A POLITICALLY CORRECT WAR?

Antiwar.Com ^ | August 11, 2003 | Justin Raimondon (yes- he is a homosexual)

[arete]

You're completely hapless and beyond saving. I give up !

Possibly it is you who is hapless and beyond saving. What are you afraid of -- free speech? Finding the truth? Other opinions? Tough questions and accountability?

Richard W.

[JohnGalt]

I think all of their efforts have been in reconciling their positions to some continuity of conservative thought but they use the lamest most embarassing logic and rhetoric one can imagine.

'They hate us for our freedom, 9-11 changed everything, nuke Mecca'...these are just a phrases but they have turned into an ideology that transcends reason and operates only on a militaristic emotional plain.

[MEG33]

Perhaps Burkeman will put you on his ping list.You can discuss Raimondo and anti war.

[Burkeman1]

Meg33- Review the entire thread and tell me if one thing in the article I have posted has been refuted or even seriously challenged by a single poster on this thread? Have you even read it? Let's not go off into tangents about Pravda and how much the Russians pay Raimondo or the fact that he is a homosexual- just address what he says. Can you do that for once?

[MEG33]

No

[arete]

Perhaps Burkeman will put you on his ping list.You can discuss Raimondo and anti war.

That would be okay with me. I am still able to think independently without having my existence defined and ordered by mindless party loyalty and allegiance to failed and corrupted "leaders".

Richard W.

[Justin Raimondo]

Sheesh, is this supposed to be a discussion of the views expressed in the posted article? So, Condi Rice attacks the Founders as "racists" -- and the "conservatives" of FR agree. We know that "everything's changed" since 9/11. But who would've expected this?

[HenryLeeII]

Ms. Rice: "Knowing what we know about the difficulties of our own history, let us always be humble in singing freedom's praises. But let our voice not waver in speaking out on the side of people seeking freedom. And let us never indulge the condescending voices who allege that some people are not interested in freedom or aren't ready for freedom's responsibilities. That view was wrong in 1963 in Birmingham and it is wrong in 2003 in Baghdad."

Wow! That is quality oratory from a highly-respected, well-educated, professionally-accomplished lady who happens to be black, and the scum writing this hit piece cannot see that much less respect it. Instead, he has to spew his vomit in a vile and cowardly attempt to further the cause of America's enemies. Obviously, another candidate for the Mussolini Retirement Plan...

[CWOJackson]

Yes, it is about learning, that is why I want to make sure that everyone knows that even leftist newspapers in this country won't print riamondps' BS. Indeed, he's nothing but a shill for an anti-American communist leaning propaganda rag, selling out his country for a few pieces of silver.

[CWOJackson]

So justine, ready to let us all know how much selling out your country pays?

[nopardons]

ROTFLMSO

Another hapless person heard from. Too, too funny ! You don't know what this exchange is all about, yet you just had to horn right in, with your worthless whinge.Best for yoy to stick to other things,which you have no acumen for, like the market, than to comment about something you know even less about. LOL

[pfflier]

This might be a hissy fit because the president affirmed his belief in the sanctity of marriage. The gays are out to get anyone who is not with 'em.

[arete]

Take it easy there sparky. You're going to stroke out. You are way to angry and unhappy. Take a walk and relax. Regain your composure.

Richard W.

[BlackVeil]

But containment (in the cold war sense) isn't purely defensive -- it's offensive (always carrying, and sometimes wielding the big stick). Purely defensive in my mind is watching the borders and preventing ...

That is a good point. My own view is that for most of the Cold War, the US followed a very effective policy of minimum use of force. The current form of "containment" against terrorism is more likely to inflame its sources, especially as the targets are so illdefined - if it is Islamic fundamentalism, then why did we knock over a secular regime in Iraq? - if it is WMDs, then why are we occupying Afghanistan, a most primitive country which couldn't make a torch battery? - if it is extremist ideologies, then why are we cozy with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the very fonts of extremist religious teachings?

Often, I have wondered how Bin Laden persuaded the US govenment to come and fight a war on his terms.

[BlackVeil]

The term neo-con was invented BY neo-cons. It now IS solely used as a perjorative; as well as a smear for Jews.

NoPardons is right, the term was invented by the conservatives of the late 1980s, themselves. But it is not true, IMO, that "neo-conservative" is now a hate term. It might be in the US, but in most of the English speaking world, it just means people who became conservative AFTER the rise of the New Right in the late 1970s. The "neo-con" agenda was supposed to be post-Cold War, more interested in maintaining Western supremacy, rather than kicking a dead horse by being anti-Soviet.

[nopardons]

You take its " easy ", buster. Me ? I'm just fine and dandy. Save your feigned compassion for someone who needs its and better get your eyes checked, becuase you see things that aren't there. LOL

[nopardons]

The term is used, as a perjorative, by many here, as well as crazy Libs in the media. Elsewise, thanks for the backup and I agree with your take on it...with that one exception mentioned above.

[Burkeman1]

Long gone are the days when articles were discussed on their merits. I don't think anyone on this thread has addressed one single point in this piece on Rice. Non Sequiturs, personal attacks (of which I sunk into), and wild accusations are the order of the day.