The tide is turning.
January 21, 2003 2:14 PM Subscribe
The tide is turning. A new poll from the Pew Research Center indicates that the Bush Administration is losing support for a war against Iraq, with only 29% favoring war if U.N. inspectors fail to find weapons of mass destruction.
Polls are looking considerably worse in Great Britain, where 47% of the public disapprove of an attack on Iraq, compared to just 30% in favor of such an attack.
Blair is certain that he can get the British public to support war, however, even if Britain goes to war without U.N. support.
"When and if that time came, people would find the reasons acceptable and satisfactory because there is no other route available to us."
Bush quote from today regarding the inspections and Hussein disarming:
"As I said, this looks like a rerun of a bad movie and I'm not interested in watching it."
I've said this every day of the Bush administration.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 2:52 PM on January 21, 2003
"As I said, this looks like a rerun of a bad movie and I'm not interested in watching it."
I've said this every day of the Bush administration.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 2:52 PM on January 21, 2003
I guess I don't see the poll showing a loss of support. When asked, "Would you favor or oppose taking military action in Iraq to end Saddam Hussein's rule?," 65% say "yes." That is an increase from 62% in November 2002, and 55% in October 2002. (source).
It is not true that only 29% "favor war" if inspectors don't find weapons. The question they were asked was "would this be a reason to take military action against Iraq?" So, only 29% would cite that as a reason, but a good 65% still favor war for a different reason (removing Saddam Hussein from power).
posted by profwhat at 2:55 PM on January 21, 2003
It is not true that only 29% "favor war" if inspectors don't find weapons. The question they were asked was "would this be a reason to take military action against Iraq?" So, only 29% would cite that as a reason, but a good 65% still favor war for a different reason (removing Saddam Hussein from power).
posted by profwhat at 2:55 PM on January 21, 2003
Two Iraq posts, one SUV post, it's only 3:00 PM PST. Sigh.
posted by jonson at 3:03 PM on January 21, 2003
posted by jonson at 3:03 PM on January 21, 2003
It is weird to me that there is so much whining about Iraq posts, when it is so obviosly what is on almost every ones minds right now.
posted by Quartermass at 3:07 PM on January 21, 2003
posted by Quartermass at 3:07 PM on January 21, 2003
35% of americans favor the use of SUVs in Iraq, only 13% of Brits favour the use of SUVs against Iraq.... where as 75% the South Koreans favour the use of pickled vegatables in response to Northern agression.
posted by dancu at 3:09 PM on January 21, 2003
posted by dancu at 3:09 PM on January 21, 2003
It is weird to me that people actually think the point of MetaFilter is to post about Iraq. It's obviously not.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:11 PM on January 21, 2003
posted by eyeballkid at 3:11 PM on January 21, 2003
George Carlin describes a sense of vuja de to describe the sensation of having never before experienced something like what you're currently experiencing.
I don't feel like that right now.
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:31 PM on January 21, 2003
I don't feel like that right now.
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:31 PM on January 21, 2003
I think the most telling stat in there was that 62% believe that Bush has already made up his mind to go to war. Why doesn't that get reported?
Another gem is this one, showing a clearly different sentiment than profwhat's example above:
Would you favor or oppose taking military action in Iraq to end Saddam Hussein's rule, even if it meant that U.S. forces might suffer thousands of casualties?
It shows a paltry 43% support that idea, and only 21% support that idea if our allies do not join.
So, at least not everyone is on the conservative hawks' side that we should just take him down, regardless of the cost or international support. Apparently, only 1 out of 5 people think that way.
The striking statistics never get highlighted.
In fact, in profwhat's example above, even without "thousands of casualties", support drops to only 26% if we do not have the support of our allies. Just barely one quarter.
So, what I see is a definite trend... many fewer than half are interested in taking out Saddam if there is anything less than complete support from our allies *OR* the risk of lives being lost. Put the two together and you're talking very small minority.
This whole propaganda push about everyone being behind Bush and that everyone is chomping at the bit for war with Iraq is an outright lie.
Watch Bush not care. Neither of his daughters will be on the front lines.
posted by Ynoxas at 3:34 PM on January 21, 2003
Another gem is this one, showing a clearly different sentiment than profwhat's example above:
Would you favor or oppose taking military action in Iraq to end Saddam Hussein's rule, even if it meant that U.S. forces might suffer thousands of casualties?
It shows a paltry 43% support that idea, and only 21% support that idea if our allies do not join.
So, at least not everyone is on the conservative hawks' side that we should just take him down, regardless of the cost or international support. Apparently, only 1 out of 5 people think that way.
The striking statistics never get highlighted.
In fact, in profwhat's example above, even without "thousands of casualties", support drops to only 26% if we do not have the support of our allies. Just barely one quarter.
So, what I see is a definite trend... many fewer than half are interested in taking out Saddam if there is anything less than complete support from our allies *OR* the risk of lives being lost. Put the two together and you're talking very small minority.
This whole propaganda push about everyone being behind Bush and that everyone is chomping at the bit for war with Iraq is an outright lie.
Watch Bush not care. Neither of his daughters will be on the front lines.
posted by Ynoxas at 3:34 PM on January 21, 2003
Well, let's just hijack the thread - sorry insomnia_lj.
Who doesn't like trees?
"The forests of America, however slighted by man, must have been a great delight to God; for they were the best he ever planted."
By John Muir - no one ever wrote any better about trees than John Muir did.
posted by Jos Bleau at 3:36 PM on January 21, 2003
Who doesn't like trees?
"The forests of America, however slighted by man, must have been a great delight to God; for they were the best he ever planted."
