View Full Version : War... How Quickly They Forget.
Sir Toose
02-18-03, 02:48 PM
Provided by Joe Galloway, author of We Were Soldiers Once, and Young and is
posted as an item of possible interest.
This one is definitely NOT tongue in cheek. Sig, the author, was a
teen-aged Marine who marched and fought as a rifleman to and from the Chosin reservoir in Korea in 1950. He switched to the Army, and served as a Special Forces officer in Vietnam. After Vietnam he joined the CIA, and went back to Korea. He's been there, done it, and has some specific thoughts on countries that don't "like" us.
If you aren't interested in the ramblings of an old man, please delete now.
If you're still there, pull up a chair and listen.
Is there anyone else out there who's sick and tired of all the polls being taken in foreign countries as to whether or not they "like" us? The last time I looked, the word "like" had nothing to do with foreign policy. I prefer 'respect' or 'fear'. They worked for Rome, which civilized and kept the peace in the known world a hell of a lot longer than our puny two
centuries-plus.
I see a left-wing German got elected to office recently by campaigning
against the foreign policy of the United States. Yeah, that's what I want,
to be lectured about war and being a "good neighbor" by a German. Their
head honcho said they wouldn't take part in a war against Iraq. Kind of nice, to
see them taking a pass on a war once in while. Perhaps we needed to have
the word "World" in front of War. I think it's time to bring our boys home from
Germany. Outside of the money we'd save, we'd make the Germans "like" us a
lot more, after they started paying the bills for their own defense.
Last time I checked, France isn't too fond of us either. They sort of
liked us back on June 6th, 1944, though, didn't they? If you don't think
so, see how nicely they take care of the enormous American cemeteries up above
the Normandy beaches. For those of you who've studied history, we also have
a few cemeteries in places like Belleau Woods and Chateau Thierry also. For
those of you who haven't studied it, that was from World War One, the first
time Europe screwed up and we bailed out the French.
That's where the US Marines got the title 'Devil Dogs' or, if you
still care about what the Germans think, "Teufelhunde". I hope I spelled that
right; sure wouldn't want to offend anyone, least of all a German.
Come to think of it, when Europe couldn't take care of their Bosnian
problem recently, guess who had to help out there also. Last time I
checked, our kids are still there. I sort of remember they said they would be out in
a year. Gee, how time flies when you're having fun.
Now we hear that the South Koreans aren't too happy with us either.
They "liked" us a lot better, of course, in June, 1950. It took more than 50,000
Americans killed in Korea to help give them the lifestyle they currently
enjoy, but then who's counting? I think it's also time to bring the boys
home from there. There are about 37,000 young Americans on the DMZ
separating the South Koreans from their "brothers" up North. Maybe if we
leave, they can begin to participate in the "good life" that North Korea
currently enjoys. Uh huh. Sure.
I also understand that a good portion of the Arab/Moslem world now
doesn't "like" us either. Did anyone ever sit down and determine what we
would have to do to get them to like us? Ask them what they would like us
to do. Die?. Commit ritual suicide? Bend over? Maybe we should follow the
advice of our dimwitted, dullest knife in the drawer, Senator Patty Murray,
and build more roads, hospitals, day care centers, and orphanages like
Osama bin Laden does. What with all the orphans Osama has created, the least he
can do is build some places to put them. Senator Stupid says if we would
only "emulate" Osama, the Arab world would love us.
Sorry Patty; in addition to the fact that we already do all of those
things around the world and have been doing them for over sixty years, I
don't take public transportation, and I certainly wouldn't take it with a
bomb strapped to the guy next to me.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not in favor of going to war. Been there, done
that. Several times, in fact. But I think we ought to have some polls in
this country about other countries, and see if we "like" THEM. Problem is,
if you listed the countries, not only wouldn't the average American know if
he liked them or not, he wouldn't be able to find them. If we're supposed
to worry about them, how about them worrying about us?
We were nice to the North Koreans in 1994, as we followed the policies
of Neville Clinton. And it seemed to work; they didn't re-start nuclear
weapons program for a whole year or so. In the meantime, we fed them when
they were starving, and put oil in their stoves when they were freezing.
