»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Dave, (Proper Words)
| The Alley |
|
Dave, (Proper Words) |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
"Dave, Correct me if I’m wrong. I believe if John Kerry is elected President of the United States, the United States will lose or will have lost in Iraq. My reasoning is that John Kerry has insinuated, if not stated outright, that going to war with Iraq was a mistake. Given that, if John Kerry is elected he will have to ask himself, (or others loudly will), what John Kerry asked a congressional committee in 1971: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” There is a beautiful line from a poem by Wallace Stevens: How gladly with proper words the soldier dies if he must or lives on the bread of faithful speech. There is no way the soldiers and marines would not be effected. In this respect, (finally for critics), Iraq would be another Vietnam; and the country they were in and the country that sent them would not be worth dying for. And they shouldn’t be expected to. Let me know what you think." |
||
| © Copyright 2004 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
There's much to be said for proper words. I hope we've learned something from Vietnam. Earth's crammed with heaven, and every common bush afire with God, but only he who sees takes off his shoes. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) John Kerry objected to the MANNER in which we went to war with Iraq. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And he also said it's "the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place", and he called it a "mistake", Karen, the same words that he used about Vietnam. He spoke to more than just the manner. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
And you are dismissing the REST of what he said as well. I have no intention of placing myself in the defense of either of these men's beliefs. Nor do I want my children there. I believe that we did not act responsibly engaging in this war. There. I said it. So shoot me. And somebody might. (There are crackheads in my windows at five a.m.) I think we need our alliances. In my area, it's called a "neighborhood watch". Around the world? I thought it was called the U.N. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Clearly, not enough. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Karen, I personally don't trust the U.N. anymore than I trust a crackhead. I think, each in their own way, are very dangerous. I mean, Khadafi on the Human Rights Commission? YIKES! What's that about? I think we need a new Neighborhood Watch group. |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
I think most of our world neighbors are mostly worried about US. There are no PROPER words I can think of to describe what is happening today in Iraq. Not to mention Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Russia, and the whole Middle East. Then of course, there is Iran. Hmmmm. Wondering what day that invasion is scheduled for. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"I think we need a new Neighborhood Watch group." Gee, I wonder who would be in charge of THAT? sorry for the sarcasm, Denise.  I hope you know I enjoy our little head butting sessions, and now and then we hit an impasse, and we just have to agree to disagree. Now if we could just convince the world of that. On a personal note, I think the entire neighborhood would feel immensely safer if I did not feel compelled to pick up that dreaded .357. I'm kinda twitchy yanno.  And I believe this current administration is as well.  PEACE |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Midnitesun “I think most of our world neighbors are mostly worried about US.” What are they afraid the United States will do and what consequences do they expect? “There are no PROPER words I can think of to describe what is happening today in Iraq.” Would you use the same words as could have been used about Iraq under Saddam and his sons? “Not to mention Afghanistan, Pakistan…, and the whole Middle East” Where there are growing and virulent Islamic fundamentalist movements which preach and act with violence as the way of accomplishing a world of Islam, (which literally translates as “submission”), acceptable to their god; a god which rewards fighters preferentially in a paradise filled with good things to eat and drink and virgins. “Then of course, there is Iran. Hmmmm.” Which. as elsewhere in the Middle East, harbors violent fundamentalist movements intent on conquest by any means for the sake of their god and for reward in paradise after. Additionally, Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel, (Israel a country which receives one third of all foreign aid distributed by the United States though it has less than one percent of the world’s population). Israel, (and the United States which is so far still committed to Israel’s existence), is therefore directly concerned about Iran’s nuclear weapons program since Iran already has and is actively pursuing improvements on it’s military missiles, (which are already capable of reaching Jerusalem). Israel itself currently cannot, as it did in Iraq, strike to destroy facilities necessary to that program without at least United State’s logistical support; so given Iran’s expressed intent and it’s known efforts to accomplish that intent the time is coming . . . Then of course, we could simply stand aside, and let Iran and the rest of those who are likewise committed finish the job for Hitler. Russia? Russia is still mourning it’s children. China? I’m not sure what you’re referring to. John |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
I'm stayin outta the serene one's neighborhood  'cept via cyber connections LOL, my own back yard is relatively calm these days, though not without an occasional drug bust or street fight. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Midnitesun, Which translates into they can do whatever they want to do to whomever, so long as it doesn’t disturb our quiet time, which by the way was the majority American opinion before December 7, 1941. John |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Don't ever underestimate the sabras of Israel, whom I lived with for a year and will never second guess. Saddam is an awful excuse for a human being, I've never said anything to suggest otherwise. Human rights abuses are documented daily around the globe, including China. There are NO proper words for any of man(un)kind's inhumanities, and I've never suggested that physical abuse or torture is an acceptable behavior...from anyone, any country. I do not believe the world was made safer by the actions our government took, and I hope we can all survive this escalation of international violence. quote: you hereby stand corrected |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