By John Muir - no one ever wrote any better about trees than John Muir did.
posted by Jos Bleau at 3:36 PM on January 21, 2003
Carlin:
1. Ever wonder about those people who spend $2.00 apiece on those little bottles of Evian water? Try spelling Evian backwards.
2. Isn't making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a peeing section in a swimming pool?
3. OK .. so if the Jacksonville Jaguars are known as the "Jags" and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are known as the "Bucs", what does that make the Tennessee Titans?
4. If 4 out of 5 people SUFFER from diarrhea, does that mean that one enjoys it?
5. There are three religious truths: A. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. B. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian faith. C. Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor
store or at Hooters
7. If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland called Holes?
8. Why do we say something is out of whack? What's in whack?
9. Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?
10. If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?
11. If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
12. When someone asks you, "A penny for your thoughts" and you put your two cents in... What happens to the other penny?
13. Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?
14. Why do croutons come in airtight packages? Aren't they just stale bread to begin with?
15. When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say?
16. Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist but a person who drives a race car not called a racist?
17. Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?
18. Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?
19. Why isn't the number 11 pronounced onety one?
20. "I am" is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that "I do" is the longest sentence?
21. If lawyers are disbarred and clergymen defrocked, doesn't it follow that electricians can be delighted, musicians denoted, cowboys deranged, models deposed, tree surgeons debarked, and dry cleaners depressed.
22. If Fed Ex and UPS were to merge. Would they call it Fed UP?
23. Do Lipton Tea employees take coffee breaks?
24. What hair color do they put on the driver's licenses of bald men?
25. I was thinking about how people seem to read the Bible a whole lot more as they get older then it dawned on me....They're cramming for their final exam.
26. I thought about how mothers feed their babies with tiny little spoons and forks so I wondered what do Chinese mothers use. Toothpicks?
27. Why do they put pictures of criminals up in the Post Office? What are we supposed to do, write to them? Why don't they just put their pictures on the postage stamps so the mailmen can look for them while they deliver the mail?
28. If it's true that we are here to help others, what exactly are the others here for?
29. You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.
30. No one ever says, "It's only a game" when their team is winning.
31. Ever wonder what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zigzag?
32. Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door went nuts.
33. If a cow laughed, would milk come out her nose?
posted by Witty at 3:38 PM on January 21, 2003
1. Ever wonder about those people who spend $2.00 apiece on those little bottles of Evian water? Try spelling Evian backwards.
2. Isn't making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a peeing section in a swimming pool?
3. OK .. so if the Jacksonville Jaguars are known as the "Jags" and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are known as the "Bucs", what does that make the Tennessee Titans?
4. If 4 out of 5 people SUFFER from diarrhea, does that mean that one enjoys it?
5. There are three religious truths: A. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. B. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian faith. C. Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor
store or at Hooters
7. If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland called Holes?
8. Why do we say something is out of whack? What's in whack?
9. Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?
10. If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?
11. If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
12. When someone asks you, "A penny for your thoughts" and you put your two cents in... What happens to the other penny?
13. Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?
14. Why do croutons come in airtight packages? Aren't they just stale bread to begin with?
15. When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say?
16. Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist but a person who drives a race car not called a racist?
17. Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?
18. Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?
19. Why isn't the number 11 pronounced onety one?
20. "I am" is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that "I do" is the longest sentence?
21. If lawyers are disbarred and clergymen defrocked, doesn't it follow that electricians can be delighted, musicians denoted, cowboys deranged, models deposed, tree surgeons debarked, and dry cleaners depressed.
22. If Fed Ex and UPS were to merge. Would they call it Fed UP?
23. Do Lipton Tea employees take coffee breaks?
24. What hair color do they put on the driver's licenses of bald men?
25. I was thinking about how people seem to read the Bible a whole lot more as they get older then it dawned on me....They're cramming for their final exam.
26. I thought about how mothers feed their babies with tiny little spoons and forks so I wondered what do Chinese mothers use. Toothpicks?
27. Why do they put pictures of criminals up in the Post Office? What are we supposed to do, write to them? Why don't they just put their pictures on the postage stamps so the mailmen can look for them while they deliver the mail?
28. If it's true that we are here to help others, what exactly are the others here for?
29. You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.
30. No one ever says, "It's only a game" when their team is winning.
31. Ever wonder what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zigzag?
32. Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door went nuts.
33. If a cow laughed, would milk come out her nose?
posted by Witty at 3:38 PM on January 21, 2003
It is weird to me that people actually think the point of MetaFilter is to post about Iraq. It's obviously not.
It is starting to feel as though nothing can be discussed on MetaFilter without resorting to namecalling. No wonder the number of FPP seem to be dropping all the time. I can foresee a time when all that will be discussed is whether one likes pancakes or not. But I am sure that will simply bring about arguments over whether blueberries have any place in a flapjack. *sigh*
What is the point of a discussion site if debate is frowned upon? Perhaps rather than fretting over what should or should not be posted, we should concern ourselves with our own behavior?
If one doesn't want to read a post about Iraq or SUVs or how Bush is an idiot—and he is—then one should avoid reading such threads.
Is PancakeFilter.com taken yet?
posted by terrapin at 3:45 PM on January 21, 2003
It is starting to feel as though nothing can be discussed on MetaFilter without resorting to namecalling. No wonder the number of FPP seem to be dropping all the time. I can foresee a time when all that will be discussed is whether one likes pancakes or not. But I am sure that will simply bring about arguments over whether blueberries have any place in a flapjack. *sigh*
What is the point of a discussion site if debate is frowned upon? Perhaps rather than fretting over what should or should not be posted, we should concern ourselves with our own behavior?
If one doesn't want to read a post about Iraq or SUVs or how Bush is an idiot—and he is—then one should avoid reading such threads.
