Gonads Alert!!! Is this a trend developing?

[Dr Wogga]

The AP reported today that Dale Petroskey, the president of the Baseball Hall of Fame, has canceled a 15th year annivesary celebration of the movie Bull Durham because of anti-war criticism by this generation's Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon.

According to the AP, Petroskey wrote: “We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important — and sensitive — time in our nation’s history helps undermine the U.S. position, which ultimately could put our troops in even more danger. As an institution, we stand behind our President and our troops in this conflict.”

When our leader, George Bush, shows the balls to stand up to tyrants, others will follow. Hopefully this is the start of trend that will "Sensitize" the liberal loud-mouths who's dopey self-serving comments, regardless of intent, have the reverse effect of encouraging our enemies and demoralizing our troops. Also, hopefully, Americans have learned to never allow another Hanoi Jane a free pass, a free shot at givnig aid and comfort to the enemy while our kids our fighting for our freedom. Shame on you Susan Sarandon. Bastard! God bless America. God bless Dale Petroskey. USA! USA! USA!

[Clarkmeister]

Yeah, nothing is more American than censorship.

[MMMMMM]

Just how is that censorship? The President of a company decides NOT to do something again, because the Association doesn't like the star in that movie anymore. Susan Sarandon got to speak her mind. Now people don't like what they heard so they don't want to see her movie again. That's consequences, not censorship.

All across America, people are boycotting movies which showcase those Saddam-supporting stars. It's not censorship, it's just people voting with their wallets.

Stars certainly have a right to free speech. And Americans certainly have a right to not purchase entertainment products which put $ into the pockets of anti-US, pro-terrorist, pro-dictator, stars.

Free speech is their right. That doesn't mean that everything they say is forever immune to natural consequences.

I'm not going to see that Roman Polanski film which one reviewer called "the best movie of the year." I'm not going to buy anything Michael Moore is associated with. If O.J. Simpson decides to market some great new golf ball, I'm not buying it. That's not censorship, that's just FREE CHOICE.

FREE SPEECH, FREE CHOICE---Long live the USA.

[Parmenides]

Hey Nazi loving Kapo, give it a rest. Everyone here knows that you hate Muslims, that you hate Blacks, that you hate your own people, and that you love fascists. You don't have to remind everybody everyday.

[Clarkmeister]

M,

That specific act isn't censorship, but the sentiments of Woogs post definitely are pro-censorship and silencing of anyone who disagrees with the administration. I don't think he would deny it either.

[Dr Wogga]

....it is as M stated, an exercise of another American right, the freedom of CHOICE. The Sarandon crowd spoke their piece and I think it was despicable. However, I do not deny them their right to say it. I will CHOOSE to do something about it which is my right. The issue with anti-war protests is that once the war starts, continuing to speak your mind, on such a public forum, is IMO morally wrong. It encourages the enemy and deflates our own troops morale. I take issue with that and consider it giving aid and comfort to the enemy. If you feel different fine. That's what makes the USA a true democracy. You say tomato, I say to-mah-toe. However, let me be clear that I LOVE WHAT THIS GUY DID. LOVE IT TO DEATH! Americans who are fed up with the politically correct anti-war CAN do something about. Exercise OUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Boo hoo liberal anti-war commies. Boo hoo.

[Dr Wogga]

....when Cyrus, nickyg, Chris Alger post day after day their anti-USA, anti-Bush rhetoric diatribe? No, because you AGREE WITH THEM. Now if all you want to do is make personal attacks, it must be because you are on the wrong side of this issue. And probably you don't like anybody rubbing your face in it. Boo hoo. More and more Americans are going to start standing up to the politically correct enemies of America and you guys better start getting used to it. Boo hoo.

[ACPlayer]

censorship - to censor.

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

Somebody with the authority and ability to do so, suppressed the showing of Bull Durham because of he considered it objectionable. This then violated my ability to vote against Susan Sarandon by not viewing the material, if i so choose to do.

Susan's statement is not censorship, my not viewing the object is not censorship, but someone making the decision for me could be considered censorship.

[MMMMMM]

"Susan's statement is not censorship, my not viewing the object is not censorship, but someone making the decision for me could be considered censorship."

Not in this case, because you are perfectly free to go see Bull Durham on your own, or to rent it at any video store. Nobody's preventing you from seeing Bull Durham.

The President changing the format of the celebration can't be called censorship. Hell, he's free to pick any movie he wants for the occasion, especially if lots of members object to one certain movie--which appears might well have been the case.

[MMMMMM]

Just to pick up on something in your post, I think Political Correctness is in itself somewhat anti-American, in a very subtle and insidious way. I'll have to mull this over for a few days and see if I can put my finger on why.

Anyway, bending over backwards so as not to offend people is absurd--people are always going to be offended--and I suggest that except in the case of the most blatantly derogatory racist remarks, offense is primarily in the eye of the beholder.

If people are going to venture outside of their house they should learn how not to take offense. What are we raising here, a society of wimps who can't function for the rest of the week if some jerk happens to call them a jerk???

[adios]

I'm sorry but your post is absurd. That's like saying a movie theatre that doesn't show x-rated movies is practicing censorship. Well they are but there're allowed to since IT'S THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY!!

[andyfox]

Only a person who has a warped view of America would think it correct that it citizens are not allowed to speak their mind. Why is it wrongheaded political correctness when liberals don't allow conservative to speak their mind, but oh so American when conservatives don't allow liberals to speak?

Those who would stifle criticism, especially at this important and sensitive time in American history, are profoundly unAmerican. Shame on you, Dr. Wogga.

Democracy is messy. Those who would clean up that messiness at the expense of our freedoms are on the road to being just as deplorable as our enemies.

[andyfox]

Sarandon and Robbins are not "Saddam-supporting." They opposed the war.

[andyfox]

"once the war starts, continuing to speak your mind, on such a public forum, is IMO morally wrong."

How can speaking one's mind be morally wrong? Suppose the United States was killing civilians deliberately and we found out they were lying about it? Wouldn't it be morally wrong not to speak against it?

We cannot have a democracy only when it is convenient. What makes us strong is allowing freedom of speech precisely at those times when the going gets tough.

If you have any evidence that either Sarandon or Robbins, or any other prominent liberals who opposed the war, either in the public eye or on this forum, are communists, I would be interested in having you share it with us. In Vietnam, we got involved in an immoral war precisely because those who had the gonads to suggest policies that were against the general grain were fired for doing so. They too were accused of being communists and we ended up with millions of dead, included 50,000 American caskets.

[Dr Wogga]

,,,,Susan Sarandon is not worthy of anything more than being spat upon. Imagine if.......blah, blah, blah. All you liberal clowns were on the wrong side of this. You can't admit the president had the gonads to do what he did and it came out soooooo successfully. You guys don't like having your politically correct, left-wing, elitist, "I know what's best for you" agendas rammed right back at you. You guys have been on the wrong side so much, the only ones with longer losing streaks are the red sox, the cubs, and the arabs.

[Dr Wogga]

....here comes more of the lefty loser diatribe and parsing of words. You guys were wrong and can't bring yourself to admit it. Voicing anti-war sentiments is absolutely a GOOD thing. Having a difference of opinion and hashing it out is a GOOD thing. But only BEFORE we got to war. Imagine your kid is over there and commie idiots like Martin Sheen and Susan Sarandon are trashing your commander-in-chief - WHILE YOU'RE IN THE THEATRE OF WAR???? People are protesting in all the major cities of you're own country WHILE YOU'RE IN THE THEATRE OF WAR. And you CONDONE this Andy Fox??? You think this is just peachy-keen and very American. Not only are these actions reprehensible and irresponsible, they ARE un-American, even treasonable IMO. Go to hell all you anti-war leftist losers. All of you, Shame on you Andy Fox. May you never see your child take a bullet in the back or have your kid paraded around on al jazeera as a POW, while your "heroes" parade around with anti-war signs. Go to hell.

[MMMMMM]

er...andy...to oppose the war is in effect to support Saddam, even if that is not the primary motivation of the antiwar activist.

