How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Dave,   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Dave, (Proper Words)

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


25 posted 10-17-2004 10:58 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Ron,

quote:

Much of the Middle East would dance in the streets at their extermination, and there would be many, though quieter, celebrations in the rest of the world as well.


That's about the third comment you've made, John, that has a decidingly anti-Semitic taste to it. Please tell us you're not a bigot?


I was born in Germany because there is where my Polish parents met,
where each had been taken to be slaves, and my father spent  time
in a camp where when it got crowded it was shower time.

I am making comments about the existing fact of anti-Semiticism.  Pay attention
to the context.

John

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


26 posted 10-17-2004 11:31 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Brad,


“But that is not a justification to go to war with the wrong country. If the protection of the country is what you're arguing, then the Iraq war was a mistake.”


At the time the United States went to war with Iraq,
every major intelligence organization in the world,
(including those of France, Germany, and Russia),
concluded that Saddam Hussein’s regime still had
weapons of mass destruction.  Putin recently
announced to us all that he had also then informed
our government that his intelligence had found
evidence of Saddam Hussein planning attacks
on the United States both within and outside its
borders.  The world had watched Saddam use
weapons of mass destruction on his own people.
His ambitions to go down in history as a heroic
fighter for Islam were known.  There also serious
reservations about the man’s sanity.  He
actively encouraged terrorist acts, (against Israel
for example with cash rewards to families of suicide
bombers). Etc. Etc.

In that context, not hindsight, ( a note, I found
it  interesting that David Kay in a interview
on PBS concluded that Saddam Hussein
himself may have believed he had weapons
of mass destruction when in fact he didn’t),
what was the United States to do?

“Getting rid of Hussein was and still is a good idea, but it did absolutely zilch for the protection of America.”

As Stephen Ambrose relates at the end of
“The World At War”, there were many Americans who after
the war was over had the same attitude regarding Hitler.
America did not go to war in 1941 to free the Jews,
that was a consequence of America’s victory.  Sometimes
good things are done by accident.  

As to it doing nothing for
the protection of America, Russia said Hussein
had plans; at least those plans aren’t going any further.
  

John

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


27 posted 10-17-2004 11:34 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

Yes, anti-semitism still exists, as does hatred for Muslims, Buddhists, Bahais, Christians, agnostics, atheists...the list is endless.
I remember all too well what happened to my first ex's family (Austrian Jews) in Germany. I remember all too well what happened to Bahai friends in Iran. I remember all too well what happened to my daughter's father's family (Japanese Americans). I remember the numbers on my friend Ruth's arm. I remember being invited the wedding of an Arab family, Muslims, who prayed for peace, and worked with Jews, in harmony.
But I don't think it furthers the cause of peace, of religious freedom and respect for others to constantly pit one against the other. The same holds true of hatred due to differing political or sexual orientations. It's all divisive, all the name calling and posturing only serves to perpetuate animosity and hatred.
We are all caught up in a world war now, whether we want to see it as such or not, that's what it is. It's time we stop polarizing ourselves, and work together. You are right, anti-semitism exists. But if your comments were so easily misinterpreted here, what kind of impact do you think they might have on someone who really does hate Jews?

Back to Iraq, I doubt that we are going to see the end of this battle for a very long time, and in fact, it seems to be escalating. We ARE the infidel in the eyes of many, and the actions we took in Iraq only added fuel to the fire, built a stronger power base for the likes of bin Laden.  
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


28 posted 10-18-2004 12:02 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Midnitesun,

“ But if your comments were so easily misinterpreted here, what kind of impact do you think they might have on someone who really does hate Jews?”

If they pay attention to the context, they won’t like me, and frankly I think
they would more easily recognize the difference.


“Back to Iraq, I doubt that we are going to see the end of this battle for a very long time, and in fact, it seems to be escalating.”

I think the fundamentalists and those who prospered under
the old regime see an opportunity.  They see from history that
the key to success is American casualties.  You hear no one in
America arguing against the war on moral grounds as they did
regarding Vietnam; the opposition is because of American casualties,
(that Iraqi soldiers and police are dying are relatively speaking
merely mentioned and thereby hardly noticed).
I think they see Kerry, (who has defined our involvement as a mistake),
as an avenue to victory and hope to influence the outcome of
elections in America in his favor, ( and since they are not in a position
to blow up trains in Chicago . . .).  

