Blogs that suck time

my pooTUBE
my pUtube
my poopics

avoid the bummerlife

need to reach me? pedalhome at hotmail

Wednesday, August 09, 2006


so ... do any other "leaders" jump on the 'stop the iraq war' bandwagon after this publicized debate?

i don't care if it's just political pandering - only dems fearing that they'll lose a seat if they don't swing to the majority's whim. i really don't.

anything to stop this stupid gawdamn war.


shawndoggy said...

How do you stop the war? I mean, I can see how we can declare victory and leave (which you know I think is a bad idea, even though I agree we got there for B.S. reasons), but how will that end the war? Most of the people dying are iraqis, and if recent news reports can be trusted, their hatred for their fellow man at least matches their hatred for us. Translation: we leave, we get to see what a "real" war looks like.

I'm all for the Iraqi people choosing their own political destiny, even if it's contrary to Washington's wishes. And I'll concede that our own country was born from defiance and violence. But when the iraqis become more intent on killing each other than building a government from the ashes, well... I didn't like that we stood aside and watched Rwanda happen so I doubt I'll be happy with declaring victory and watching the iraqis pull one another limb from limb.

Anonymous said...

war is ugly...escaped the Vietnam war in '75...all we had was family photos and birth certificates...being a refugee sucks...

life can be unfair...but for always for a reason

VeloRainDog said...

it sure is nice to see grassroots politics actually succeed. lamont wasn't even looking to run. people came to him.

Dr. X said...

Good points S-Dog - we're only there to secure our oil supply. We could END our need to be there by scaling back the ole' oil habit. Then let the Iraqi's battle it out; my guess is they'd go with a 3 state solution for the 3 major religeous factions. Might work to end their war, but that's up to them. I see nothing wrong with pandering to peace and wish more of the high profile politicos would do so. Problem is avoiding the 'flip-flop' backlash from The Right.

Olaf Vanderhoot said...

sDog ~ how exactly do you allow yourself to gloss over the "i agree we got there for B.S. reasons"?

we have waged an illegal invasion of a sovereign country. The first step in stopping this war is recognizing that fact. UN Res. 1441 was not a mandate to invade Iraq.

As we've discussed before, I am strongly in support of a UN presence taking over the creation of a stable Iraq. And you also remember that I believe we should be the ones footing the bill, as well as paying war reparations to Iraq, mostly in the form of paying for all infastructure rebuilding costs.

Are Iraqi's "more intent on killing each other" as you say? I don't think any non-Iraqis are really all that qualified to make that judgment. However, I do believe that fighting a colonial power fuels violence in other forms.

And so, the first step in ending this war is coming to grips that it is an illegal war and we are the criminals.

The second is that we must, MUST realize that Iraq will never be "stable" while we have a military/colonial presence there. Never.

History tells us that no military can occupy those lands.


shawndoggy said...

we're only there to secure our oil supply...

Someday we'll come to see this rationalization as a quaint whitewashing of the truly bizarro REAL end-of-days, vengance-for-daddy, neo-colonization motivation. But it is comforting for now to hold on to the (logical, if distasteful) explanation that the war was motivated by greed.

shawndoggy said...

History tells us that no military can occupy those lands.

From a purely occupational standpoint, Saddam got the job done pretty well. Sure, he was a ruthless tyrant, but sometimes that's what the people need, ya know?

That's really our problem with the whole thing. We are too self rightous to concede publicly that war is messy and that all sorts of bad things happen in war; but at the same time we're too self conscious to rule with an iron fist.

Nobody F'd with Saddam because if you did he'd raze your village and then laugh in your face about it (right before he shiv'd you in the neck).

Us... we'll raze your village and then say we're really sorry and make an insufficient reparation...

Little_Jewford said...

Hey, it hasnt been a bad trip for all of Iraq:

Olaf Vanderhoot said...

sorry, occupying military.

shawndoggy said...

sDog ~ how exactly do you allow yourself to gloss over the "i agree we got there for B.S. reasons"?

