"T right here in San Francisco" or: Deadheads For Obama
It's sad that so many are politically misguided. I don't get it. Picking one side or the other, this nation is just about split right down the middle. As long as it stays that way, there will be hatred by the left for the right, and scratching of the head by the right trying to figure out exactly why the left thinks in such a twisted way. The election in November won't be won by more than a 2% margin, I guarantee it. Just more bickering and more of one neighbor disagreeing with another over the issues. How many people will be satisfied with the outcome? Roughly 50% and that's not many.
And then things just suck even more when politics and great music clash. They did not blend nicely together, clashing indeed a few nights ago... and in a very ugly way. (Hey, that's my opinion AND it's the truth so bite me if you don't agree!)
Concerning the Deadheads for Obama show, here's a comment left by Shipley on Dead.net that I truly appreciated and concur wholeheartedly with...
And then things just suck even more when politics and great music clash. They did not blend nicely together, clashing indeed a few nights ago... and in a very ugly way. (Hey, that's my opinion AND it's the truth so bite me if you don't agree!)
Concerning the Deadheads for Obama show, here's a comment left by Shipley on Dead.net that I truly appreciated and concur wholeheartedly with...
| One of the things I have always loved about the Grateful Dead is that they kept their names and their music out of politics; they left the bickering and grand-standing to those who pandered to the media and the mass public; when everyone else was letting themselves be consumed by controversy, the Grateful Dead created a sanctuary from all the ado by continuing to just play beautiful music. The Grateful Dead has always been about the music. I can't say I'm thrilled about these recent changes. |
Neither am I.
~
Before wandering into the mp3 world, I used to go to SugarMegs quite often... it's just too bad all of their shows are in one long .wma file. Man, what a treasure trove that would be if it wasn't for that. Ahh well. Still, even though the owner's politics are wayyyyyyyyyy off to the left from where they should be, what they do have makes for some good listenin'.
I've been checkin' for this one for a few days now. A pretty good idea I had that they'd have this up soon enough. Instead of waiting until who knows when, maybe 2009, maybe 2015 or whenever to get the discs (maybe never, it's definitely not on my priority list) I decided to check out this good-for-listening download and see if hopefully I can enjoy the tunes despite the benefit they were played at.
~
Before wandering into the mp3 world, I used to go to SugarMegs quite often... it's just too bad all of their shows are in one long .wma file. Man, what a treasure trove that would be if it wasn't for that. Ahh well. Still, even though the owner's politics are wayyyyyyyyyy off to the left from where they should be, what they do have makes for some good listenin'.
I've been checkin' for this one for a few days now. A pretty good idea I had that they'd have this up soon enough. Instead of waiting until who knows when, maybe 2009, maybe 2015 or whenever to get the discs (maybe never, it's definitely not on my priority list) I decided to check out this good-for-listening download and see if hopefully I can enjoy the tunes despite the benefit they were played at.
| ||||||
John Molo: also on drums
Jackie Greene: guitar, keyboards and vocals
Steve Molitz: keyboards and vocals
Jackie Greene: guitar, keyboards and vocals
Steve Molitz: keyboards and vocals
1st Set: Playing in the Band*-» Brown-Eyed Women†,
Mississippi Half-Step Uptown Toodeloo†-»
New Minglewood Blues*, Come Together*
Mississippi Half-Step Uptown Toodeloo†-»
New Minglewood Blues*, Come Together*
Acoustic Set: Deep Elem Blues, Friend Of The Devil, Deal, Ripple
Electric Set 2: China Cat Sunflower*†-» The Wheel*†-»
The Other One*-» Sugaree*, Eyes Of The World*†-»
Throwing Stones*-» Iko Iko*†-» Playin' Reprise*†
The Other One*-» Sugaree*, Eyes Of The World*†-»
Throwing Stones*-» Iko Iko*†-» Playin' Reprise*†
Encore: U.S. Blues*†%
* with Mark Karan on guitar
† with Barry Sless on pedal steel guitar
% with Hippie Bill
First time for Phil, Bobby & Mickey to be playing together since 2004. Not a bad show. Two drawbacks for me: with Mickey there really shoulda been a Fire On The Mountain! Many of the faithful would not have cared too much for his version but oh well. It was cool to hear Mickey sing Iko to make up for no FOTM.
