly-minted, self-proclaimed right-wing "humanists"). However, it was Saddam who invaded Iran on 9.22.80, not vice versa. Initially (ironically), Iran went into battle (to defend itself) with a U.S arsenal (left over from the days of the Shah), and Iraq did their (more aggressive) counterpoint state-sanctioned mass-murder act with mostly Soviet equipment. But that all changed over the next few years, to the point where weapons flooded in from so many corners of America and Europe and the Far East, etc. that it becomes a bit of a depressing jumble to sort through.

But make no mistake about it. The United States sided with Saddam the Murderor and Aggressor in this conflict, whatever the justification at the time. As wiki summarized it:

"The war (Iran-Iraq war) saw the use of chemical weapons, especially mustard gas and sarin, by Iraq. International antipathy toward the Tehran regime meant Iraq suffered few repercussions in spite of those attacks. After the war, the UN eventually condemned Iraq for using chemical weapons against Iran. Chemical weapons had not previously been widely used in any major war since the Second Italo-Abyssinian War"....

Ahh, evolution...

Further, "According to Iraq's report to the U.N., the knowhow and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France, China...."

And, "According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 to secretly give Iraq military intel that Iraq used to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops".... etc. etc. etc. It goes on and on, this war machine, trust me.

Have a nice day.

And yeah like maybe you, Poet, could pen a cool ode to like chemical warfare, or say Mustard Gass......"O faire Gas.................."

Seems a little more suited to your talents, with all due respect, of course.

[Totenkopf]

The Iraqi "invasion" was about reclaiming land which Iran had annexed right after the Ayatollah K. came to power: and AK and the radical shiites were claming that they wanted to re-take Iraq (and that turf war went back centuries).

"Even if before the outbreak of the conflict there had been some encroachment by Iran on Iraqi territory, such encroachment did not justify Iraq's aggression against Iran—which was followed by Iraq's continuous occupation of Iranian territory during the conflict—in violation of the prohibition of the use of force, which is regarded as one of the rules of jus cogens."

[mnaz]

Goes back centuries, or whatever.

So now what?

It seems you're basically agreeing with me here, in this post.

(which really throws me off... man, don't do that!)...

[bohonato]

First, I liked the poem.
Second, I know the conversation has moved passed this, but the Democrat party is stronger in the US that the Republican, or GOP. However, Democrats tend to vote across party lines, whereas Republicans tend to vote for their own party.
Third, some poetry regarding Chemical Warfare:


Down at the arsenal they keep the nerve gasses
Guarded day and night by caged white rabbits
Been sitting there for years
I'm gonna have at it
I cut through the fence, run right in and grab it
Go crazy crazy crazy crazy:

Now I got my own mustard gas in my pocket
Climb on a tree on a branch and drop it
On a country club full of Saturday golfers
So I can watch them die chokin' shakin'in convulsions
Go crazy crazy crazy crazy
Crazy crazy crazy crazy:

Chemical Warfare Chemical Warfare
Chemical Warfare Warfare Warfare

Panic in the air
See the headless chickens runnin'
Golf carts head on crashin'
Crackin' heads wide open
Scratch the grass, mister, you can't breath
And roll and writhe in a sandtrap
Starting to heave
Claw those clubs, lemme see you seethe
Crazy Crazy Crazy Crazy Crazy Crazy

Chemical Warfare Chemical Warfare
Chemical Warfare Warfare Warfare

Yellow air
Yellow clouds
Blowin' down down down the fairway
Sensitive to the touch
Mowin' down the putting green
Heading straight for the big clubhouse
Where the stuffed country club
Effervescent ladies, so carefree
Relax, pose by the pool
Limber limp with a dry martini
Until

Oh, Jello.

[Totenkopf]

It seems you're basically agreeing with me here, in this post.

No. I take issue with one, your insistence, or at least suggestion, that pacifism is always good, and two, that non-intervention in 3rd world politics on the part of western democracies results in "better" politics or more just societies. And I think the I-I war--as case study-- demonstrates the madness of Islamic theocracy as well. Somebody, the UN, the Hague, ChomskyCorp., even the hicks of the US Army--should have stepped in to stop the I-I nightmare.

[mnaz]

I take issue with one, your insistence, or at least suggestion, that pacifism is always good, and two, that non-intervention in 3rd world politics on the part of western democracies results in "better" politics or more just societies.

Never said, or suggested, anything of the sort in this thread-- I refer to the ongoing Western misadventure in Iraq in particular, nearly four years into its long-running (and tragic) miscalculation as policy and counting. Haven't you been following along? Or do you just like to hear yourself argue? And why argue endlessly in favor of policy which has quite apparently failed?

And I think the I-I war--as case study-- demonstrates the madness of Islamic theocracy as well. Somebody, the UN, the Hague, ChomskyCorp., even the hicks of the US Army--should have stepped in to stop the I-I nightmare.

Yeah OK, tough call, complex situation with many global players over many years, etc. However, one could just as easily argue that I-I demonstrates the madness of ill-advised deadly Western interference in Third World Politics.

I gotta go get a life now.

Excuse me.

[Totenkopf]

Failed. A bit of a claim: in comparison with what Hussein and the Baathists would have done had he not been toppled? Yes, by this reasoning we should have let them manufacture chemical weapons and allow terrorists safe passage, and not done anything as they purged the population of shiite and kurds, and executed "undesirables" such as prostitutes, homosexuals, adulterers, drug users.

Some of us "have a life" (the retreat to ShatnerSpeak not so poetic, man).