War...get it over with already.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Now as all of you know I quite firmly believe that the only justification for a war in Iraq is if the UN approves the action or if Iraq attacks someone, but since I can see that Bush and Blair are going to have the war no matter what (they say if Saddam does a certain thing by the 17th the war wouldn't happen...but that thing is not exactly objective...the US would no doubt say it wasn't enough and attack anyway).  Anyway, given the inevitability, all I can say now is lets just let them have the war because I figure a war now is better than a war in three months.  The economy would appreciate it, it could stop everyone from talking about it ad nauseum, and perhaps the idiots who boycott French and other products would stop as well.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

perhaps the idiots who boycott French and other products would stop as well.

Bondo, I love how you mock even the people that are demonstrating their opinion peacefully.  You are really the guy that names everyone an idiot that doesn't agree with you.  What in the world do you have against freedom anyway?  If people don't like what the French have done, they boycott, how is that a bad thing?

[cookie]

a war in 3 months isn't going to be possible anyway, we can't afford to wait that long. It's going to be bloody hot in Iraq, and those ground troops in bio suits are going to undoubtedly suffer immensely, even if we did attack now. The only way to wage war if we wait too long will be at night, at which time friendly fire is a HUGE problem.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bondo, I love how you mock even the people that are demonstrating their opinion peacefully.  You are really the guy that names everyone an idiot that doesn't agree with you.  What in the world do you have against freedom anyway?  If people don't like what the French have done, they boycott, how is that a bad thing?

Well, you seem to find distaste with people judging Americans based on the goverment/stereotype.  So why do you find it fine and dandy for people to do the same to the French?

[Ace]

Bondo, I love how you mock even the people that are demonstrating their opinion peacefully.  You are really the guy that names everyone an idiot that doesn't agree with you.  What in the world do you have against freedom anyway?  If people don't like what the French have done, they boycott, how is that a bad thing?

Well, you seem to find distaste with people judging Americans based on the goverment/stereotype.  So why do you find it fine and dandy for people to do the same to the French?

Bondo, if someone makes a point against you while providing explicit proof, saying "OMG NO YOU DO IT TOO" with absolutely nothing to back it up is quite childish.

And anyways, it's not even the same thing. The people who are boycotting French products are hoping that their economic pressure will influence the government. The people who judge Americans based on the actions of the government are stereotyping. It is a world of difference, and in your oh so haughty proclaimed knowledge you should be able to realize this.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I'm not arguing their right to boycott the French, nor did I ever say it was in any way wrongful.  But I believe it is within my right to believe they are idiots for doing so (becuase the aformentioned reason of punishing French companies for the actions of the French goverment).

Although it is on a drastically different level, the people who died in the 9/11 attacks must have deserved it because the terrorists were simply attacking Americans in order to influence the US Goverment.  Certainly it is not a good analogy in terms of the action, but the theory does relate...the holding citizens accountable for the actions of the goverment.

Bondo, if someone makes a point against you while providing explicit proof, saying "OMG NO YOU DO IT TOO" with absolutely nothing to back it up is quite childish.

No more childish than what Bucc did...but oddly you didn't mention that.  I had a very good reason for calling those boycotting French goods idiots as I've shown.  So Bucc's claim that I insult people who disagree with me, without reason wasn't true.  But my point that he insults people who stereotype others based on the goverments actions yet didn't see any problem with punishing people based on goverment actions still remains to be explained.

[jn.loudnotes]

Ace. . .Bucc. . .

I know you're just trying to play devil's advocate. . .to find something wrong. . .to criticize Bondo.  And hey, that's your choice.  But lay off a little.

Even the most hard-core war hawk has to find a little bit of nonsense in the renaming of french fries (not even french, but Belgian!) to "freedom fries" and other changes.  Likewise, surely there are better protest methods than boycotting French wine and cheese, which are arguably the best in the world.  

To use yet another inappropriate analogy, that would be like if another country, in opposing America, boycotted freedom.  And don't tell me that any anti-American is against freedom. . .we've all been witness that America stands for other ideals, some in stark contrast.

[Ace]

Loud, I'm not trying to play devil's advocate. I'm just tired of Bondo spouting bullshit.