And also, I don't especially care for vocals by Jackie Greene. No offense to the guy but the tunes that he sings, these days I'd just rather hear them sung by Bobby or even by Phil. One exception maybe -- Sugaree. Jackie does a good job, not Jerry good, but together with the whole band: niiiiiiice!!!
Not a whole, whole lot of jamming, nothing really blows the mind... just a nicely played few sets of tunes. Barry Sless here and there really adds nicely on pedal steel. Too bad Barry's Moonalice bandmate Pete Sears wasn't here this night instead of Molitz. Hey, nothing against Steve Molitz, he's right on the money at times, adding a nice layer of sound just as Sless does... I just like Pete Sears. Hopefully Pete's on the right side of politics and he declined, didn't want to support the tax raising, surrender to al-Qaeda guy or something.
In any case, Blair Jackson's got a pretty nice (non-partisan) review of the show at Dead.net, plus there are a lot of comments from fans, so check that out if you want some extra reading on this night at the Warfield.
As for the recording -- decent. First song I thought not so hot but the ears adjust (at least mine did as they almost always do with an Aud) and the soundboard people adjust, as well, to fill the room with better sound than there is right at the start. Obviously a soundboard would be preferred to be able to pick up Grandpa Phil's bass and Rockstar Bobby's rhythm better... but eh, this ain't terrible.
I know there's video of this show but I don't care about video. Since it was streamed on Sirius satellite radio I've also gotta wonder if there's a decent soundboard... hmmmm, there might be and it might get spread around... all good things in all good time. For now, this is a good listen and I really wouldn't have asked for better so soon.
Recorded by: Ian Stone
Source: Schoeps mk41> kc5> cmc6> lunatec v2> sound devices 722 @24/48
at taper's section, right of center.
Source: Schoeps mk41> kc5> cmc6> lunatec v2> sound devices 722 @24/48
at taper's section, right of center.
(it's all in one long .wma file)
Click Here to listen
and/or right click and save the show Here
(links are broken)
(click the image for a larger view)
see more pics/read more about the show at Dead.net
see more pics/read more about the show at Dead.net
2-04-08 a.k.a. 2-4-08 a.k.a. 2/04/08 a.k.a. 2/4/98 a.k.a. 08-02-04 320 kbps mp3 download & setlist
15 comments:
A conservative war-mongering deadhead makes about as much sense to me as an African-American skinhead, but hey, while rare, both exist. While my capacity to be shocked is long gone, I still am left scratching my head in wonder.
Well, there's certainly nothing wrong with being conservative.
At least a conservative deadhead isn't out to hurt anyone. He or she is definitely using their mind over propaganda fed to them by the most vile and hateful machines out there.
But who'd want to be called "war-mongering"?
What exactly is war-mongering? Looking at the definition of "monger" it says -- a person promoting something undesirable.
Also, transitive verb: To peddle.
Is saying the War in Iraq was right war-mongering? Seems to me that war-mongering would have to come before the fact... like: "Hey, let's go to war with Iran."
Perhaps war-mongering isn't always a bad thing, though. Undesirable war is, yes. But...
Fact of the matter concerning war is sometimes it's needed in this world to defeat evil. That should be obvious. I think anyone who actually wants war is not right in the head. But calling for war when war is needed, well, that's just smart. War desirable? No because of the loss of life and the toll it takes on so many involved. But yes because to appease evil would be worse. Then even worse than that would be the possible consequences of allowing evil to do whatever the hell it wants to do.
Iran is spitting in the face of the United Nations and continuing their path to possess nuclear weapons.
Question: should they be allowed to blow up Israel and commit genocide on a nuclear scale so long as no one uses war to stop them?