No war means Saddam remains in power: butchering, torturing, murdering and raping right along. So to oppose the war means to take a position which, if successful, virtually ensures the continuation of Saddam and his totalitarian, sadistic regime. Thus, for all practical purposes, the antiwar position is inseparable from the pro-Saddam position, even if the underlying motivations may be different.

[andyfox]

To oppose the war is not to support Saddam. That would only be the case if the only options were support for Saddam or war.

Their is currently a holocaust of sorts going on in North Korea, with their leader's policies have led to hundred of thousands of people starving. Since the president has not announced a war against the madman who rules North Korea, does this mean he supports him?

There are plenty of other tyrants who we do not support; the fact that we don't remove them from power by going to war against them does not mean we support them.

I might, by the same token, say that the president is a supporter of violence. It might not have been his primary motivation in going to war, but the result was violence.

[andyfox]

Great post title. I wish I had liked the content more because it seemed so promising.

Your use of CAPS makes me think that perhaps I have upset you. So in order to calm you down, I'll do this: I was wrong. Going into Iraq was the right thing to do. The administration was correct and I was wrong in opposing it.

There.

Now what does this have to do with someone saying the opposite? The essence of America is the ability to do so. We're allowed to criticize our country's policies. It's part of what makes this country such a great place in which to live

Yes, I condone it. It is essential for our country to condone it. Otherwise our leaders could do whatever they want without fear of the citizenry opposing them. This is how Saddam Hussein ruled. I didn't see very many people demonstrating against his policies. It is part of what made him reprehensible. It is the essence of unAmericanism.

I note you have again called people communists and I welcome any evidence you can provide for this.

And BTW, Martin Sheen and Susan Sarandon are not my heroes. They're actors.

And if I go to hell, and it's certainly a possibility, I'll be sure to stop by and say hello.

[John Cole]

"Baloney and poppycock and treason and dirtbags . . ."

These are a few of my favorite things?

As you say, the best way to stifle dissent is to go to war. Surprising there aren't more of them.

[andyfox]

"These are a few of my favorite things."

-Funny, the song that came to my mind was the one that ends with "rainbows and lollipops and lollipops and rainbows."

"Surprising there aren't more of them."

-There will be. Not to worry.

[ACPlayer]

Not quite.

If it is the policy of the theatre to not show XXX movies then it is their policy as defined by their marketing objective. If however, they routinely show XXX home movies but for example decide not to show a home movie of Slick Willy and ML making out in the oval office simply because they are politically inclined not to then that is censorship. If however, they do so, based on a survey of their target audience (perhaps they are playing in Cambridge MA) then that would be a marketing decision.

Whether they have done something illegal in their act of censorship can be debated. Censorship is not about the legality of the act, but the act itself.

So, in the example, yes this is censorship. Is it illegal maybe not maybe yes? Similarly banning reading of Fanny Hill because of its sexual overtones is censorship, whether it is legal or not is upto debate.

Cheers

[andyfox]

You shouldn't hold it in, Dr. It's bad for you. Let it out, release the tension. I know what's best for you.

There, there, isn't that better?

The "imagine" I posted above happened in my lifetime. Had the citizenry marched in lockstep, as you suggest, the murderers would have had a free hand. I love what my country stands for and that it allows me to say when I think it is wrong, when I believe it has spat upon its principles.

[Cyrus]

"...happened in my lifetime. Had the citizenry marched in lockstep the murderers would have had a free hand."

If the United States the woggas of this world fantasize about actually materializes, the country will have won all the wars but lost its soul. And the roadmap as laid out from the Ashcrofts and the Cheneys points toward that direction precisely. Them woggas are excited for a reason.

[Parmenides]

Imagine the millions being lead to the ovens, and you said nothing because you were an assimiliated Jew that tried to support the German troops. That's the image I have of you, Dr.Wogga.

[MMMMMM]

Banning reading of Fanny Hill is one thing, while deciding to have a public reading of a different book at your yearly celebration this year is another.