Is PancakeFilter.com taken yet?
posted by terrapin at 3:45 PM on January 21, 2003
"Sometimes I think war is God's way of teaching us geography." -- Paul Rodriguez
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:46 PM on January 21, 2003
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:46 PM on January 21, 2003
Can all of you just give Peace a chance?
No Oil for Blood!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:47 PM on January 21, 2003
No Oil for Blood!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:47 PM on January 21, 2003
George Carlin describes a sense of vuja de to describe the sensation of having never before experienced something like what you're currently experiencing.
I think that's actuallycalled jamais vu - when an experience feels novel although it's actually very familiar.
posted by Grangousier at 3:50 PM on January 21, 2003
I think that's actuallycalled jamais vu - when an experience feels novel although it's actually very familiar.
posted by Grangousier at 3:50 PM on January 21, 2003
"I am sure that will simply bring about arguments over whether blueberries have any place in a flapjack"
They don't. Flapjacks should be pure, sweet buttermilky goodness. Whole wheat is allowed on occasion, but fruit should never, ever be added. The syrup may be fruit-flavored if one wishes to be adventurous, but the accepted standard is maple.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:53 PM on January 21, 2003
They don't. Flapjacks should be pure, sweet buttermilky goodness. Whole wheat is allowed on occasion, but fruit should never, ever be added. The syrup may be fruit-flavored if one wishes to be adventurous, but the accepted standard is maple.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:53 PM on January 21, 2003
S@L: I'd rather give peas a chance. They're nice straight up with a pat of butter. They also go really good on pasta with a garlic/wine sauce, too.
posted by jammer at 3:56 PM on January 21, 2003
posted by jammer at 3:56 PM on January 21, 2003
mmmm... peas.....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:01 PM on January 21, 2003
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:01 PM on January 21, 2003
Yep. And I like corn, too. And don't forget marinated brains of your vanquished foe. Good for the soul.
posted by jammer at 4:06 PM on January 21, 2003
posted by jammer at 4:06 PM on January 21, 2003
"I guess I don't see the poll showing a loss of support. When asked, "Would you favor or oppose taking military action in Iraq to end Saddam Hussein's rule?," 65% say "yes." That is an increase from 62% in November 2002, and 55% in October 2002."
You're misinterpreting the poll by negating the circumstances under which those people would approve of a war. Their approval is conditional, based on several factors, and not blanket approval.
The poll actually indicates that a smaller percentage favors taking unilateral action than before.
Also, some of thepoll results indicate a loss of support for the President.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" - 58% approve, 32% disapprove. While this is still good news overall for the president, it is also the lowest that his approval has polled in this survey since before 9/11.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the economy?" - a 5% shift since Oct. 2002
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" - a 2% shift since October.
So, while support for Bush hasn't eroded, it clearly has peaked, which was the point I intended to make.
Meanwhile Blair's support is slipping rapidly, which is significant and may cause unforeseen problems, especially if the U.S. wants its ally to go to war without UN approval. Bush may very well lose his best ally because of Iraq, which may be of greater significance than the war itself.
And I like pancakes, thanks.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:15 PM on January 21, 2003
You're misinterpreting the poll by negating the circumstances under which those people would approve of a war. Their approval is conditional, based on several factors, and not blanket approval.
The poll actually indicates that a smaller percentage favors taking unilateral action than before.
Also, some of thepoll results indicate a loss of support for the President.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" - 58% approve, 32% disapprove. While this is still good news overall for the president, it is also the lowest that his approval has polled in this survey since before 9/11.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the economy?" - a 5% shift since Oct. 2002
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" - a 2% shift since October.
So, while support for Bush hasn't eroded, it clearly has peaked, which was the point I intended to make.
Meanwhile Blair's support is slipping rapidly, which is significant and may cause unforeseen problems, especially if the U.S. wants its ally to go to war without UN approval. Bush may very well lose his best ally because of Iraq, which may be of greater significance than the war itself.
And I like pancakes, thanks.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:15 PM on January 21, 2003
I know the Grandson of John Muir and I can tell you this:he hunts and fishes and has two wood stoves in his house, and he owns a bar where I won $10,000 on a football pool (perfectly legal, I think)...when I asked him about his Grandfather and the legacy of conservation, he said "It don't mean dick to me". While I'm not exactly an environmental activist, I was rather taken aback. This dude could be an icon for all our local conservation societies, yet he prefers to kill plants and animals.
posted by Mack Twain at 4:17 PM on January 21, 2003
posted by Mack Twain at 4:17 PM on January 21, 2003
terrapin: It is starting to feel as though nothing can be discussed on MetaFilter without resorting to namecalling.
Name calling? I don't see any name calling in the statement you pointed out from my previous post.
Sure, one could ignore the Iraq posts that pop up five times a day, but then they'll begin to pop up ten times a day. So, yeah, PancakeFilter.com does sound much better than IraqNewsFilter.com.
posted by eyeballkid at 4:20 PM on January 21, 2003
Name calling? I don't see any name calling in the statement you pointed out from my previous post.
Sure, one could ignore the Iraq posts that pop up five times a day, but then they'll begin to pop up ten times a day. So, yeah, PancakeFilter.com does sound much better than IraqNewsFilter.com.
posted by eyeballkid at 4:20 PM on January 21, 2003
You're misinterpreting the poll by negating the circumstances under which those people would approve of a war. Their approval is conditional, based on several factors, and not blanket approval.
The poll didn't actually do that. The questions were confusing, and only addressed specific instances as if they were the only reason for going to war. It never looked at a combination of factors and completely ignored the historical actions of the current regime nor did it address humanitarian issues. With the way the questions were worded and the order in which they were asked it practically guaranteed the results given.