Sure, why not!
No. War or attacks (some might call airstrikes war) on Iran quite possibly will be needed in the future. Diplomacy does not always work. How many lines should be drawn in the sand? Right up until Ahmadinejad calls for nuclear tipped missiles to fly through night towards Tel Aviv?
The smart man supports the attempt to derail and/or stop evil even if that means it's going to be a long and bumpy and very ugly ride. But the fool will wish to appease because "war is wrong on any level." War ain't pretty... it kills innocent people... but evil has the potential to kill more.
God Bless the man or woman who will use war for good in this world, to help others so that more won't suffer in the long run.
A conservative war-mongering deadhead
Yeah, yeah, I've been getting the same ignorant comments for years at my place.
Newsflash, Milo - Deadheads and absolute pacifism aren't a prerequisite one for the other.
Relative pacifism has a place and it doesn't mean that those of us who ascribe to that theory are "war-mongerers". Further, being fiscally conservative isn't a crime. Do you thing GDP isn't turning a tidy profit?
I'll leave you with one last thought, a passage I just read in Denis McNally's book "What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been":
"They (good and evil) exist together in their little game, each with its special place and special humors. I dig 'em both. What is life but being conscious? And good and evil are manifestations of consciousness. If you reject one, you're not getting the whole thing that's there to be had."
-Jerry Garcia
All right, I take it back; you’re not a war-monger. To be more precise, you support an administration that in the past have been war-mongerers and who in the present take part in war-mongering. What I find a little disingenuous, is that you go on your political rants and then when somebody disagrees with you, you turn it around and say there’s too much politics, it’s about the music, politics and music don’t mix, blah, blah, blah…
I thought it was pretty funny when Ahmadinejad came to New York. The Daily News and NY Post dedicated almost a week’s worth of covers working out how many different ways they could use the terms Ahmadinejad and evil in their headlines. Sure, the Iranian president is a moron and has SAID very nasty things about Israel and the Holocaust (and that there’s no homosexuals in Iran, ha ha), but what we have sitting in the White House is a man who actually CHOSE to INVADE A COUNTRY PREEMPTIVELY, a country that had not attacked us, resulting in civilian casualties somewhere between 30,000 to 100,000, 9/11 times 10 times 20 times 30. I kept thinking when I saw those headlines that throwing around the term evil about some clown who talks a lot of shit, is kind of bizarre when our president has so much blood on his hands.
Look, on September 11th I lived about a mile due north of the towers. The first plane flew directly over our home. The next day there was a picture of a young lady and a candle burning in the vestibule of the building next door. The woman was a flight attendant on one of the flights the day before. The terrorists had killed my neighbor. For a month the smell of the burning rubble enveloped the city. And the infamous missing posters….it was painful, and it was all around us who were living here. I agree with you that sometimes war is the only option, and I felt that way when we went into Afghanistan. Unfortunately we dropped the ball there, and the country is pretty much in the same shape now as it was before we invaded, just more heroin.
Shortly after September 11, I spent a year traveling around the world. I went through East Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, I went through Africa and Europe. And everywhere I went, people were supportive and extremely empathetic to the tragedy that befell our country. It was amazing, it seemed the entire world felt our pain, that if any good came out of the tragedy it was that it united the world to fight evil. Had we stayed the course in Afghanistan perhaps the world would still be united, perhaps that country would be our shining example of bringing democracy where totalitarianism once stood, perhaps we might even have caught Osama! But, no, it didn’t work out that way. Bush decided to listen to the neo-cons who wanted war with Iraq long before September 11, and now six years later the world’s good will has been spent, and poll after poll shows that we are pretty much reviled all over the planet. Thank you President Bush.
And now with the general election season heating up, when Democrats and Republicans step up the rhetoric and attack each other, we’re going to hear another type of mongering coming from the Republicans: fear-mongering. It’s already begun when Romney dropped out and said "And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
We’re in for a long ten months. God help us.
So we're not in war right now?