[MMMMMM]

But andy, the only options are continuation of Saddam's regime or war to remove him. He and his sons and his Baathists just aren't stepping down otherwise, and obviously the peasants can't overthrow them...they even tried before after we had pretty well softened the way for them--and were ruthlessly cut down by helicopter gunships. There really are only two options with Saddam.

We aren't yet confronting other tyrants in the same way, so your argument about other tyrants will have to wait until we do--and then it must be considered on a case by case basis. "When and if"--I think these cases will highlight a similar dilemma: anti-war folks will in effect be lobbying for continuation of these brutal regimes.

If we can successfully transition Iraq to a kinder, gentler, more representative government, and if we can do it with minimal bloodshed (which appears to be the case thus far), then I would hope that the anti-war folks would come around in their thinking.

Iran's populace is ready for change and even revolution; the populace of Iran is progressive by Arab standards while the mad ayatollahs are Dark Age throwbacks. They execute people daily for dissent or religious crimes. Iran supports terrorism and provides much weaponry to terrorists. So Iran is probably due soon. If and when we embark on this project, and if the Iraq affair appears to be going better than your pessimistic expectations, I hope you will favor freedom not repression for the people of Iran--even if it takes the help of U.S. Marines to dethrone the ayatollahs.

[andyfox]

I don't agree that the only options are continuation of the regime or war. And even if I did, this still wouldn't mean that since I was against the war, I'm pro-Saddam. Dwight Eisenhower was against fighting a war with the USSR, was he "pro-Stalin"?

[adios]

"To oppose the war is not to support Saddam. That would only be the case if the only options were support for Saddam or war."

Let's put it this way, if you don't want the removal of Saddam then it's tacit support for him. Unfortunately the only way to remove these oppressors is by force.

"Their is currently a holocaust of sorts going on in North Korea, with their leader's policies have led to hundred of thousands of people starving. Since the president has not announced a war against the madman who rules North Korea, does this mean he supports him?"

No but it does mean that China and South Korea have a great deal of influence in that part of the world. Diplomatically it's a much different situation. The litmus test is do you prefer "Crazy Kim" be removed or not IMO. I don't think there is any doubt that the current administration would like to see him removed. I'm not so sure that this was the case with many anti-war protesters regarding Saddam. If the North Koreans present the threat that Saddam presented I'm sure the situation will heat up.

"There are plenty of other tyrants who we do not support; the fact that we don't remove them from power by going to war against them does not mean we support them. "

True. No nation has the resources to do such a thing. How many of these nations present the threat that Saddam presented i.e. how many produce WMD's and support state sponsored terrorism who has a primary objective to inflict terrosist act's against the USA on it's own territory?

"I might, by the same token, say that the president is a supporter of violence. It might not have been his primary motivation in going to war, but the result was violence."

That seems like a poor analogy but maybe not. I wonder how many more terrorist events such as 9/11 have to occur in this country to convince the unconvinced that there are real threats to our security and our way of life. I can guarantee there will be many more if we do nothing to stop them. I believe that if I was a member of Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, etc.; any country that supports these monsters; even North Korea; I wouldn't feel all that secure about my status.

[andyfox]

The United States has proved itself expert at removing people from office it doesn't like by methods short of invasion by 250,000 troops. I've heard nobody who opposed the invasion support Saddam Hussein. The "you're either for us or against us" rhetoric is sort of like asking if you've stopped beating your wife: we've set up a method of dealing with Saddam Hussein. If you don't agree with our method, you're against us, and therefore, pro-Saddam Hussein.

The administration hasn't removed Castro by force, is it pro-Castro?

I don't see the huge threat that Saddam allegedly represented. That doesn't mean I'm "pro-Saddam." I hope I'm wrong, but I think this war will make us less safe from possible terrorist attacks. I believe there is some truth to the claim that when you drop a bomb and kill one terrorist you risk creating ten more.

I would prefer to see "crazy Kim" removed from power. One would hope that his replacement would be less crazy. But if the administation decides not to invade North Korea, it would not make Bush "pro-Kim." It would mean that he prefers to deal with the situation by other means.