I'm surprised the numbers of those supporting the war, based on the way the survey was conducted, were as high as they were.
posted by Plunge at 5:12 PM on January 21, 2003
The poll didn't actually do that. The questions were confusing, and only addressed specific instances as if they were the only reason for going to war. It never looked at a combination of factors and completely ignored the historical actions of the current regime nor did it address humanitarian issues. With the way the questions were worded and the order in which they were asked it practically guaranteed the results given.
I'm surprised the numbers of those supporting the war, based on the way the survey was conducted, were as high as they were.
posted by Plunge at 5:12 PM on January 21, 2003
Humanitarian issues? Would it have not addressed them because they factor only in the mind of Christopher Hitchens and a few others of his ilk, and not (seriously) of anyone in the Bush administration? Should we then ask the respondents if they're in favor of attacking Saudi Arabia for humanitarian reasons? (Hitchens is at least consistent on this count. He hates Saudi Arabia, as far as I can tell, and would love to see "regime change" there too. Not the Bush administration.) What is so darned confusing about the questions as asked?
posted by raysmj at 5:38 PM on January 21, 2003
posted by raysmj at 5:38 PM on January 21, 2003
What is the point of a discussion site if debate is frowned upon?
Indeed. If this is a pressing issue, and many people believe it is, why can it not be discussed by the ones that think it's important? If you don't want to discuss it for whatever reason is it too much to ask that you not try and intentionally derail the ongoing discussion?
Put another way, the people discussing it obviously want to, why do you think it's your job to stop them?
posted by rhyax at 5:38 PM on January 21, 2003
[What is the point of a discussion site if debate is frowned upon?]
I'd tell you but I wouldn't want to risk having to debate it.
posted by revbrian at 6:11 PM on January 21, 2003
I'd tell you but I wouldn't want to risk having to debate it.
posted by revbrian at 6:11 PM on January 21, 2003
Can't any skilled MeFi'er come up with an IraqWarFilter digest site ala the way Alterslash.org does for /.?
Same great taste with less aftertase.
Sorry, I have no tech skill, so I can't help.
Till then -
I think that I shall never see
A poem as lovely as a tree.
A tree whose hungry mouth is pressed
Against the earth's sweet flowing breast;
A tree that looks at God all day,
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;
A tree that may in summer wear
A nest of Robins in her hair;
Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
Who intimately lives with rain.
Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.
Joyce Kilmer
posted by Jos Bleau at 6:19 PM on January 21, 2003
Same great taste with less aftertase.
Sorry, I have no tech skill, so I can't help.
Till then -
I think that I shall never see
A poem as lovely as a tree.
A tree whose hungry mouth is pressed
Against the earth's sweet flowing breast;
A tree that looks at God all day,
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;
A tree that may in summer wear
A nest of Robins in her hair;
Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
Who intimately lives with rain.
Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.
Joyce Kilmer
posted by Jos Bleau at 6:19 PM on January 21, 2003
raysmj: Humanitarian reasons are brought up just about anytime anyone in the administration talks about war with Iraq. Seeing as none of us reads minds, at least I can't, it is a bit arrogant. That is one of the major problems I have with people who speak out against the war and the administration, they all seem to know exactly what the President and his people are REALLY thinking.
Finally, even if it wasn't the reason for the administration wanting to change the govt. in Iraq, it will most likely be a nice consequence of it. I think this states that argument eloquently.
On the poll - The questions are bothersome because each one is acting as if it was the ONLY reason to go to war instead of a variety of issues or a combination of factors. Also, I think it would be interesting if the questions were asked in reverse order what the answers would have been.
posted by Plunge at 6:26 PM on January 21, 2003
Finally, even if it wasn't the reason for the administration wanting to change the govt. in Iraq, it will most likely be a nice consequence of it. I think this states that argument eloquently.
On the poll - The questions are bothersome because each one is acting as if it was the ONLY reason to go to war instead of a variety of issues or a combination of factors. Also, I think it would be interesting if the questions were asked in reverse order what the answers would have been.
posted by Plunge at 6:26 PM on January 21, 2003
Gah, I should proofread better. It is a bit arrogant to suggest we might know what they are thinking. *sigh*
posted by Plunge at 6:27 PM on January 21, 2003
posted by Plunge at 6:27 PM on January 21, 2003
Put another way, the people discussing it obviously want to, why do you think it's your job to stop them?
Because, certain groups here consider this *THEIR* sandbox. The whole thing. Every last nook and cranny.
They feel entitled, no obligated, to hop into every post regardless of their interest in the subject at hand and make their grand pronouncements on whether it is a good FPP or not. Whether it meets their high standards for what should grace the hallowed blue pages of MeFi.
To my knowledge, there is only one admin, Matt. It is his server space to do with as he pleases. If he chooses to delete a post, don't bitch about it and move on. If he chooses *NOT* to delete a post, then why not keep your goddamn mouth shut? Huh? Would that really be too much to ask, for just once, for some of you to act like adults? Do you guys jump up in a meeting at your place of work and wag your finger at a coworker and ridicule him because you talked about a certain topic 3 months ago?
There is a strong contingent, probably 10%, that make up about 75% of the volume of posts on this site. They consider themselves the Defenders of the Blue. You can identify them by letting 1.54 seconds pass before they start screaming about duplicate posts, or how it's not a worthy FPP, or how it's Newsfilter or "calling out" people into Metatalk. Ha. There are over 17,000 members on this site, and I dare say 12,000 or more of them never go to Metatalk, and may not even know what it is. I didn't for at least the first 6 months I hung out around here (long before the site opened back for membership).
I cannot believe how vehemently angry some people become because an inch and a half of text on one of their browser windows doesn't meet with their approval. It's funny, and sad.
How annoying and pathetic these people must be in real life. Though it would be funny to see them lean over to the table next to them at a restaurant and tell those people to quit discussing such a lame topic in *THEIR* restaurant.
Tread carefully ye of little fortitude. Be always wary of your posts and your comments. Heaven help those who don't bend to the whim of the vocal minority. You have some dedicated people here that work every damn day at trying to Stalinize the boards and control the free speech and virtual assembly of others in this little "community".
Funny how art imitates life, or something. Ain't it?
posted by Ynoxas at 7:42 PM on January 21, 2003 [1 favorite]
Because, certain groups here consider this *THEIR* sandbox. The whole thing. Every last nook and cranny.
They feel entitled, no obligated, to hop into every post regardless of their interest in the subject at hand and make their grand pronouncements on whether it is a good FPP or not. Whether it meets their high standards for what should grace the hallowed blue pages of MeFi.
To my knowledge, there is only one admin, Matt. It is his server space to do with as he pleases. If he chooses to delete a post, don't bitch about it and move on. If he chooses *NOT* to delete a post, then why not keep your goddamn mouth shut? Huh? Would that really be too much to ask, for just once, for some of you to act like adults? Do you guys jump up in a meeting at your place of work and wag your finger at a coworker and ridicule him because you talked about a certain topic 3 months ago?
There is a strong contingent, probably 10%, that make up about 75% of the volume of posts on this site. They consider themselves the Defenders of the Blue. You can identify them by letting 1.54 seconds pass before they start screaming about duplicate posts, or how it's not a worthy FPP, or how it's Newsfilter or "calling out" people into Metatalk. Ha. There are over 17,000 members on this site, and I dare say 12,000 or more of them never go to Metatalk, and may not even know what it is. I didn't for at least the first 6 months I hung out around here (long before the site opened back for membership).
I cannot believe how vehemently angry some people become because an inch and a half of text on one of their browser windows doesn't meet with their approval. It's funny, and sad.
How annoying and pathetic these people must be in real life. Though it would be funny to see them lean over to the table next to them at a restaurant and tell those people to quit discussing such a lame topic in *THEIR* restaurant.
Tread carefully ye of little fortitude. Be always wary of your posts and your comments. Heaven help those who don't bend to the whim of the vocal minority. You have some dedicated people here that work every damn day at trying to Stalinize the boards and control the free speech and virtual assembly of others in this little "community".
Funny how art imitates life, or something. Ain't it?
posted by Ynoxas at 7:42 PM on January 21, 2003 [1 favorite]
Plunge: Really? Evidence? The talk about long-ago measures with the Kurds, alluded to as, "Using weapons of mass destruction against his own people." That's, if anything, simply a "by the way" thing. It has never been an overwhelming factor and I doubt many people would disagree here. I never heard it mentioned by war-with-Iraq advocates on metafilter as a good enough reason for "regime change" either, at least not initially. Your editorial is from a Hitchens-like warmongering idealist too, not from anyone within the administration. The thread linking all these types is that they want regime change to spur regime change in Saudi Arabia, etc. There has been no indication that the Bush administration itself is thinking along the same liberal/idealist lines, at all. And until you have some indication that those closest to Bush agree with such sentiments, I'd be quiet about "reading minds" yourself. All you have to go on is the public record.
posted by raysmj at 8:03 PM on January 21, 2003
posted by raysmj at 8:03 PM on January 21, 2003
Here's a typical press release from the Department of State, re Powell on Iraq. Human rights issues get a minimal mention after loads of talk about weapons of mass descruction. This is what most Americans hear every day - about 10 times a day, seems like.
posted by raysmj at 8:29 PM on January 21, 2003
posted by raysmj at 8:29 PM on January 21, 2003
raysmj: Please review President Bush's speech before the UN or look on the Whitehouse website. They are constantly talking about the humanitarian issues in Iraq, it just takes actually listening to them to hear it.
I personally think those that oppose the war just don't want to recognize the humanitarian issues. Easier to just say "No War For Oil" or "He's doing it for his daddy" and leave it at that. Personal opinion, no mind reading here.
Finally, did you read the entirety of the link in my last post? I never said it was the current governments position, just that it eloquently states the reasons for those of us who care about the humanitarian issues to support the war.
posted by Plunge at 8:30 PM on January 21, 2003
I personally think those that oppose the war just don't want to recognize the humanitarian issues. Easier to just say "No War For Oil" or "He's doing it for his daddy" and leave it at that. Personal opinion, no mind reading here.
Finally, did you read the entirety of the link in my last post? I never said it was the current governments position, just that it eloquently states the reasons for those of us who care about the humanitarian issues to support the war.
posted by Plunge at 8:30 PM on January 21, 2003
Plunge: Why did I mention that the link you posted was not from the Bush administration? Because you didn't post any links specifically from or directly related to the Bush administration. It took two tries to get you to post anything. Thanks.
Now, why does it take some listening for people to hear this? The Bush administration has had an almost unprecedented free use of the bully pulpit regarding the Iraq issue for months on end now. I'd suggest that it's because human rights are not a centerpiece of the administration's case for war. You gotta admit, if they were that concerned about human rights issues, the issues would get get mentioned closer to the top every day. Are you suggesting that the Bush administration couldn't make this a really big deal if it so chose?