There's no one out there who would want to cut off your head, your testicles, too, shove those in your mouth and maybe booby-trap your body to kill whoever finds your mutilated corpse?
Thank God, Milo. I didn't know al-Qaeda declared an end to their quest to spread their brand of Islam around the globe. When did that happen?
But wait a minute. When someone disagreed with something I said, when did I turn it around and then say: "there's too much politics, it's about the music, politics and music don’t mix, blah, blah, blah..." ?
I can't find that.
I'm also wondering why, when you started talking about Ahmadinejad, you then threw it a couple hundred miles south to the White House.
Bush is worse than Ahmadinejad?
Bush is the evil one?
War is hell. It's bloody. Innocent people die. It's not wanted by any sane person.
But it's needed.
Is preemptive war wrong? If it is then Jesus H. Fucking Christ, is there anyone from the days of WWII we can impeach because I don't recall Hitler ever hurting America.
And you seem to be writing off Afghanistan as a lost cause. You could be right a few years down the line but goddammit, why would anyone in their right mind believe that when there's still an active effort to rid that nation of those scum sucking Taliban pieces of shit? It ain't over. It's not as bad now as it was then. Last time I checked, there are no more state-sponsored beheadings in town squares there anymore. Women are allowed to FUCKING VOTE and GO TO SCHOOL. One must have hope for every nation and to write Afghanistan off now would be pathetic.
Oi vey, back to Iraq -- preemptively taking out Hussein was wrong? Let's take the word "preemptively" out, shall we? To appease Hussein was right? 17 U.N. Resolutions in 12 years. The Oil-for-Food program existed primarily to make Hussein and his Baath Party rich men living in luxury while he filled schoolhouses with munitions, not books. He won every election like 99% to 1 and the 1% who refused to vote for him, they went to prison and some were never heard from again. But hey, if he wasn't bothering us, right?
Fact o' the matter is the intel (yes, it was wrong but did we know that? No.) said Hussein was a potential threat and post-9/11 it was a new world where there'd be no threats. NO threats. George W. Bush was going to make sure that no potential threat would harm us here in our nation. Hussein had to go. If only we'd known he was a nutjob who bragged about weapons programs he didn't have... maybe... well, no maybe. He had to go. Period. The world is cowardly when it comes to dictators. The world refuses to act when they should. That kind of bullshit should not happen in the world. You seem to wish for unity among nations... it's a beautiful wish that we should all have. But what about men like Hussein? Allow them to exist? No. Not pieces of shit like that.
Now what about Iran? No preemptive war? Would that mean, in your opinion, it would be better for Iran to obliterate Israel with nuclear weapons than to preemptively stop that from happening?
Hell no.
We'll hopefully have a President who won't draw 17 lines in the sand and allow nukes to be in the hands of an insane asshole who believes his people will be rewarded when Israel ceases to exist.
Look, Milo, it's a fucked up world where we all want peace but war was needed to remove Hussein, it's still needed in Afghanistan and no one better sit on their ass and let Iran get out of hand, which, by the way, they are doing each and every day. And we've also got to wonder what the hell North Korea is up to. For a moment there it looked like they'd go the route of Libya, took a little longer... but now they're stalling and there's speculation that they want to see if a Democrat will get into office, a Dem who will just go on appeasing North Korea just as the world has. Frankly I don't want to wake up one morning and Israel's gone... or maybe L.A.... or maybe NYC. This damn bullshit from these nations has got to stop.
Great world. Fa, la la la la, la la fucking la.
"It was amazing, it seemed the entire world felt our pain, that if any good came out of the tragedy it was that it united the world to fight evil."
To paraphrase James Taranto of the Opinion Journal,
If the world only loves us when we're dying, they can kiss my big red hairy balls.
Milo - I've lived all over the world, and traveled all over the world. I've lived in Arab countries. Anti-American sentiment in the Third World isn't some new innovation post-9/11/01 because we invaded Iraq. For fuck's sake, you folks would have us believe that in spite of the fact that 9/11 happened BEFORE we invaded Iraq.
What was that all about?
I won't even jump on the Iraq merry-go-round. If you ignore UN sanctions, you should expect to get your ass kicked.
I'd like to see the Left oput as much energy into criticizing the Third World JUST ONCE as they do criticizing the US and Israel.
My problem with the war is that, much like in Viet Nam, we are trying to do the hearts and minds garbage.
We have nuclear weapons. We should be using them. The only thing those arab anti-american animals understand is violence and force. They have sworn to destroy us, we have to get them first.
Bush's downfall is that he is looking at the $$$$$... not the solution,
The only way to win is to destroy them completely.
When the middle east is the largest sheet of glss in the world, then the problem will be solved.
The only injury an American soldier should ever have is carpal tunnel syndrome; or maybe tendinitis in the finger that they use to press the missile button.
Mark said "I won't even jump on the Iraq merry-go-round."
Yeah, wonder why that is. Probably because it is the most misguided foreign policy decision since Vietnam, if not EVER. It will go down in the history books as America's great fuck up, and Bush will be lovingly remembered as America's worst president. But, hey, your president and his war need your support since the majority of Americans know it was a big-time disaster.
But, hey, your president and his war need your support since the majority of Americans know it was a big-time disaster.
MY president?
You presume too much about someone you don't know anything about.
I refuse to discuss it with anyone anymore because there are two sides to the coin, and never the twain shall meet. It's an exercise in futility and those opposed invariably stoop to the below-the-belt tactics of name-calling and ignorant assumptive "reasoning".
Milo's a presumptuous person...
"It will go down in the history books as America's great fuck up, and Bush will be lovingly remembered as America's worst president."
Milo, are you presuming or can you read the future? What year will I die? Will Phil, Bobby, Mickey, Billy, Bruce, and Robert Hunter ever so an acoustic tour together? If so, when?
[going into Iraq] "is the most misguided foreign policy decision since Vietnam, if not EVER.
Post-9/11. All the intel said Hussein was a very dangerous leader.
Would the better decision have been to have left Hussein alone?
Is the better decision to wait until we're attacked here at home before we wander into anyone else's land?
What if that insane dooshbag eventually became responsible for deaths outside of his country related to his support of terrorism and/or related to his development of certain weapons? Then the biggest most misguided foreign policy decision EVER would have been to leave him alone.
It's already been established that for peace in the world -- he needed to go. But the world was cowardly for many years and left him to do as he pleased. Talk about an incredible foreign policy screw up.
"But, hey, your president and his war need your support since the majority of Americans know it was a big-time disaster."
Are you an American citizen? If so, he's your president, too.
What if there's stability in Iraq within a few years time? A civil and free nation where evil once reigned -- that'll be a big time disaster?
I guess so if you'd rather have evil.
If Iraq is abandoned before they can be a relatively stable nation on their own, just like any other, if genocide spreads through the land 10 times worse than the death that there has been in the past few years, if Iran (a sponsor of terrorism) is allowed to essentially control Iraq as a state of its own, if al-Qaeda is freely allowed to set up training camps there just as they did under the Taliban in Afghanistan... then yes, Iraq will be a big time disaster.
Let's, then, support all efforts working to make sure that won't happen.
Doesn't that make sense?
Iraq is already a disaster because it has killed 30,000 - 100,000 people in Iraq and taken the lives nearly 4,000 US service members.
Here's some more fortune telling: I just hope the presumptive Republican candidate runs hard on Iraq. It will assure a Democratic victory in November.
And, I never voted for the loser so I don't have to consider him MY president. You can have him.
Over 41 MILLION
civilian deaths in WWII.
Over 400,000
AMERICAN military deaths.
The United States of America getting involved in Europe -- what a waste of life. Nothing but a disaster.
Milo, your pessimism is very infectious among the liberal War is Wrong crowd.
Optimism accomplishes wanted results.
Pessimism does not.
You've still got to understand that war is HORRIBLE... but hopefully the results of war will be more positive than negative.
Iraq's been a sick, bloody, mismanaged, unpredictable mess... and if everyone has no hope for that nation to succeed, every death will have been 100% in vain. You seem to want that. Many in Iraq already see a positive future. If that country does well in the long run, there will still be the sadness from the loss of life... but there'll be the joy that a land has hope and that there's freedom to move forward as so many nations on the planet do. Free from fear. Free. We cherish our freedom here... why must so many live without it? They're just shit out of luck? Freedom should be for everyone... and often it comes with a price. Over 400,000 American military men (and 16 women) died in WWII so Nazism would be stopped from spreading across this entire planet. Two of my grandfathers brothers died in Belgium fighting the Nazi scum. I owe my freedom to war. So do you.
And deny it all day long, my friend, you're an American citizen and your President is George W. Bush because in 2004 a majority of the citizens of this country voted for him. If you don't want him as your President... and if a Republican is elected in November and you don't want him as your President, then move to another country. Give up your American citizenship and separate yourself from us.
"And, I never voted for the loser so I don't have to consider him MY president."
You don't have to, Milo. that's called freedom.
You're also free to make asinine assumptions about the rest of the world.
That's what I love about this country. Even the ignorant among us get to vote.
Mark Said: “That's what I love about this country. Even the ignorant among us get to vote.”
I couldn’t agree more, I am glad you and zoomabooma do get to vote.
zoomabooma said “Over 400,000 American military men (and 16 women) died in WWII so Nazism would be stopped from spreading across this entire planet.”
Oh come on now! Are you seriously trying to compare WWII with the chimp’s excellent adventure in Iraq? That’s just cuckoo talk
The first and most obvious reason the comparison is totally bogus, is that Iraq never attacked the United States. Yes, I know it’s hard to comprehend, but it was a group called Al Qaeda that attacked this country on September 11, 2001. That group was based in Afghanistan, while nineteen of the hijackers were Saudis. That’s totally different than what happened in WWII where the US was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor while our allies were being attacked by Japan’s ally, Germany, in Europe. We went to war with the Japanese and the Germans, see, we went to war with the countries that attacked us and our allies. Iraq? Nope, didn’t attack us or our allies. Perhaps the case could be made that the Iraq war would have been like WWII if FDR, in response to Pearl Harbor, had attacked China.
Germany, as well as Japan were powers with huge resources and a determination to take over the world, a clear threat to the United States. Iraq? Not so much. No imperial ambition, no threat to the United States’ power. A total third-rate power that was a menace mostly to its own people, and hadn’t made any cross-border excursions since it invaded Kuwait in 1990. Had Hitler not been stopped he would have conquered all of Europe and beyond, completed the extermination of the Jews, got a nuclear device and maybe exploded it over the US. Had Saddam never been stopped, he might have written another book of poetry, perhaps a novel….and died.
Germany and Japan had giant, state-of-the-art militaries. Iraq had a rusty old piece of shit (which is why the neo-cons thought it was such a good idea to go there and flex some muscle and tell the Arabs, in the infamous words of Thomas Friedman, to “SUCK ON THIS!”) Iraq was an easy target, a military weakling that we could crumble in weeks if not days. The US went into Iraq to heal its bruised psyche with shock and awe, unfortunately it didn’t work out as planned and it’s been an awful lot of death and destruction for what amounts to a giant therapy session.
The Germans even had WMD. Iraq? No WMD.
During WWII the nation was called to sacrifice, to enlist, to conserve resources, to purchase war bonds. During the Iraq war the nation was given tax breaks and asked to go shopping.
World opinion was on the side of the US during WWII. In fact, it was one the nation’s shining moments. Iraq? Even before the war started the world was against it http://tinyurl.com/2tnzb8
And yes, there is that joke called the “coalition of the willing.” How many troops total are in that compared to the US contribution?
FDR: one of the country’s greatest presidents, lowest approval rating 48%. GWB: one of the nation’s worst presidents, his approval rating has been down in the twenties, and hasn’t been north of 35% for the past couple years.
So you see, it’s pretty different. But that’s OK because your president has made the same claim you have. http://tinyurl.com/bys6c
What surprises me is that someone who rails so strongly against media propaganda would, like a good little apparatchik, parrot the talking points of the administration’s propaganda machine. I guess that’s what being a true believer is all about.
……..
Well that’s it for me, I don’t have any more time for this. But you’ll be glad to know I’m voting Bush for a third term. Onward Judeo-Christian Soldiers!
I’ll stop by on November 5th to see how you’re feeling.
Until then, enjoy some video entertainment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs
Am I trying to compare WWII with the chimp's excellent adventure in Iraq?
First of all, Bush isn't a chimp. I'm not sure there's any reason to be so disrespectful.
Dooshbag, you said... oh wait, that would be stooping to your level of name calling. I'm sorry, Milo. You said:
"Iraq is already a disaster because it has killed 30,000 - 100,000 people in Iraq and taken the lives nearly 4,000 US service members."
Your whole WWII v. Iraq War essay was pointless because...
I was not comparing the threat from Hussein to the threat from Hitler. I was just sayin' that according to you because of the casualties Iraq's a disaster... then WWII must be also... and what, 1,000 times worse?
We had no obligation to fight Hitler since he never attacked us. None. We PREEMPTIVELY went to war with Hitler.
And Iraq never did attack us either, at least not here on our soil. Milo, that's not hard to comprehend. That's fact. Anyone who ever started thinking that I think doesn't have that much intelligence.
But Hussein did break 17 U.N. resolutions in 12 years and his military routinely fired upon our planes in that time. There was also that little assassination plot against Bush 41. I could be wrong but I'm guessing that would have been alright with you. That plot is disputed but at the time, President Clinton even considered it to be legitimate.
Should a world leader who is part of an assassination plot against a former world leader be allowed to remain in power? Yes? Why?
I can't see any reason why Hussein shouldn't have been removed militarily for that.
You don't mind evil, do you? (I could be wrong, forgive me if I am. Just seems like appeasement is the way to go with you.)
What you don't seem to comprehend, Milo, is that a free and stable Iraq is a good thing for the security of westerners in many nations as well as Israel.
I have one question for you -- do you wish the best for Iraq? It seems you could care less what happens there and we should just leave, shoulda left a long time ago, shoulda never gone, right? Once again -- Hussein needed to be removed by the world acting in concert for a more peaceful planet... but they didn't have the balls. They sat on their ass. Why is world opinion of the U.S. rather low to many people around the globe? Because they're selfish and they don't think about the suffering of others. They love their freedom and those who don't have it, they're just shit out of luck. They wish to see war as you, it seems, bad bad bad bad. War, when used as it should be, will be for an end result of less human suffering and peace.
Finally for Iraq we acted. Hussein's gone. What's happaned there since, yet again, has been a bloody, mismanaged mess... but what every person should be supporting is every effort to turn that nation into a stable one where freedom reigns... not terror.
Why is your freedom important... but the freedom of others isn't?
If Iraq falls down into a hole deeper than it has been and we abandon the effort to stabilize that nation, we're in danger right here. I'm guessing you don't believe that.
I'll tell you right now how I'll feel the day after the election: if a Democrat is in office I'll be pissed off that they'll want to take MORE of the money I work hard to earn so that I can pay for more damn programs to help those who are too lazy to help themselves. Oh, and I'll feel less secure because over time, especially if there's a massive withdrawal from Iraq, al Qaeda will regroup more than they have over the past few years... and I'll be pissed off that the Dem in office just goes on appeasing North Korea and Iran, allowing them to possess nuclear weapons. I'm not really looking forward to the day when half of Israel goes bye bye courtesy of Ahmadinejad and a few nuclear missiles.
But then again, I guess, in order to build back up our positive world opinion, it would be better for that to happen than to go to war to stop it.
Right?
Post a Comment