"We ARE the infidel in the eyes of many, and the actions we took in Iraq only added fuel to the fire, built a stronger power base for the likes of bin Laden."  


Our continued support of the existence of the state of Israel has already
and continues to provide more than enough fuel, ( we were not in Iraq
on September 11th).  The likes of bin Laden are going to and fighting
American soldiers and marines in Iraq, and they are being killed there.

John

P.S. This is fun, isn’t it?

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


29 posted 10-18-2004 12:23 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

First of all, let me say I already believe we have lost this war in Iraq, for anyone who expects terrorism can just go away just like that is sorely mistaken.

We've gotten ourselves into an albatross of a war based on impatience and bad judgement by this Administration.

As far as I'm concerned, this is already Vietnam II, and the months ahead I feel will only reveal the more dire long-term consequences in result of this.

It doesn't matter who is elected. Iraq is a quagmire, and I believe the sooner, the better in getting all our men and women out of harms way down there and think of alternative foreign policy solutions which are non-violent.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


30 posted 10-18-2004 12:41 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
If they pay attention to the context, they won’t like me, and frankly I think they would more easily recognize the difference.

It's easy, John, to blame a failure to communicate on the reader. You might consider, however, especially in a place specifically devoted to this craft, that the writer is often expected to shoulder a bit of that responsibility, too.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


31 posted 10-18-2004 12:52 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Noah,

“First of all, let me say I already believe we have lost this war in Iraq, for anyone who expects terrorism can just go away just like that is sorely mistaken.”

No one expects terrorism “in total” to be defeated in Iraq anymore than it  was
expected that Nazism “in total” would be defeated by the invasion of Sicily;
it is a campaign in a larger war that will take many years.

“We've gotten ourselves into an albatross of a war based on impatience and bad judgement by this Administration.”

Several administrations waited for over ten years, and the judgment came after giving
attention to the events and non-events of that period as well as the assessments
of all the world’s major intelligence organizations.

As far as I'm concerned, this is already Vietnam II, and the months ahead I feel will only reveal the more dire long-term consequences in result of this.

It will be Vietnam II if it is lost because of a failure of resolve on the American home front
not the battlefield.  Months is not years.  There is no doubt we want to leave as soon
as it is possible for a free Iraq to sustain itself; a goal toward which both Americans
and Iraqis are striving against bloody opposition.

“It doesn't matter who is elected. Iraq is a quagmire, and I believe the sooner, the better in getting all our men and women out of harms way down there”

See response above.


“and think of alternative foreign policy solutions which are non-violent.”

One of, if not, the most effective of which, (saving billions that can be used for
education and healthcare, etc.  at home),  would be the United States
withdrawing all aid and support that helps perpetuate the existence of
the state of Israel thereby leaving it to the goodwill of those peoples
surrounding it.  Ready for that?  


John

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


32 posted 10-18-2004 06:57 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

John, you might be surprised on how many points we agree upon regarding Israel.

But lovie? I'm a cook. I tend to what is first and foremost in the frying pan. That happens to be Iraq.

Israel has my attention too, but that is on "simmer" with a careful eye watch from me.

Not that my careful eye means much, but I do concede certain points. And yep, that ain't gonna win me popularity points here either, but? OH well. (I've screwed up here before.)

My opinion has nothing to do with anti-semitism either. I just happen to think there is agenda there, one that is generally not recognized by our public.

If we should start a perverse pool on just which power would pull the ultimate trigger first?


Nod. My bet would be Israel. And I sigh, knowing how inextricably tied we are in alliance to them too.

Quite a fine mess, methinks.

But just like tangled twine, we start with the thread closest to the edge.

That would be this war. And we really need to get the hell out of there, and we really need a leader who recognizes that.

NOW.

(and I was supposed to sleep--HEH)



I blame you guys, yanno.

*chuckle*

That's right! I tell my shrink all about you...



anyhow?

I enjoyed the conversation.

Thanks.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


33 posted 10-18-2004 09:24 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron:
quote:
It's easy, John, to blame a failure to communicate on the reader. You might consider, however, especially in a place specifically devoted to this craft, that the writer is often expected to shoulder a bit of that responsibility, too.



Ron, as a quiet observant to the more political threads (except the marriage one ), I have to say that John's communication was pretty clear.  He only mentioned anti-semitism as a cause for U.S. hatred, in the fundamentalist Muslim world.  And nothing he wrote even hints that the anti-semitism might be his own.  If you want to blame the communicator, you have to at least show where he miscommunicated don't you?  I've reviewed it all, and I don't see it.