John, I believe you have brought up an interesting point. Perhaps a thread regarding the limits of power vs. responsibility might be in order. (and I know it has been discussed before, so anyone knowing the whereabouts of that particular thread(s) can help me out, perhaps?) Many believe the United States waited too long to halt the rise of Adolph Hitler. I'd be interested in the opinions of all regarding such. and? PEACE PEACE PEACE (what do I gotta do? Beat it into ya?) *couldn't resist* I like to tease a bit, John. No offense intended. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Midnitesun, “I do not believe the world was made safer by the actions our government took, and I hope we can all survive this escalation of international violence.” September 11, was planned long before Bush took office. Do you believe that was the only plan, and if not that other plans were not adversely effected by United States actions since September 11?. Do you believe that Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program as a spontaneous act or love and good will wholly uninfluenced by its perception of United States actions? Do you believe that the people, (outside of the former regimes) of Afghanistan and Iraq regret United States actions and long for the old days? It is estimated that some quarter million illegal immigrants enter the United States every year. Do you believe that a country with such porous borders can afford not to take action outside those borders against those committed to its harm? Remember September 11, was 19 committed men armed with plane tickets, box cutters, and a religion that rewards those who die killing in its name. John |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
No. To assume 9/11 was an isolated event on anyone's agenda would be naive. And to assume the Afghani people would want to return to the past is equally ridiculous. That doesn't mean they feel safer or ARE safer because of what this country did, or didn't do. Out of curiosity, do you ever read the World News Network? the media from other countries? It's an eye opener to read what the rest of the world is thinking, though it's only part of what prompts me to repeat; the world IS NOT safer today than it was before the US went into Iraq. That is not to suggest the world leaders should sit on their collective asses and do nothing. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: So. There were many at that time arguing that the number one thread to security was Al Quaida and bin Laden. Bush, perhaps understandably, downplayed these arguments. Nevertheless, his knee-jerk anti-Clintonism serious hindered are intelligences services at that time. (See the Fallows essay in this month's Atlantic) quote: Of course, they were. You see plans like that in Iraq everyday. quote: That took about nine months of concerned, negotiation as I recall. quote: Uh, yeah, most do. Take a look at some world opinion polls. quote: And there it is, the slide. We're so weak that we can't even protect our own borders so that we have to go to war with other countries? Is that really the argument you want to make? I know, I know, the best defense is a good offense babble. But it helps if you actually attack the team that's attacking you. Now what was that guy's name who ran for a ninety-eight yards after an interception and almost touchdown in the wrong direction? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Midnitesun, “That doesn't mean they feel safer or ARE safer because of what this country did, or didn't do.” No one can control if people “feel” safer, (there are people who didn’t and don’t feel safe about swimming in Lake Michigan after the release of the movie “Jaws”). As to “are”, again is it reasonable to believe that terrorist attack plans have not been at least hindered by what this country did? ”Out of curiosity, do you ever read the World News Network? the media from other countries? It's an eye opener to read what the rest of the world is thinking,” Yes, and I know for example that the world at large is in disagreement with our support of the existence of the state of Israel, indeed much of Middle Eastern enmity is directly related to that disagreement. Our country would be far more popular in the world if we sent ovens to the Arabs instead of arms to the Israelis. “That is not to suggest the world leaders should sit on their collective asses and do nothing.” Which is pretty much what they did. It was primarily United States with Britain’s help that enforced any sanctions against Iraq, (sanctions which opponents to them estimate cost some five hundred thousand Iraqi lives, while Saddam and his sons and kind partied and bought friends in the UN and around the world, including France and Russia, with profits skimmed off the oil for food program). “the world IS NOT safer today than it was before the US went into Iraq.” Everyone knows Saddam wanted and planned to go down in history as a great hero, a Saladin defending the faith in the world against unbelievers, (remember in the war before he fired missiles on Israel in an attempt to inflame and enlist the Moslem world on his side). It is known he was actively engaged in seeking the end of sanctions so that he could again pursue his ambitions more aggressively with the talent he already had on the payroll in his country. It wouldn’t have taken much to improve on 19 guys with box cutters. John P.S. quote: Correct me if I’m wrong. I believe if John Kerry is elected President of the United States, the United States will lose or will have lost in Iraq. you hereby stand corrected How? Kerry said the war is a mistake. In 1971, he asked: “How can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”. If he is elected he will be asked that question and his only choices will be to act contrary to that question, which I can’t imagine him doing, (please explain how he would explain it), or he would have to act as would bring troops out as quickly as possible regardless of the consequences in Iraq. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