Even the most hard-core war hawk has to find a little bit of nonsense in the renaming of french fries (not even french, but Belgian!) to "freedom fries" and other changes.  Likewise, surely there are better protest methods than boycotting French wine and cheese, which are arguably the best in the world.

While I agree renaming french fries is on the extreme side, so what? It's a peaceful method of protest. Hell, haven't some people here been screaming all along that we should try peaceful methods? As for boycotting French wine and cheese, suggesting that you shouldn't boycott them just because they are of high quality is about the most spineless, gutless move I could imagine. If you disagree with someone so vehemently that you will boycott a country's economy, giving in just because they make certain products well is the sign of a coward who isn't willing to stand up for his moral ground.

I'm not arguing their right to boycott the French, nor did I ever say it was in any way wrongful.  But I believe it is within my right to believe they are idiots for doing so (becuase the aformentioned reason of punishing French companies for the actions of the French goverment).

Although it is on a drastically different level, the people who died in the 9/11 attacks must have deserved it because the terrorists were simply attacking Americans in order to influence the US Goverment.  Certainly it is not a good analogy in terms of the action, but the theory does relate...the holding citizens accountable for the actions of the goverment.

See, you even admit it is on a drastically different level. No one in their right mind could realistically compare mass murder and terrorism to peaceful economic protest. That is what Bucc called you on the carpet for.

Bondo, if someone makes a point against you while providing explicit proof, saying "OMG NO YOU DO IT TOO" with absolutely nothing to back it up is quite childish.

No more childish than what Bucc did...but oddly you didn't mention that.  I had a very good reason for calling those boycotting French goods idiots as I've shown.  So Bucc's claim that I insult people who disagree with me, without reason wasn't true.  But my point that he insults people who stereotype others based on the goverments actions yet didn't see any problem with punishing people based on goverment actions still remains to be explained.

Bondo, you give NO reasoning for why you call the people boycotting French products idiots. On the other hand, Bucc logically questioned your argument and poked holes in it. So yes, Bucc's claim that you insult people you don't agree with is perfectly valid in this context.

You have also ignored my point and once again showed your ignorance by comparing stereotyping with economic boycott. Stereotyping people based on the actions of their government is assigning them wholesale characteristics without regards to whether they may or may not apply to the individual. In contrast, boycotting French products directly affects the French government by reducing the amount of tax money they bring in.

[tasty]

I think that changing well-established names as form of protest makes the people that do it look dumb. This form of protest will not harm France or Germany??if anything it will probably make them laugh. Also, these foods are symbolic of cultures and to rename them with American names like "Liberty Steak" is in my opinion a very jingoistic and somewhat ridiculous thing. Also Orwellian (anyone remember "Liberty Gin"?). If individuals want to boycott French or German products that's different; it's their choice and they can protest how they want. I don't think its appropriate to call for the government to sanction this behavior because not everyone agrees with a war and even if they did not everyone would agree that this was appropriate.

I will protest my belief that these people are wrong by not patronizing their businesses.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Well, you seem to find distaste with people judging Americans based on the goverment/stereotype.  So why do you find it fine and dandy for people to do the same to the French?

Bondo, you need a world of help if you think that stereotypes and boycotts are anything close to the same thing.

Yes, I hate it when people rag on any specific group, be it the Americans, Blacks, Native Americans or even the French.  I'm not saying the French people are all spinless simps, I'm saying that if people want to protest peacefully, they should be allowed to, and that includes Americans.  You haven't noticed me bitching about all the French or Germans that avoid US trade goods, have you?  No, because once again Bondo, you just don't get it.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Ace. . .Bucc. . .

I know you're just trying to play devil's advocate. . .to find something wrong. . .to criticize Bondo.  And hey, that's your choice.  But lay off a little.

Loudnotes, time for you to grow up a little.  First, I'm not defending the people that go overboard and want to change the name of french fries, I'm talking about the people that have stopped importing French wines and cheeses and other such goods.  Get over yourself with that crap already.

And if you really want to talk about it, let's get into the unfair tarrif situation between the USA, and the rest of the world.  Where we aren't expected to tax goods coming in, but they thax the living fuck out of goods from the USA.  Don't preach to me Loudnotes, you don't know nearly as much as you seem to think you do to pull it off.  

Being all out against war is as bad as being all out for it.  I'm no war hawk, as you imply, but you are a peace at any price type person, and that is just as blind as any war hawk.  So bring something better or just leave it alone Loudnotes, everyone knows where you stand.  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

First off, in my first post I wrote a whole paragraph, yet Bucc replied ONLY to the one sentance put in specifically as a bit of a joust.  Bucc, that is continued show that you are pathetic and instead of replying to a whole post would rather pick anything out of the context of the whole post and criticize it.  That, is a weaksause way of arguing.  The ignoring of all points to get the one you can insult.

Secondly, like I've said, I don't deny the right people have to not buy French products.  But you shouldn't deny my right to think them idiots for punishing the French people for the actions of the goverment.  Sure, they will lose a tiny amount of tax money, but the people whose products aren't being bought will lose a ton of money.  That and France has a social democracy so by depriving the country of money you are depriving the citizens of well-being.  Because of this I think, and for a damned good reason that you can't, not matter how hard you try, deny even if you disagree, the people boycotting are idiots.

Ace, I didn't spout any bullshit, nice try though.  First off, I said that terrorism and boycott couldn't be compared as ACTIONS, they can still be compared based on the REASON the actions are performed.  And just as killing any random American for problems with the goverment is wrong, so is depriving any random French person for the problems with the goverment.  They are equally wrong in theory, just one clearly is worse in action.  And the people are sterotyping French citizens as peace at all costs, interfere with American types.  True or not they are being stereotyped which is leading to the boycott.  So I am not ignoring your point, I'm arguing it.

[tasty]

Being all out against war is as bad as being all out for it.  I'm no war hawk, as you imply, but you are a peace at any price type person, and that is just as blind as any war hawk.

Why is advocating for peace a bad thing? Some people put peace above "security" and that's their business, I don't think it makes them stupid. Are you saying people with strong moral convictions are stupid? Are all quakers stupid? I don't understand why having strong beliefs makes a person dumb.

[cookie]

To use yet another inappropriate analogy, that would be like if another country, in opposing America, boycotted freedom.  And don't tell me that any anti-American is against freedom.

Actually, ones of the reasons many nations dislike western society/ America is the freedoms we give some people, namely women, occasionally minorities and such.

EMPIRICALLY DENIED  

Likewise, surely there are better protest methods than boycotting French wine and cheese, which are arguably the best in the world.?

What else can the American people do, short of going over to France and knocking on Chiracs door? The only way (not saying the current boycotts will work) people would get France to respond is through boycotting goods. If people went out with "please support us, France" signs they'd be like haha funny americans, no. Yeah, plus the fact that they need us alot more than we need them. Essentially, the only thing we do get from them is wine and cheese.

now, to tastys post  
i agree for the most part, except for one part

I think that changing well-established names as form of protest makes the people that do it look dumb. This form of protest will not harm France or Germany??if anything it will probably make them laugh.

Sure, it might seem dumb to other countries or other people but maybe it's important to the people doing it, maybe this is their form of expression. I think it is kind of silly, but I don't criticize the people that do it because maybe they have their own reasons and outlooks on the situation.

[Mort chillun' at Harvard]

I have it on a good source (who met with one of Colin Powell's undersecretarys last friday on the Israel-Palestine problems) that the war will start on March 15th regardless of the UN.  How poetic and apocolyptic at the same time (shakespeare anyone?).  Anyway, he says that they expect the war to be hot for 4 months.

I dunno if that's true at all, but as I said, he's pretty reliable.  So there ya have it.


And Cookie, I'm going to use a Baz tactic right now, cause I have to go to dinner: your wrong.

[jn.loudnotes]

Forgive me if it seems haughty of me when I try to discourage personal attacks on this board.  Obviously that didn't work, and it got turned against me.  However, Buccaneer:

I know where you stand.  I know how old you are, how intelligent you are, and how reasoned your opinions are.  Likewise, you seem highly aware of my relative lack of education and the foundations of my beliefs.  Just because these two ideals contrast does not make me absolutely wrong.  And for you to tell me to "grow up" as you yourself dismiss me out of hand is ridiculous and offensive.  

On to the points against me:

Cookie, while you are a woman and you enjoy rights, recognize that not everyone in this country lives the ideal free life that our laws supposedly guarantee.  Besides, countries don't dislike us for having rights, they dislike us for trying to impose our ideas of liberty and equality on them.

Honestly, if your culture believes women to be subservient, for example, would you not resent another culture trying to change things?  This works the other way as well.  If Arab women themselves are not discontented, why must we continue to meddle in their lives.  Or if that example isn't good enough, what about people who DON'T WANT to live in a democracy?  Isn't it arrogant of us to assume that everyone wants to live our way of life, and then try to force them?  Isn't the American way all about giving people free choice?

Bucc, if you'd taken the time to read more of my posts, you would know that I'm by no means purely a pacifist.  I am against war on an individual basis, though I ultimately believe it to be a last resort option.  I would have fought in World War 2, for example.  However, I am strongly against the United States pushing over any nation it disagrees with; rather like the way you tend to write off any forum poster who disagrees with you as being beneath you.

As for trading, you're missing the point.  The other day here in Raleigh some people organized an anti-war protest, it had a decent turnout of about 2000 people.  At the same time someone came up with the idea to do a pro-war protest; this garnered about 100.  I fully support people expressing themselves however they wish.  But protesting for a war is ridiculous, and going to the extreme of boycotting anti-war nations' products is stupid as well.  Since war really ought to be a last recourse, and no one should really want it, why the hell would you be that bent on it?  When you look at the motivation, it seems petty, and loses the altruism that makes protest really effective.  

And as for quality products, I'm just saying protesting the goods isn't the smartest form of expression.  That'd be like if we as a nation embargoed Saudi oil because the government is undemocratic.  Well. . .we need the oil. . .and I think we need French wine more than we need a war of aggression.

Finally, everyone please stop using that word "weaksauce"  I don't know where it came from, but it makes all your arguments sounds lame.  For god's sake, why can you all not stop bickering like little kids for a few minutes and just discuss the issues?  In particular, Bucc, when you address my maturity while personally attacking people on an online message board I have to question everything you say.

Come on now, I've agreed on something or other over time with everyone here.  Try not to get so galvanized.

[jn.loudnotes]

Note:  and I will stop being galvanized too  

Oh and btw cookie - since when is it bad to make fun of people who do stupid things, whether or not they think they have good reasons for them?

[cookie]

\
Cookie, while you are a woman and you enjoy rights, recognize that not everyone in this country lives the ideal free life that our laws supposedly guarantee.  Besides, countries don't dislike us for having rights, they dislike us for trying to impose our ideas of liberty and equality on them.

Honestly, if your culture believes women to be subservient, for example, would you not resent another culture trying to change things?  This works the other way as well.  If Arab women themselves are not discontented, why must we continue to meddle in their lives.  

I never claimed everyone got perfect equality and everything is equitable.. but you have to agree with me that we give more freedoms than most countries allow granted that there have been limits.

Also, you say countries don't dislike us for having rights, etc.. but then what's the antiwestern sentiment about? I don't recall the US trying to station a McDonalds in Osama's hood... yet things are still taken out on them. Why? It's the principle of things in many situations. Even if we are good people and upstanding citizens, we will always be the enemies in many eyes because we have different principles and beliefs, and we embody to them what they believe is immoral. We are not humans, we are lesser beings that threaten their way of existence just by existing. It has nothing to do with actions in many circumstances.

Next.. you talk about a culture advocating womens subservience. While i get what you're talking about, I refuse to believe it. Is it human nature to be oppressed, even if it is your "culture"? Doubtfully. Also, I think that assuming a person is the culture they come from is repugnant. Do you really believe women in countries that veil, seclude, and oppress LIKE their situation? Don't you think they might like to be educated, have free will, be able to walk the streets without a man by their side? I think so, and i happen to be a woman.

you should watch some documentaries on women in the middle east, they're quite informative.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

First off, total equality is known as anarchy.  The only way to have order is to have inequalities that put some people above and some people below.

Secondly, weaksauce is the product of abe, I use it only to be ironic when acting like Bucc to Bucc's posts...otherwise I agree that it, like calling bullshit are stupid means of arguing and that making strong counter points to an argument would be much more impressive than insulting it.

[Mort, still chillun']

Total equality is also impossible, so since it's futile, why not aim for it?  Near equality seems like a pretty good idea.

I wish I had more to add to this debate, but I have nothing as smart as Loudnotes to say, and since I agree with him, I'll let him speak for me.