Carry on verbal soldiers ...


Stephen.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


34 posted 10-18-2004 07:52 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
At the time the United States went to war with Iraq, every major intelligence organization in the world, (including those of France, Germany, and Russia), concluded that Saddam Hussein regime still had weapons of mass destruction.


Certainly, no intelligence organization said unequivocally that there were no WMD -- yet, one has to wonder why we continued inspections if it was indeed a 'slam dunk'.

Going to war is serious business. Is there anyone here who thinks that is controversial? The reticence and refusal to join in the war effort is based on that assumption. Without hindsight, we can say that the administration did not put forth a 'slam dunk' argument to go to war (I, and others, argued exactly that point here before the war.). With hindsight, the reason that it wasn't a 'slam dunk' was that they weren't there.

No one is arguing that Hussein was a nice guy. Except for a few whackos, no one is arguing the moral equivalence of Bush to Hussein, but, the simple fact is that all imperial agressors supply rationalizations for their agression. From Germany's 'protection of the German people,' to Japan's "East Asian co-prosperity sphere," to Kuwait is a part of greater Iraq.

And that's what we get now.
  
quote:
Putin recently announced to us all that he had also then informed our government that his intelligence had found
evidence of Saddam Hussein planning attacks
on the United States both within and outside its borders.  The world had watched Saddam use weapons of mass destruction on his own people. His ambitions to go down in history as a heroic fighter for Islam were known.  There also serious reservations about the man’s sanity.  He actively encouraged terrorist acts, (against Israel for example with cash rewards to families of suicide
bombers). Etc. Etc.


His embrace of Islam is actually somewhat in dispute, his megolomania is not. What he actually wanted was a return to Mesopotamia (He went a lot farther back then Islam). But, please forgive me, I don't recall when Putin released that information, care to clarify?

But regardless, I have no doubt that Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and many, many others have plans like that as well. If the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud, then no one wanted to find the smoking gun, but we did want to find the gun.

Why?

For two reasons, one practical, one ideological. First, geo-political stability is inherently in our self-interest, our more nobler ambitions to spread the rule of law and democratic institutions across the world should take a back seat to the more mundane idea that people need to eat, need to buy things, need to live in relative peace in order for democratic institutions to work.

Second, we want to be the good guys. Hell, we are the good guys, but if you shoot a man who you think raped your daughter anymore justified when you discover that the murdered man didn't, in fact, rape your daughter? Are you justified in murder if you then make the argument that he might, someday, rape your daughter?

That's not the rule of law.

That's not what we're about.

And if it is, then you've changed the question, "Why go to war?" to "Why not go to war?"

And if you don't see the absurdity in that, well, then, I'll guess I'll just have to keep on talking.  

Oh no :0
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


35 posted 10-18-2004 11:50 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I don't know what the answer is, Karen, I really don't. I just know it's not the U.N.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


36 posted 10-19-2004 12:09 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Brad,

“I don't recall when Putin released that information, care to clarify?”


“Saddam Planned Attacks against United States Vladimir Putin

Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 1:20 PM EDT (1720 GMT)

CNN) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country warned the United States several times that Saddam Hussein's regime was planning terror attacks on the United States and its overseas interests.

Putin's comments in Kazakhstan came amid a new debate in the United States about the extent of ties between Saddam and the al Qaeda terrorist network triggered by a preliminary report from the commission investigating the September 11 attacks.

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said. “


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saddam.terror/

John
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


37 posted 10-19-2004 12:33 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I don't doubt such things were talked about, but doesn't anybody else get the feeling that it's more along the lines of

"At some unspecified time and at some unspecified place, somebody's going to attack us."

The has the advantage of only having to be right once and can never be disproved.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


38 posted 10-19-2004 12:42 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Brad,


"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said. “

“I don't doubt such things were talked about, but doesn't anybody else get the feeling that it's more along the lines of

"At some unspecified time and at some unspecified place, somebody's going to attack us."

The has the advantage of only having to be right once and can never be disproved.”


Nothing short of a big smoking hole in the ground
surrounded by body parts would convince you.

John

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


39 posted 10-19-2004 02:47 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

A big smoking hole in the ground presupposes both motive and method. Even granting the former, there's been no evidence of the latter.

Okay, a whole lot of people were wrong. Fine. It happens. Isn't it about time one or two of them admitted they made a mistake? And when the proverbial buck stops, as stop it must, isn't it time for someone to accept the consequences of that mistake?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


40 posted 10-19-2004 09:54 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Convince me of what?

