Blogcritics: Comments on WAR WITH IRAQ: Winners & Losers Round-Up

Comment by Yo

Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:12:25 EST

Preach on reverend nick!!! You too, SJ. I hope some day all of you un-American b@stards will realize how truly pathetic you are, and thank the brave individuals who have fought and continue to fight for a peaceful world.

Comment by sj

Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:25:04 EST

I like Gen. Schwartzkopf's quote: "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordian." The best way to deal with a bully (Saddam) is to call his bluff and smack the h*ll out of him.

Comment by the Rev Nick

Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:34:49 EST

One more comment- I read the link about the bravery of the French in the past and the Imperialist evil of America, and it is to laugh. Y'all are quick to forget that after the founding of NATO, one of the deals was, "hey, no more of this colonial power crap." So, France tries to make Vietnam a French colony. They, of course, got their asses handed to them, which did nothing to help the stability of the region, and led to our ill fated involvement. And I really wouldn't brag about the casualties the French suffered in WWI (it's not their fault they can't fight their way out of a soggy croisant), or try to use their economic state as an excuse for the crappy job they did against the Nazis, because if you remember, the German economy was a hell of a lot worse off before Hitler came to power, wasn't it? Man, if you love the French so damn much, and hate America, move the Hell over there.

Comment by Rev Nick

Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:13:08 EST

Actually, the reason we don't fly the Union Jack over the White House is that France made astounding sacrifices so that we could achieve freedom Funny, the reason the swastika isn't flying over Paris is that American soldiers made astounding sacrifices so the French could regain their freedom. And don't kid yourself slick, the only reason the French helped us out during the Revolutionary War was because they hated the English. And as for the poem above, I can only respond with this: "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stewart Mill

Comment by Corinna Hasofferett

Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:58:52 EST

One tiny loser was left out: The Weapons Industry. One insignificant winner has been dismissed: The dead and the wounded, the destroyed and the displaced, the shocked and emotionally disabled for the rest of their tiny life, children, adults, elderly, soldiers, pro-war patriots and anti war patriots. The very real winner: The internalized misconcept that peace is an illusion, an impossible dream and War & Evil are and will forever remain embedded in the human nature. How To: Identify a potential enemy, feed him with your Industry's weaponry until the Golem Raises to the high status of Enemy, and then use all your might to destroy him in punishment so that the furnace of the Weapons Industry stays busy and so enables a multitude of Jobs resulting in a good livelihood.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:53:33 EST

the Rev Nick, "It's why we don't fly the Union Jack over the White House." Actually, the reason we don't fly the Union Jack over the White House is that France made astounding sacrifices so that we could achieve freedom.

Comment by the Rev Nick

Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:58:16 EST

Wow, dude, you sure are an enlightened human being. You are right on in your winners and losers picks. Naw, I'm kidding- you're an idiot- Jumping on thge anti war bandwagon, spouting off with all the same left wing idealogical crap that's been said before. I hate to be the one to break it to you, and the other poor misguided tools of the same ilk: there will always be someone who wants to kill and/or subjugate somebody else. Talking, hugging, planting flowers does not work. Sometimes, standing up for freedom-ours or someone elses- means having to kill somebody. It's why we don't fly the Union Jack over the White House- it's why German is an only elective language in school, and why the west coast isn't part of the Empire of Japan. I wish with all my soul that every problem could be solved in peace, but it can't, and I thank God that our leaders do not hold to that foolish and dangerous belief in 'peace at all costs', becouse the cost would be freedom.

Comment by san

Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:43:48 EST

Brian, once the war is over, I'm thinking about keeping my blog packaged as a protest blog. Though this war may fade, I fear there will be plenty to protest, politically and socially, over the next few years. I'll mix it up with some wanton frivolity, literature and music. Hell, I can always protest the Pulitzers and the National Book Awards, right? A few years before he died, Abbie Hoffman said, "The 90s will make the 60s look like the 50s." Maybe he was just a decade off.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:04:38 EST

Peter, Excellent round up. Illuminating and well-written. WINNER: Oil-Services Companies I don't understand why Bush hasn't taken clear action on this potential worldwide public relations disaster. The WHOLE WORLD thinks this war is about oil. So why doesn't our President announce, in a television address, that he has put in place a plan to ensure that the interests of U.S. corporations do not conflict or appear to conflict with the stated motivations for this war? If this is purely a humanitarian and national-security effort, why not GO OUT OF OUR WAY to show that U.S. companies will not profit from the war. Why risk looking like profiteers? Could it be because...Bush's powerful corporate supporters WANT to be profiteers, and he's going to let them do it? Nah, that would lack moral clarity. A lot of pro-war folks duck this issue. Let's say the true motivation for the war really does jibe with the stated reasons (ahem). For the sake of argument. Still, is it not an issue how U.S. corporations participate in the aftermath? Any pro-war folks out there have a position on this? WINNER: War Blogs The "war blogs" are in hog heaven these days. Plenty to write about on these web logs. But what's going to happen, say, next week or so, when the war is over? Because I find it almost impossible to blog about anything else, I changed the name of my blog to L.A. War Blog. But I am wondering what to do when the war is over. Because certainly the struggle to get this country back on a course that doesn't destabilize the globe and weaken our national security will remain vital. But I do want to go back to being a filmmaker and frivolous blogger instead of a war protester and war blogger someday. FInally, I'm going to have to quibble with you on this: LOSER: Anti-War Protestors Protesting the war AFTER it's started is like going for an AIDS test AFTER being diagnosed HIV-positive. That is, it's a waste of time and, quite frankly, just plain stupid. if you can propose an alternative (other than slience), I'd like to hear it. If we were all to shut up now and stay home, wouldn't that send the message that everyone in the U.S. is a-okay with this war? Until I can figure out a better way to get my country's soul back, I'm going to stay out there.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:43:21 EST

Interesting Peter, although aren't blogs flexible enough to the situation? This blog has become a "war blog" for now because, um, there's a war. I also don't hink we will be losers in the end for this, quite the contrary, but we will see...