Flandria said it better than I can:

life can be unfair...but for always for a reason

History is replete with deplorable activities. My forefathers forefathers forefathers descimated the native populations on North America. They brought slaves here. Before that their ancestors were feudal serfs and before that their ancestors paid tribute to Rome. Life, even in the generational sense, can be a bitch.

Reparations are a loser's tax. They aren't about making anyone whole (really, that can never happen), they're about kicking the loser in the grill while he's down. If there was a time, please demonstrate when a sovereign nation not on its knees in full surrender has voluntarily paid reparations. Do you know what happens if you give a mouse a cookie?

Olaf Vanderhoot said...

oh lord, you think we aren't going to be 'losers' in this war?


there is no 'reason' attached to this war in any shape or form.

reason has taken a backseat to this action.

and what? ... so you're saying that since people have been shits in the past, we get free chits to be shits now?

that's a useful system.

Velo Bella said...

I'm not going to step into the war debate.

Today is the 51st anniversary of Nagasaki by the way.

But back to the Lieberman thing. I am glad for the statement made, but can't help but wonder if some of the democratic party's glee over the win, is akin to shooting themselves in the foot.

shawndoggy said...

No I'm saying that a perfect "fair" world doesn't exist.

And while we're on reparations, how about we just call it even on Iraq's $120B-ish debt to foreign banks and the $350B reparations that they still owe for Desert Storm?

I mean if the UN says pay reparations, Iraq should pay them too, right? Or is it unfair to make Iraq pay since Saddam was a tyrant? And if that's true, why should I pay for GWB's misadventures? Lord knows I didn't vote for him.

Olaf Vanderhoot said...

not shooting in foot,

finding balls.

you win with balls.

X Bunny said...

thank you for the reminder, vb

i was going to do a post on that but clearly haven't gotten around to it yet

sad day
so unnecessary, especially 3 days after hiroshima's bombing

Velo Bella said...

the liberal dems, for all of their hollywood rabble rousing, are notoriously apathetic come national election day

lets hope they keep their balls till then

shawndoggy said...

Really to get the F out of Iraq all the dems need is a good ad campaign that shows young men and women coming home disabled while their local schools crumble, gas prices rise, and the deficit soars. Make the choice an economic one, with choosing a repub being the more expensive choice. In short, appeal to voters' greed.

Olaf Vanderhoot said...

democratic apathy ...

well, we've cast more votes in the past two national elections.

just had them stolen on both accounts.

more and more, the war will be an issue, not of the left ~ but of the majority. what are the latest numbers, 60% not in favor of the war? who knows what the real numbers are ... but, if you listen to someone like Lamont's presentation of why the war needs to be stopped ... it's not uber-lefty like i am. it's not any 'burn the government' crap like i throw out. it's a stout decision that the war was wrongly decided upon and more than poorly executed. and it's time to stop and pick up on ignored home issues.

that's not lefty-loosey like me.

that's just common sense.

Velo Bella said...

thats exactly what was supposed to happen last time...

Velo Bella said...

And yes, that view is now considered the majority view, but thats not who's banging their fists about it right now.

my point is not in the message thats being delivered, but who is doing the delivering. And how loudly. One has to be careful of how ferociously one bashes its own.

the far right is going to see the likes of Moore and the Hollywood gang doing their romp and stomp, and they are going to get scared.

And they vote.

And they'll find that dude in Iowa, that doesn't like the war, but doesn't like Hollywood weirdos even more.

Nome Agusta said...

There are two ways to stop a war.

Option 1. Nukes
Option 2. Stop fighting.

I prefer option 2. Leave the folks in Iraq to their own devices, no matter how much we try, we will never change their ideals.

UN? Come on, let's not start replacing one BS propaganda machine with another. That's like replacing your 105 shifters with Veloce. It's still low end.

PAB said...

uh, aren't there important bike racing issues that we all should be discussing??