[Chris Alger]

It's interesting that the most profoundly ignorant people are always the ones that most want to see Americans sacrified in war, and assuage their guilt over their bloodlust by claiming that this is how they "support" the troops. As if to say: "I'm on your side. No go out give me the emotional satisfaction that I crave by killing and getting killed." Probably has something to do with "gonads."

[Cyrus]

Dwight Eisenhower was against fighting a war with the USSR, was he "pro-Stalin"?

Stalin was far more dangerous to the U.S. than Saddam ever dreamed of being. But the reality was that the U.S. would take an unacceptable risk by confronting the Soviet Union with military means. The reality now is that the U.S. attacks Iraq because it can.

There's a fine article written by a Cambridge professor of History, the honorable Mr David Runciman, reviewing a book. In it is the following analogy:

<ul type="square">A man armed only with a knife may decide that a bear prowling the forest is a tolerable danger, inasmuch as the alternative - hunting the bear armed only with a knife - is actually riskier than lying low and hoping the bear never attacks. The same man armed with a rifle, however, will likely make a different calculation of what constitutes a tolerable risk. Why should he risk being mauled to death if he doesn't have to?[/list]
The writer also elaborates on the colossal significance of the events of September 11 on the psyche of the United States. He posits that with Gore elected as President, the U.S. would still have gone to war, in Afghanistan and Iraq. With President but no 9/11 attack, the U.S. would probably not have gone to war. And if the 9/11 attack had happened to a European capital such as Paris or London, the Europeans might have gone to war, and the Americans might have tried to solve that through diplomacy.

The crucial difference in the current, real situation is that Americans have seen a sight (a perception of reality) that has marked them indelibly and has shaped their fear into a concrete vision : they (think they) have seen a bear in the woods armed with a gun.

A Bear Armed with a Gun (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n07/runc01_.html)

[adios]

"The United States has proved itself expert at removing people from office it doesn't like by methods short of invasion by 250,000 troops."

So we're always doomed to live in the past. I see. If I'm not mistaken there has been an acknowledgement by our government that these activities were wrong and laws were passed accordingly.

"The "you're either for us or against us" rhetoric is sort of like asking if you've stopped beating your wife: we've set up a method of dealing with Saddam Hussein. If you don't agree with our method, you're against us, and therefore, pro-Saddam Hussein."

I really don't know where this comes from. All I know is that I read a lot of blistering cricism of Bush and virtually no outrage at Hussein policies from the anti-war faction. Did I miss something or were Hussein and Bush in direct disagreement?

"I don't see the huge threat that Saddam allegedly represented."

That doesn't surprise me at all. It further validates my claim that many people believe that 9/11 was some sort of fluke event.

"That doesn't mean I'm "pro-Saddam." I hope I'm wrong, but I think this war will make us less safe from possible terrorist attacks."

Why would it? I think it's been a real eye opener for the Arab world in many ways.

"I believe there is some truth to the claim that when you drop a bomb and kill one terrorist you risk creating ten more."

I believe that confronting the terrorists and their sponsors is a much better approach. Where the hell is bin Laden anyways? What a friggen coward that guy is, we show up, the bullets start flying and that guy crawls under some rock so to speak seemingly afraid of his own shadow forever. Where's Saddam now btw? And these are the kinds of people that are asking for the ultimate sacrifice? I believe this form of hypocrisy is not lost on the Arab world.

"I would prefer to see "crazy Kim" removed from power. One would hope that his replacement would be less crazy. But if the administation decides not to invade North Korea, it would not make Bush "pro-Kim." It would mean that he prefers to deal with the situation by other means."

Ok but it's a much different situation diplomatically. Even Kim knows there's limits to his behavior. If he didn't believe it before I'm sure he believes it now.

[andyfox]

"So we're always doomed to live in the past. I see. If I'm not mistaken there has been an acknowledgement by our government that these activities were wrong and laws were passed accordingly."

-C'mon. We still engage in subverting governments and getting rid of guys we don't like. The congress gave the president the right to go after the guys responsible for 9/11 and to protect us from terrorism. If we could do it with 250,000 troops and an invasion, I don't see how one could say the president wasn't authorized to do it by covert means.


"I really don't know where this comes from. All I know is that I read a lot of blistering cricism of Bush and virtually no outrage at Hussein policies from the anti-war faction. Did I miss something or were Hussein and Bush in direct disagreement?"

-I cannot speak for the anti-war faction, but I'm always more outraged when my leaders betray our ideals than when a foreign leader does it. There is no disagreement about the hideous nature of Hussein's rule. There was disagreement about what to do about it, about the United States' role in the world, about who was responsible for 9/11, about how much of a threat to us Hussein was, and about the wisdom of an invasion. A person who opposed the war is not pro-Husssein or against the U.S. They disagreed with a policy of the United States.


That doesn't surprise me at all. It further validates my claim that many people believe that 9/11 was some sort of fluke event.

-There was never any claim by the Bush administration that Hussein was responsible for 9/11. The claim, and I think there was ample evidence to prove it, was that Al Qaeda was responsible and that Bin Laden and his henchmen were operating in Afghanistan with the approval and backing of the Taliban. I thought going after the Taliban and Al Aqeda in Afghanistan was the proper thing to do since they killed 3,000 Americans.

"Why would it? I think it's been a real eye opener for the Arab world in many ways."

-Undoubtedly. See below.

"I believe there is some truth to the claim that when you drop a bomb and kill one terrorist you risk creating ten more."

I believe that confronting the terrorists and their sponsors is a much better approach. Where the hell is bin Laden anyways? What a friggen coward that guy is, we show up, the bullets start flying and that guy crawls under some rock so to speak seemingly afraid of his own shadow forever. Where's Saddam now btw? And these are the kinds of people that are asking for the ultimate sacrifice? I believe this form of hypocrisy is not lost on the Arab world.

-Bin Laden is in the Hamptons with Puff Daddy and Martha Stewart. (Had to lighten this up a bit, sorry.) I don't think that those in the Arab world predisposed to see Bin Laden and Hussein as anti-imperialists will see Bin Laden and Hussein as cowards. Rather they will see them as fighting the monster, the great satan, that invaded a country. Unless we intend to go into every country that might harbor people who think that way and kill them all, I can't imagine there will no be blowback from this war. I sure hope not.

"Ok but it's a much different situation diplomatically. Even Kim knows there's limits to his behavior. If he didn't believe it before I'm sure he believes it now"

I must not be making my point well. My point is that because one doesn't approve of the foreign policy of the Bush administration, one is not ipso facto pro-Saddam. If tomorrow the Democrats proposed giving a 48 hour warning to Kim, after which time if he didn't comply with our demands, we would invade, and you explained why you felt it was wrong to do so at this time, would that make you pro-Kim just because you didn't agree with going to war?

[andyfox]

Author Roger Kahn is withdrawing from an appearance at the Hall. Said Kahn, "By canceling the Hall of Fame anniversary celebration of 'Bull Durham' for political reasons, you are, far from supporting our troops, defying the noblest of the American spirit. You are choking freedom of dissent. How ironic. In theory, at least, we have been fighting this war to give Iraqis freedom of dissent."

Kahn understands what America is about more than Mr. Petroskey or Dr. Wogga do.

[MMMMMM]

andy, YOU are not pro-Saddam, but your position effectively is, because there was simply no way short of war to remove Saddam (save little gray men from Sirius doing it). To argue otherwise is to postulate some pie-in-the-sky remedy, which can't even be outlined in even the most rough fashion--that's how farfetched it is.

USSR? I said each must be considered on a case-by-case basis. The case of USSR is vastly different because attacking the USSR would have been more dangerous and difficult. However to not dethrone Saddam Insane and his murderous Baathists while having the power to do so relatively easily would in effect be a pro-Saddam position, and a position against the people of Iraq, thereby consigning them to further decades of repression, torture, terror and murder.


"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

[MMMMMM]

I would prefer to see ALL of these tyrants removed from power (by one way or another), and hopefully, shall not be disappointed.