"Yes, and I know for example that the world at large is in disagreement with our support of the existence of the state of Israel, indeed much of Middle Eastern enmity is directly related to that disagreement. Our country would be far more popular in the world if we sent ovens to the Arabs instead of arms to the Israelis." I don't buy that for one second, though I do believe many feel the Israeli government goes too far against the Palestinians, I do NOT believe most people feel the state of Israel should not exist. As for the ovens comment? that's really uncalled for and vulgar in my opinion. And this is not a popularity contest. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Brad, “So. There were many at that time arguing that the number one thread to security was Al Quaida and bin Laden. Bush, perhaps understandably, downplayed these arguments. Nevertheless, his knee-jerk anti-Clintonism serious hindered are intelligences services at that time. (See the Fallows essay in this month's Atlantic)” Bush had been in office less than 8 months by 9/11. Intelligence services were severely limited by legislation that were that the consequence of the Church and similar congressional committees long before Bush arrived on the scene. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you believe that Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program as a spontaneous act or love and good will wholly uninfluenced by its perception of United States actions? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “That took about nine months of concerned, negotiation as I recall.” And you think its perception of United States actions have no effect leading to the success of those negotiations? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you believe that the people, (outside of the former regimes) of Afghanistan and Iraq regret United States actions and long for the old days? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “Uh, yeah, most do. Take a look at some world opinion polls.” How about in Iraq and Afghanistan? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is estimated that some quarter million illegal immigrants enter the United States every year. Do you believe that a country with such porous borders can afford not to take action outside those borders against those committed to its harm? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “And there it is, the slide. We're so weak that we can't even protect our own borders so that we have to go to war with other countries? Is that really the argument you want to make? I know, I know, the best defense is a good offense babble. But it helps if you actually attack the team that's attacking you.” My point is the United States has decided it will not wait to be attacked before it acts, and it can not wait until the attack can occur from a point within its own borders because by then it’s likely too late to stop it. The United States is not weak, but is, by it’s very nature as a free society and democracy, vulnerable. To accomplish security through border protection and other such internal measures would fundamentally change the nature of the nation, ( to sometime like the Soviet Union under Stalin). John |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Midnitesun, Have no illusions, outside of the United States, Israel and Jews have few friends. 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. John |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
I'm not talking from illusions, but from personal experiences with hundreds of others around the world who have lived and worked in the Middle East. You might be surprised at how many countries are still represented within the kibbutz system. I have friends in no less than ten countries who lived in Israel. Only a half dozen were of Jewish heritage. I worked side-by-side with Arabs and Jews, as well as Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, agnostics and atheists. I think your perception of what the rest of the world thinks is extremely myopic and distorted. At the very least, you make it sound as if you believe you can speak for the majority of the world outside of the US. Tsk tsk. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Midnitesun, Israel is a Jewish state. I believe every Jew, regardless of where he lives, is, under Israeli law, a citizen. Israel vehemently opposes the Palestinian “right of return” because that would threaten the very nature of Israel as a Jewish state. Aversion if not outright enmity toward Jews is preached in the Koran, ( Mohammed had Jews killed). Listen to the Arab media. I myself had experience with Europeans from countries where Jews were at best tolerated and often persecuted for millenniums; the attitude is alive. John |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You're trying to connect two completely unrelated events, John. Doesn't matter if Kerry is elected or not. The war in Iraq was lost before ever it began, at least insofar as loss is defined by the absence of winning. There was never anything there to win. quote: By which logic, of course, any nation or group of nations in the world is perfectly justified to preemptively attack America. It's a bit scary to realize WE are the most dangerous and imminent threat any nation has ever had to face. quote: 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? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: 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. Getting rid of Hussein was and still is a good idea, but it did absolutely zilch for the protection of America. Except, perhaps, make it worse. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
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
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
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 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
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 |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
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. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: 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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: 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: 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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=7&aid=D85QPCG81_story |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: 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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Neither of which is relevant to American safety. quote: 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 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
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 |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