Oh, and in the case of the UN speech, he mentions post-Gulf War Iraqi human rights violations as being, specifically, a violation of a UN order. Of course that would be mentioned. But it's still more or less portrayed a connected issue, not one of the central ones. The speech mostly concerns Saddam's danger to the world and weapons of mass destruction. The latter two are given as the reasons the U.S. might go to war, not human rights violations. So why should pollsters ask people if they think the U.S. should go to war over human rights violations? Because you'd like for them to ask such questions?
posted by raysmj at 8:51 PM on January 21, 2003
Now, why does it take some listening for people to hear this? The Bush administration has had an almost unprecedented free use of the bully pulpit regarding the Iraq issue for months on end now. I'd suggest that it's because human rights are not a centerpiece of the administration's case for war. You gotta admit, if they were that concerned about human rights issues, the issues would get get mentioned closer to the top every day. Are you suggesting that the Bush administration couldn't make this a really big deal if it so chose?
Oh, and in the case of the UN speech, he mentions post-Gulf War Iraqi human rights violations as being, specifically, a violation of a UN order. Of course that would be mentioned. But it's still more or less portrayed a connected issue, not one of the central ones. The speech mostly concerns Saddam's danger to the world and weapons of mass destruction. The latter two are given as the reasons the U.S. might go to war, not human rights violations. So why should pollsters ask people if they think the U.S. should go to war over human rights violations? Because you'd like for them to ask such questions?
posted by raysmj at 8:51 PM on January 21, 2003
A tree that looks at God all day,
And lifts her leafy arms to pray
oh thats nice isnt it?
i seem to remember some sort of robot guy saying this in a film , i think it was called silent running .
trees hold a special place in my heart , i wonder if any other users ever played a game called 'conkers ?'
You would get your little conker on a piece of string and stand there in the playground trying to smash the other guys conker to bits.
i would like to tell everyone a joke:
doctor : you have to stop masturbating
man : why ? will i go blind ?
doctor: no , its upsetting the people in the waiting room.
BOOM! BOOM ! : )
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:53 PM on January 21, 2003
And lifts her leafy arms to pray
oh thats nice isnt it?
i seem to remember some sort of robot guy saying this in a film , i think it was called silent running .
trees hold a special place in my heart , i wonder if any other users ever played a game called 'conkers ?'
You would get your little conker on a piece of string and stand there in the playground trying to smash the other guys conker to bits.
i would like to tell everyone a joke:
doctor : you have to stop masturbating
man : why ? will i go blind ?
doctor: no , its upsetting the people in the waiting room.
BOOM! BOOM ! : )
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:53 PM on January 21, 2003
I personally think those that oppose the war just don't want to recognize the humanitarian issues.
Oh fer cryin out loud you don't actually believe that ole GW who could not stop himself from pledging over and over about how he'd never use force for "Nation Building" during his campaign has suddenly developed a deep concern for human rights in foreign countries? Please tell me how if it's so bad in Iraq that we aren't rattling sabers with Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, the Ivory Coast or any other 2 bit dictator/human rights violator in the world?
This war, when it comes, will not be about humanitarian causes. To date this administration has yet to be really honest about its intentions and the war propaganda is quite thick. How many times have they shouted up and down that Saddam is hiding weapons of mass destruction and that they have proof yet when the weapons inspectors ask for assistance in finding said WoMD the administration suddenly clams up.
posted by aaronscool at 10:38 PM on January 21, 2003
Oh fer cryin out loud you don't actually believe that ole GW who could not stop himself from pledging over and over about how he'd never use force for "Nation Building" during his campaign has suddenly developed a deep concern for human rights in foreign countries? Please tell me how if it's so bad in Iraq that we aren't rattling sabers with Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, the Ivory Coast or any other 2 bit dictator/human rights violator in the world?
This war, when it comes, will not be about humanitarian causes. To date this administration has yet to be really honest about its intentions and the war propaganda is quite thick. How many times have they shouted up and down that Saddam is hiding weapons of mass destruction and that they have proof yet when the weapons inspectors ask for assistance in finding said WoMD the administration suddenly clams up.
posted by aaronscool at 10:38 PM on January 21, 2003
So, if the administration shouted from the rooftops that the entire reason for this war was because of the atrocities committed upon the people of Iraq by its government would you support it?
raysmj: The poll has problems, that is what I was trying to show when all of this started. Again, it didn't allow for multiple reasons for the war and the questions were leading by the way they were ordered. Each reason it gave for war relied upon that being the sole reason for going to war so there was no way for it to show the true feelings of people.
Please tell me how if it's so bad in Iraq that we aren't rattling sabers with Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, the Ivory Coast or any other 2 bit dictator/human rights violator in the world?
aaronscool: Let's see. Saudi Arabia. The problems there aren't near as severe as those in Iraq and, like in times past, you occasionally have to hold your nose, work with one evil to get rid of a worse one.
China: You take on those you have a reasonable chance of beating, although I'm appalled at our willingness to openly trade with them.
North Korea: I'm torn here. I think this is one of the worst humanitarian disasters in that region of the world since the fall of the Japanese Empire. It's government is brutal beyond and the death and suffering caused by them is horrific. Yet, war with them would mean at the least the destruction of Seoul. It would probably mean millions dead. I just wonder if we don't take care of them now we will live to regret it later after the millions of dead from starvation and torture.
Other 2 bit dictators: Hopefully we'll get to them after we take care of this one.
I don't understand people who can blithely sit by and let these atrocities happen. War is bad? Of course, but I think the horrific nature of war pales in comparison to 10, 20, 30 even 40 years of "life" under the brutality of these barbaric regimes.
Personally, I just don't care why we are going to war with Iraq. I think more kindly of the current administration than many here and believe their motives to be higher than most here. With that, it could be for oil, it could be for revenge, it could be for a multitude of reasons, but the removal of the current regime in Iraq will, in my belief, be nothing but good for the citizens of Iraq. It will end one of the "2 bit dictators" and it will be a new chance for the people there to live with some decent human rights.
posted by Plunge at 11:11 PM on January 21, 2003
raysmj: The poll has problems, that is what I was trying to show when all of this started. Again, it didn't allow for multiple reasons for the war and the questions were leading by the way they were ordered. Each reason it gave for war relied upon that being the sole reason for going to war so there was no way for it to show the true feelings of people.
Please tell me how if it's so bad in Iraq that we aren't rattling sabers with Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, the Ivory Coast or any other 2 bit dictator/human rights violator in the world?
aaronscool: Let's see. Saudi Arabia. The problems there aren't near as severe as those in Iraq and, like in times past, you occasionally have to hold your nose, work with one evil to get rid of a worse one.
China: You take on those you have a reasonable chance of beating, although I'm appalled at our willingness to openly trade with them.
North Korea: I'm torn here. I think this is one of the worst humanitarian disasters in that region of the world since the fall of the Japanese Empire. It's government is brutal beyond and the death and suffering caused by them is horrific. Yet, war with them would mean at the least the destruction of Seoul. It would probably mean millions dead. I just wonder if we don't take care of them now we will live to regret it later after the millions of dead from starvation and torture.
Other 2 bit dictators: Hopefully we'll get to them after we take care of this one.
I don't understand people who can blithely sit by and let these atrocities happen. War is bad? Of course, but I think the horrific nature of war pales in comparison to 10, 20, 30 even 40 years of "life" under the brutality of these barbaric regimes.
Personally, I just don't care why we are going to war with Iraq. I think more kindly of the current administration than many here and believe their motives to be higher than most here. With that, it could be for oil, it could be for revenge, it could be for a multitude of reasons, but the removal of the current regime in Iraq will, in my belief, be nothing but good for the citizens of Iraq. It will end one of the "2 bit dictators" and it will be a new chance for the people there to live with some decent human rights.
posted by Plunge at 11:11 PM on January 21, 2003
Plunge: Will you put your life on the line for the liberation of the Iraqi people? How about for the rest of the dictators in the world?
We have not been very active in pursuing dictators or human rights violators except when it suits our needs in other ways. There is a long list of human rights violators and Iraq has been on that list for some 30 years including during the time when we gave them military assistance, and help in developing chemical weapons to use against Iran.
Now either Bush is breaking his campaign pledge to not use troops for "Nation Building" or he has ulterior motives for invading Iraq.
posted by aaronscool at 11:28 PM on January 21, 2003
We have not been very active in pursuing dictators or human rights violators except when it suits our needs in other ways. There is a long list of human rights violators and Iraq has been on that list for some 30 years including during the time when we gave them military assistance, and help in developing chemical weapons to use against Iran.
Now either Bush is breaking his campaign pledge to not use troops for "Nation Building" or he has ulterior motives for invading Iraq.
posted by aaronscool at 11:28 PM on January 21, 2003
Plunge: That's a purely hypothetical question. Bush and Co. never made the humanitarian issues their greatest cause and, were they to do so now, would almost surely look ridiculous - as if the administration were grasping on to anything it could find to get this war started. Also, people would ask, Hey, if you're really that into disappearances and whatnot, why didn't the U.S., say, attack Argentina during the dirty war? Also, something unspeakably horrible would have to be happening at the moment for me specifically to even consider supporting an intervention into the affairs of any sovereign nation. Otherwise, the only options are diplomacy, something similar to containment of communism, and influence, through media and leading by example.
Meantime, what aaroncool said. And Saudi Arabia is worse in some respects - treatment of women, for one. In any case, what kind of argument are you making here? The Saudis: They're incredibly rotten, but they're a smidgen better than Iraq, as far as I (Pluge) know, so let's invade Iraq and forget about Saudi Arabia?
posted by raysmj at 11:39 PM on January 21, 2003
Meantime, what aaroncool said. And Saudi Arabia is worse in some respects - treatment of women, for one. In any case, what kind of argument are you making here? The Saudis: They're incredibly rotten, but they're a smidgen better than Iraq, as far as I (Pluge) know, so let's invade Iraq and forget about Saudi Arabia?
posted by raysmj at 11:39 PM on January 21, 2003
If W is going to war for humanitarian reasons only, does it mean he'll address certain atrocities right here when he's done there? Ater all, he's OUR president, no?
Oh yeah, bravo Ynoxas!
posted by LouReedsSon at 12:44 AM on January 22, 2003
Oh yeah, bravo Ynoxas!
posted by LouReedsSon at 12:44 AM on January 22, 2003
The war served a number of purposes, not the least of which was making the American people more comfortable with the idea that military action could be undertaken for reasons other than moral outrage or imminent national peril. It was an important psychological preparation for the American Standard of Living Wars (also known as the Consumer Crusades).
posted by Opus Dark at 1:51 AM on January 22, 2003
posted by Opus Dark at 1:51 AM on January 22, 2003
To my knowledge, there is only one admin, Matt. It is his server space to do with as he pleases. If he chooses to delete a post, don't bitch about it and move on. If he chooses *NOT* to delete a post, then why not keep your goddamn mouth shut?
Exactly. It's like when you go to the cinema and someone sitting near you thinks it's cool to loudly take the piss out of the film. Even if you think the film's crap as well, it's still annoying that someone is arrogant enough to think his opinion is the only one that matters.
ON TOPIC. I think the British people are either against the war or indifferent. However, the sense of inevitability that's risen up around the whole issue means we won't do anything about it. Also, we enjoy disagreeing with the French and Germans.
posted by Summer at 2:09 AM on January 22, 2003
Exactly. It's like when you go to the cinema and someone sitting near you thinks it's cool to loudly take the piss out of the film. Even if you think the film's crap as well, it's still annoying that someone is arrogant enough to think his opinion is the only one that matters.
ON TOPIC. I think the British people are either against the war or indifferent. However, the sense of inevitability that's risen up around the whole issue means we won't do anything about it. Also, we enjoy disagreeing with the French and Germans.
posted by Summer at 2:09 AM on January 22, 2003
"I personally think those that oppose the war just don't want to recognize the humanitarian issues."
So, does that mean that George W. will recognize these humanitarian issues in Iraq?
Iraq's population is 65% Shi'a, but since Iraq's creation, the Shi'a have been ruled by a Sunni minority. Will Bush allow the Shi'a (who many consider more prone to radical Islamic behavior) to democratically dominate Iraq... or will he allow the majority in Iraq to be silenced, thereby maintaining the status quo and not strengthening Iran's sway over the Middle East?
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:46 AM on January 22, 2003
So, does that mean that George W. will recognize these humanitarian issues in Iraq?
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:46 AM on January 22, 2003
Plunge:
War with Iraq will only fuel the fire of the Fundamentalist Islamic cause. Experts in our own government believe this to be true. So lets look at the pro's and con's of a war with Iraq:
Pro
We take out SH and remove the current impetuous to develop nuclear weapons in Iraq. Then at least Iraq won't be passing them on to terrorists to suitcase bomb the U.S.
The Iraqi people get a new leader who probably won't use chemical weapons on them.
Sanctions will probably be eased and the Iraqi economy can begin to recover.
The U.S. will negotiate a lucrative oil trade deal with Iraq that will supply it with oil or oil related business. This should pay for any outlay of cash used to purchase the regime change.
We put the fear of (supply personal supreme being here) in every 2 bit dictator as they know the boot of the U.S. will be on their neck if they think too long about developing nukes.
Cons
Attacking Iraq will fuel the fire of the fundamentalist islamic cause and almost certainly invite reprisals. Essentially we are filling the ranks of our real enemies army and putting weapons in their hands.
It's War. Innocent people die in war. Some of our own soldiers are going to die.
A significant portion of the rest of the world is going to believe that we attacked Iraq in order to acquire a larger/cheaper market share of their oil resources no matter what we might say.
Every 2 bit dictator will start looking for alternatives to nuclear weapons if they aren't already. Chemical and biological weapons research will be on the rise in these countries as they are much cheaper then nukes and require much fewer resources and development is easier to hide. Nothing is to stop them from passing them on to terrorists.
We don't have a very wide support base for war with Iraq right now. If we go to war the U.S. is going to be footing most of the bill, unlike the Gulf War.
The Con's seem to have it in my book.
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 6:26 AM on January 22, 2003
War with Iraq will only fuel the fire of the Fundamentalist Islamic cause. Experts in our own government believe this to be true. So lets look at the pro's and con's of a war with Iraq:
Pro
We take out SH and remove the current impetuous to develop nuclear weapons in Iraq. Then at least Iraq won't be passing them on to terrorists to suitcase bomb the U.S.
The Iraqi people get a new leader who probably won't use chemical weapons on them.
Sanctions will probably be eased and the Iraqi economy can begin to recover.
The U.S. will negotiate a lucrative oil trade deal with Iraq that will supply it with oil or oil related business. This should pay for any outlay of cash used to purchase the regime change.
We put the fear of (supply personal supreme being here) in every 2 bit dictator as they know the boot of the U.S. will be on their neck if they think too long about developing nukes.
Cons
Attacking Iraq will fuel the fire of the fundamentalist islamic cause and almost certainly invite reprisals. Essentially we are filling the ranks of our real enemies army and putting weapons in their hands.
It's War. Innocent people die in war. Some of our own soldiers are going to die.
A significant portion of the rest of the world is going to believe that we attacked Iraq in order to acquire a larger/cheaper market share of their oil resources no matter what we might say.
Every 2 bit dictator will start looking for alternatives to nuclear weapons if they aren't already. Chemical and biological weapons research will be on the rise in these countries as they are much cheaper then nukes and require much fewer resources and development is easier to hide. Nothing is to stop them from passing them on to terrorists.
We don't have a very wide support base for war with Iraq right now. If we go to war the U.S. is going to be footing most of the bill, unlike the Gulf War.
The Con's seem to have it in my book.
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 6:26 AM on January 22, 2003
Um.. oops. Continuing.
The administration claims that they want to protect the Kurds from Saddam, but fails to mention how the US turned its back while Turkey committed acts of genocide against the Kurds in their own country, killing thousands during the nineties. The Turkish have repeatedly invaded Iraqi territory over the past few years to kill Kurdish nationalists, and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zone protested being ordered back to base so that Turkey could bomb Kurds in Iraq. Even now, MSNBC reports that thousands of Turkish soldiers are massed along the border of Iraq and Turkey is threatening to invade in order to prevent any kind of Kurdish self-rule. Will the Bush administration recognize at least some kind of Kurdish autonomy under a larger Iraq, and be willing to defend the Kurds from any possible Turkish attacks for a change?
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:28 AM on January 22, 2003
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:28 AM on January 22, 2003
Wong Fei Hung - In that "cons"section, you forgot the CIA assesment that, should the US invade Iraq, this would raise to a high likelihood the possibility that Iraq would resort to chemical and biological attacks, both on US troops in Iraq, and against civilians inside the US itself. Sadaam would have nothing to lose.
posted by troutfishing at 8:45 AM on January 22, 2003
posted by troutfishing at 8:45 AM on January 22, 2003
« Older Utah Pink Pistols | ge imagination site Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by nthdegx at 2:43 PM on January 21, 2003