If there is a nuclear stike on American soil, you get the feeling that you'll say something like, "See, I told you so. If we hadn't taken out Saddam, he would have done this."

Except of course he didn't have any nukes or biochemical weapon or anything else that could hit the US.

Are we safer today?

No.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


41 posted 10-20-2004 12:04 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Yes, we are Brad, because now he doesn't have the opportunity to follow through with his plans of reconstituting his weapons program, which was his intent. Not only are we safer, but so is the rest of civilization.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


42 posted 10-20-2004 07:26 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
TEHRAN, Iran - The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.

Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.

"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.

"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry against Bush.

The Bush campaign said no thanks.

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=7&aid=D85QPCG81_story
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


43 posted 10-20-2004 09:34 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Yes, we are Brad, because now he doesn't have the opportunity to follow through with his plans of reconstituting his weapons program, which was his intent.

That's one opinion, Denise. Mine is that Saddam was no more a danger to America last year than he is today. All we did was give him a smaller prison. And while that may have some value, I question whether the value was truly worth the cost.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


44 posted 10-20-2004 09:08 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Ron,

“That's one opinion, Denise. Mine is that Saddam was no more a danger to America last year than he is today. All we did was give him a smaller prison. And while that may have some value, I question whether the value was truly worth the cost.”

We also gave him 27 million fewer men women and children to terrorize.  We also
cut him off from his revenue source which even during sanctions allowed him
to skim an estimated ten billion dollars from the oil for food program.

We have just seen the end of an investigation that took a long time and
spent much money to come to conclusions faulting the government
for not connecting dots about a few Arabs in flight schools with
nineteen men with box cutters.  With Iraq we had the world’s intelligence
organizations telling us that Iraq was a danger, and at least one, (Russian),
telling us repeatedly Iraq was planning terrorist attacks against the United
States.   All that coupled with eleven years of evasion and obstruction
by Saddam’s regime, (during which tens if not hundreds of thousands
were murdered before our eyes), made resolution now or in the very
near future imperative.

As to WMD, I personally find it very hard to believe that “all” of the world’s
intelligence organizations were wrong.  I found David Kay’s remark
in a interview on PBS that Saddam Hussein himself may have believed
he had weapons of mass destruction when in fact he didn’t, (an idea
Kay would have gotten from intelligence sources including communication
intercepts), incredible.  Iraq is the size of Texas, and Saddam had years
and billions at his disposal.  My personal suspicion is that if we left now, and there
were still some who knew where to look still alive,
WMD would erupt from the sand in six months.

John

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


45 posted 10-21-2004 06:32 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
We also gave him 27 million fewer men women and children to terrorize.  We also cut him off from his revenue source which even during sanctions allowed him to skim an estimated ten billion dollars from the oil for food program.

Neither of which is relevant to American safety.

quote:
As to WMD, I personally find it very hard to believe that “all” of the world’s
intelligence organizations were wrong.

Maybe because you, personally, don't want to? In truth, I almost wish you were right. The day military intelligence becomes omniscient, or even just infallible, is the day war will become too expensive to wage.

Bottom line, however, is that the intelligence being right or wrong is irrelevant. It's the actions predicated on the intelligence that is at issue. Some people said, "We don't know enough yet to act." Others said, "Screw that, we can't wait." Hindsight leaves us with a clear view of who was right and who was wrong.

Being wrong should carry consequences. Especially when the cost to others is so ponderously high. At the very, very least, one should lose the opportunity to continue being wrong.


Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


46 posted 10-23-2004 03:09 AM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

I am going to post, just because no one argues with me.

I Won't Vote for John Kerry, because he is every thing I was taught what not to be.

I was taught to stand up for what I believe in and stand against the crowd. If two boys bully a "nerd" and no one stands up for the nerd Who is to blame. Some one should of said "no, that's wrong, This is not how a society functions"  John kerry always says he wont inforce his beliefs on others. He doesn't believe in any thing enough to say this is wrong, instead he says something to make every one happy. He lets the "nerd" be teased.

My teacher once told me if we aren't are neighborse keeper, if we don't stand up for what we beleive is right, then we are no better then the person doing the wrong.


Personal standerds and what we believe in are a large part of who we are. If we deny what we are, then we are simply zombies living off of others brains.

Juju  
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Dave,   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors