Randi Rhodes seems to have a somewhat neo-con philosophy on Iraq

[Ignoramus]

She was just saying that Iraq can be liberated by the US staying and rebuilding their infrastructure etc... Sheesh. This was in the context of the change in terminology from war on terror to struggle against extremism. Essentially, complaining that Bush is abandoning "the war on terror".

I've heard her often using that phrase "war on terror" and also endorsing the idea that terrorism can be defeated militarily.

So, she seems to think there are a finite number of terrorists that can be killed and that ends terrorism.

I've also heard callers trying to address this issue, but as she generally doesn't let people get a word in edge wise, she didn't get their point.

It's pretty sad. It's great that she is on the air, and she gives exposure to a lot that wouldn't be heard otherwise, but she wavers. I've even heard her engage in jingoistic French bashing (a red flag for me indicating that someone is an idiot). Maybe it's just incoherence and advocating for democracy at gunpoint is not an actual adherence to imperialism.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dbonds]

3. Are you listenning the Randi Roads on AAR?

Doesn't sound like it.

[Ignoramus]

5. Yeah. Did I represent what she said incorrectly?

Any argument with my opinion?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dbonds]

10. Hard to argue with opinions, but...

Iraq and War on Terror are not related. That is two seperate wars.

And if we did decide to leave Iraq we can't do it without rebuilding it, we broke it we fix it. That is not the neocon view by an extreme longshot.

Bush did abandon the War on Terror to go to Iraq.

I have never heard her disparage the French though. I do agree she does talk to much in her 'interviews'. She really needs to listen more.

[Catholic Sensation]

12. cleaning up the mess we made in Iraq is clearly

a neocon zionist plot, didn't you get the memo?

[Ignoramus]

15. I think the phrase "war on terror" is nonsensical

You can't shoot arson. You can't bomb terror. You can bomb some terrorists, together with surrounding "innocents". That action is generally refered to as "terrorism".

So, essentially "the war on terror", is the philosophy of terrorism. I am opposed to terrorism.

This has been talked about, yelled and screamed for years. Now, the Bush admin is adopting the words of the opposite side, without of couse indicating that they've grasped that a policy of terrorism can't defeat terrorism.

Unfortunately, I think Randi Rhodes hasn't grasped it either. She seems to argue that you can simply kill "the terrorists" and beat terrorism.

As for rebuilding Iraq. I think people argue about this in an odd way. Typically it is argued as if there is this problem A in Iraq, that we think about and devise solutions for, and the problems with the invasion are a different problem B. I think this is nonsense.

"The problem in Iraq" is that a military agressor (the US) invaded and destroyed a country. The solution to that problem obviously doesn't involve having the criminal stay in the country.

[Catholic Sensation]

18. good for you, others don't think it's nonsensical

and I'd rather it be labelled a war on al Qaeda, which would be more accurate as it pertains to what we did before Iraq. Also, I don't know which woman you've been listening to, but I've never heard her say "you can simply kill the terrorists" to defeat terrorism. Even Bush has admitted that one can't beat terrorism, as it's a tactic, and for some, a belief.

Out of curiosity, would you ever engage the United States in a war in which we weren't attacked first?

[Ignoramus]

23. are you one that doesn't think it's nonsensical?

You say even bush has admitted that terrorism is a tactic. Does that imply that you also think it is not a place, but a tactic? I think so.

The war on terror, like the war on drugs, is a propaganda slogan used to get people to support the militarization of police actions.

Okay, I haven't heard her say "you can simply kill the terrorists" to defeat terrorism.

There was this one call where a Republican was arguing Bush's side supposedly about why capturing Osama bin Laden is not important, in the context of a "global war on terror". She in turn argued that the enemy is Al Qaeda and if the US had stayed in Afghanistan it could have finished the job. That is along the same lines.

I think she didn't pickup on what could have been the point, which is that "terrorism" isn't Osama bin Laden, or Sadam Hussein or even "Al Qaeda". So playing whack a mole is counter productive.

Randi Rhodes said today, in the context of this issue about "war on terror" vs "struggle against extremism", that "Iraq can be liberated" by the US military staying in Iraq and rebuilding the infrastructure.

This implies that she thinks "insurgencies" can be defeated by occupying armys through military action. So, essentially, she is arguing in favor of imperialism and regime change.

My feelings about the use of military force are mixed. In the abstract, I would support sending people with weapons to another country that was being attacked to help them defend themselves.

My main problem is that it is the military of the US government that we are talking about. Imagine I asked you would you ever engage North Korea's army in a war in which they weren't attacked first?

[Catholic Sensation]

24. I would most certainly engage north korea in a war

in which they were the aggressor. Just like I would have Nazi Germany the second they touched Poland. Foreign policy based on isolationism is just as irresponsible as this neoconservative democratic trotskyism exhibited by people like the Kristols.

[Ignoramus]

29. By "engage" I meant "send"

Your question was if I would ever "engage" the US military in a war in which the US wasn't attacked. I assumed you meant to ask if I would send the US military into war, not wage war against the US.

So, my question rephrased is: Would you ever support sending North Korea's military into military action against a country that was not attacking it?

My point is 1) it's odd to talk about oneself as being able to send some military into war 2) that I would not trust the government of North Korea's intentions in engaging in military aggression.

In general I think the military should not be involved in police actions, except within international agreements. The "defense department" is for defending the country.

The basic ideal of democracy is that we do not trust the idea of benevolent dictatorships. We make a point of allowing that someone else might know better than us about policy.

Within the country the government is hired to act as servants of the people, and to be held accountable by it's people. Inside the country we have a police force that is subservient to the government that we hired. The police force acts according to the laws agreed upon by the people.

Our military interacts with the outside world. Our government does not make laws for the entire world. So, it is anti-democratic to have a military act as a world cop, outside of international agreements. Just as we make a point of allowing that someone else might know better than us on policy within the country, we do not presume to dictate the law for other countries.

So, if there is some genocide being committed somewhere by a government, an international body would need to agree that intervention was appropriate. Within that there are many qualifiers. The main thing is that I do not support the idea that the life of someone outside the country is less valuable than the life of someone inside the country.

I generally oppose the use of bombs, though I can imagine situations where it could be ethical to use them. The situation where it would be ethical to have the military bomb your own home town, is the only type of situation in which it would be ethical to use bombs against an enemy outside of the country.

I would not accept the idea that it is okay to kill a bunch of foreign innocents in order to reduce the number of American casualties. Every person's life is of equal value, everywhere.

[dbonds]

20. I don't disagree with anything you said except...

that Randi says the we can simply kill the terrorists. She has long since said we have to look at the root cause, and she placed the root cause on the first Iraq war and the fact that we left troops and bases in Saudi the Holy land of Islam. If you heard a snippet where she seemed to be saying something else it would not be consistent with everything else she said the last year.

You are right that we are invader in Iraq and that is THE problem. The point though is we can not just leave and let them clean up the mess. We need to do that, it is our responsibility. I would suggest the best way to clean it up is to give the Iraqis money and resources to fix it themselves though. They don't need our contractors.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

7. That is pure unadulterated BS.

:evilgrin:

[eleny]

8. You're mistaken

[stepnw1f]

11. And Rush Limbaugh Sounds Like a Socialist

Ever hear of corporate welfare? How are those gas prices?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lostnfound]

14. Oh for heaven's sake, don't leave just because of one thread.

Seems like you had quite a lot worthwhile to say.

[Just Me]

16. More "worthwhile" in a forum that draws a line on lies.

I've had it!!!!

[Ignoramus]

17. Err. How about just addressing what I said, instead

If I'm wrong. Tell me how.

I'm here to participate in learning and strategies about social justice.

Slaughtering a few virtual sacred cows is often a good thing. Being offended by it is usually bad.

[pretzel4gore]

21. Don't you dare!

or else....don't even think of it, or else!
(geez the cat's hungry...bbl!)

[latebloomer]

19. She thinks Afghanistan was a good idea

which I've never understood, considering that almost all of the supposed hijackers were Saudis.

And I don't think she gives much attention to the idea that the US may be responsible for much of the blowback it has received.

[kikiek]

25. Afghanistan is the country that allowed the terrorist groups to train in.

It is the home base. They were being protected by the Taliban that terrorizes the country with it's fundamentalist religion. We didn't finish the job. Actually she has addressed many times the breeding ground for terrorism that we have created. I think this attack of someone who is obviously not a neo con is bizzare and counter productive. Randi is well educated on what has been done by this group since their inception. She is very vocal and listened to by many. This mincing of words is silly.

[peacetalksforall]

22. PNAC and the cabal roped everyone in with their

propaganda buzz phrase - war on terror.

It is in actuality killing for corporate profit targeting Moslems under the guise of defending the country.

They pushed every patriot button that we're wired with and they got their electricity.

Randi and everyone else, especially our leaders, should not use the phrase.

We have an imperialistic move that cause a civil war and a situation where passionate Moslems pushed up to passionate Christians -

what we could have had instead was -

MOSLEM and CHRISTIAN LEADERS CALLING FOR US to get out and MOSLEMS coming together to help Iraqis end their civil war.

Call is what it is - an imperialistic move that caused a civil war and sparked terrorism in defense against the imperialist.

Just for the heck of it - see if you can talk to others without using the PNAC phrase, because every time you use it, they win the day.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rfrrfrrfr]

27. About the only thing I can think of

Is that you heard one of the times where she sarcastically repeates the Neo-con positions and ideas. She does that quite a lot and its not always very clear she is being sarcastic and poking fun at the neo-cons if you are not a regular listener.

[Lannes]

28. Ignoramus

I dont know if you are right or not but it would help alot of posters if you could provide some evidence.Maybe an audio clip or a link.Obviously alot of posters feel strongly about rhandi rhodes.

[Don Claybrook]

30. I'm here to defend the original poster and get flamed

First, I don't listen to Randi Rhodes, so I don't know how she's characterized Bush's "War on Terror" or whatever the new name is. I have heard some people here say she's kind of obnoxious, and I've heard others argue with that point of view. Again, I don't listen to her, so I'm not qualified to comment.

I also see that there is heavy inference that the poster is a (rhymes with 'Leaper'). Maybe, maybe not.

But what I will say is that I agree with the original poster's points insofar as you cannot win a war on terror (I saw another good parallel in GD the other day comparing this notion to trying to win a war on ambushes...apt point). And if Randi Rhodes is making a point about staying in Iraq and winning the peace, then I completely disagree with her. It's not going to happen. We won't defeat an insurgency, and we won't bring peace to the region. We should pack our stuff tonight and leave there first thing in the morning. It's the ONLY halfway intelligent option at this point, even if it's not a great option. It's the least harmful option, and of course it's not going to happen.

I don't know, maybe some of you have seen other posts by this person that make you suspicious, but all the name-calling in seemingly blind defense of Randi Rhodes is a little too much cult of personality for me. This is a person who is paid to talk for hours each day. She's bound to get some stuff wrong.

Thanks.

[Technowitch]

31. Locking

This thread is a flaming trainwreck.

-Technowitch
DU Moderator