[andyfox]

Mr. Eisenhower, YOU are not pro-Stalin, but your position effectively is, because there was simply no way short of war to remove Stalin (save little gray men from Sirius doing it). To argue otherwise is to postulate some pie-in-the-sky remedy, which can't even be outlined in even the most rough fashion--that's how farfetched it is.

Attacking the USSR would be dangerous and difficult. However to not dethrone Crazy Joe Stalin and his murderous Bolshiviks while having the power to do so, despite its difficulties, would in effect be a pro-Stalin position, and a position against the people of the USSR, thereby consigning them to further decades of repression, torture, terror, and murder.

Maybe this is what the John Birch Society meant when it called Eisenhower an agent of the Communist conspiracy.

[MMMMMM]

You are neglecting to factor in the casualties, human suffering and expenses that would have been involved. In the case of war with the former USSR, the casualties, time and expense would have been enormous on both sides. In the case of Iraq, the casualties have been very light as wars go, and if one extrapolates Saddam's internal murder/torture rate over the next decade or two, it should be obvious that this war will save many Iraqi lives in aggregate. The same could not be said with such confidence regarding a war with the former USSR.

You have to consider all the major relevant factors. The differences between applying this approach to the former USSR and to Iraq today are enormous.

[Cyrus]

"In the case of war with the former USSR, the casualties, time and expense would have been enormous on both sides. In the case of Iraq, the casualties have been very light as wars go."

This reduces to the logic of doing something not so much on the basis of the danger itself as to the difficulties in dealting with it. I have already addressed this argument (which cannot be easily dismissed!) in a previous post, about a certain bear.

As long as American administrations view the world as being hostile and alien like a bear to a hunter, theyb will thumb opponents, not on the basis of the degree of danger, but because (and whenever) they can ! This is the logic of the hunter. Which, in the human world and in relations between people and nations of peoples, is the logic of the bully.

The bear in the woods (http://www.twoplustwo.com/forums/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=exchange&amp;Number=240489 &amp;page=0&amp;view=expanded&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1)

[adios]

Military Coup vs. Revolution of the People

illegitimate govt. vs. legitimate govt.

[MMMMMM]

Not 'reducing the logic', but considering all major elements, is my point.

andyfox is essentially saying that the argument fails with Iraq because it does not apply well to the former USSR. This is not so because of the vast differences in the respective scenarios.

And far from being a 'bear' which changes aspect based upon the viewer's mindset, Iraq was indeed hostile and dangerous: to others, and to its own people (and even to its own regime , since Saddam eventually murdered all but one of his original sixteen fellow Ba'ath party members).

Iraq's regime was overthrown with minimal loss of life, and Iraq now has prospects for a much brighter future.

Even the anti-war liberals should be dancing in the streets at the results thus far. Just because their judgment was off is no cause not to celebrate, or to continue to hold disproven positions. A very good thing has happened in Iraq, and compared to other major wars the pain has been minimal. I want to hear some liberal cheers if they are serious about hating tyranny and oppression.

[adios]

"I want to hear some liberal cheers if they are serious about hating tyranny and oppression."

I suspect you'll have a real long wait. I found it interesting that there was a street demonstration in Baghdad I believe saying "Yankee Go Home." Things already have gotten better for the people in Iraq.

From a historical perspective, the US was an isolationist country for the most part pre WWII. The communist regimes of the Soviet Union did have some legitimacy in my mind. The Russian Revolution and the desire to seek an alternative to capitalism make the situation much different than the situation with Saddam. I just don't see where governments that come about by military coups have any legitimacy.

[IrishHand]

I just don't see where governments that come about by military coups have any legitimacy.
A valid point, but what exactly do you think has transpired in Iraq over the past month?

[andyfox]

I was objecting to being called "pro-Saddam." My point was that simply because one objects to or disagrees with a particular strategy which might result in removing Saddam from power, one is not "pro-Saddam." There were some in positions of power in the early 1950s who wanted to liberate the Russian (and other) people from the Communist yoke of the USSR. Because President Eisenhower, for example, did not choose to engage in such a liberation did not make him "pro-Stalin." He choose, for reasons that M points out, to contest Stalin by other means.