In a recent visit to Norway, I engaged in a really fun debate with my
cousin's son, a student at a Norwegian University. I was lectured to by
this thankless squirt about the American "Empire", and scolded about dropping
the atomic bomb on the Japanese. I reminded him that empires usually keep the
stuff they take; we don't, and back in 1945 most Norwegians thought
dropping ANY kind of bomb on Germany or Japan was a good idea. I also reminded him
that my uncle, his grandfather, and others in our family spent a
significant time in Sachsenhausen concentration camp, courtesy of the Germans, and they
didn't all survive. I further reminded him that if it wasn't for the
"American Empire" he would probably be speaking German or Russian.
Sorry about the rambling, but I just took an unofficial poll here at our
house, and we don't seem to like anyone.
This is fascinating reading, no doubt about that.
However, I think it is a mistake to justify the current admininstration's cynically aggressive, belligerent and paranoid military stance against Iraq with historical anecdotes about well-intentioned American military campaigns in the past. I don't deny that Normandy and Korea were commendable enterprises, but the author seems to have completely neglected to mention the more recent Vietnam fiasco and how the impending Iraqi war seems to harken back to that era, what with global anti-war demonstrations, etc. Especially considering the current state of the US economy and the fact that there has been no conclusive evidence linking Iraq to Al Quaeda, other Bush family history!
Sir Toose
02-18-03, 04:34 PM
Well, it's definitely a career military man feeling the pain of non appreciation by countries that he personally risked his own life to protect.
As for the impending situation... how can anyone be sure that Saddam does NOT have the weapons? US intelligence has the plutonium paper trail leading back 10 years from Russia. They have not accounted for their stores of the deadliest bugs they have. Saddam is a mass murderer, that's history...not speculation. Why is it a paranoid stance? I have to disagree with that statement. Here are the current statistics/violations:
1). Tons of missing Anthrax & VX
2). 3000 pages of secret nuclear technology unearthed from the inspections.
3). Iraq will allow no private interviews with scientists (what might they slip and say?)
4). No United Nations U2 flyovers
5). Missles with a range of over 150 km.
6). 17 empty chemical warheads... where'd the contents go?
7). Tubes for nuclear centrifuge found (banned under treaty).
I'm not for sitting idly by and waiting for the mushroom clouds to decorate the skyline.
How does the Iraqui (impending) war link to Vietnam? Other than, of course, the will to liberate the opressed?
It's one thing to be an idealistic soldier who puts his life on the line for a cause. That is something to be admired and appreciated beyond a doubt.
It's quite another thing to be a cynical politician who wages a push-button war and puts other people's lives on the line for a purely selfish political and commercial agenda. I'm not saying that the Bush administration is guilty of doing that, it's just that I am extremely skeptical of any justification for war that they are putting out and that their whole campaign for war stinks to high heaven of a political and commercially-motivated agenda. For one thing, why Iraq? Libya, North Korea--these are all potentially much more dangerous than Iraq. For another thing, the Bush administration is close buddies with a brutal military dictatorship in Pakistan which directly sponsors and harbors Al Quaeda terrorists in the Kashmir province in India. The US administration stance with respect to Pakistan is hypocritical in the extreme, especially considering the possibility that Osama bin Laden might well be harbored in that country today. What connection is there between Iraq and Al Quaeda? None to speak of. Bin Laden recently released an audio tape in which he roundly denounced Saddam Hussein and incited the Iraqi people to revolt against the dictator.
"The will to liberate the oppressed?" If you fall for that line, I have a steel tower to sell you in Paris, France. Only $999.99 plus tax! Cheap! :D
A quick clarification: What I meant to say above was that the brutal military dictatorship in Pakistan sponsors Al Quaeda terrorism in the disputed Indian province of Kashmir while harboring Al Quaeda terrorists, including, possibly, Osama bin Laden himself, in their own country, i.e. in Pakistan.
Sir Toose
02-18-03, 05:53 PM
It's quite another thing to be a cynical politician who wages a push-button war and puts other people's lives on the line for a purely selfish political and commercial agenda.
I don't believe this is the case. The arguments for oil are weak in that only 16% of US oil comes from Iraq. What political gain could he hope to garner? In your words the 'whole' world is against a war... seems a little counter productive for him to wage on if this were true.
I think you're dead on with Pakistan. Something smells there, but I don't fully understand it yet.
What connection is there between Iraq and Al Quaeda? None to speak of.
Who says terrorism is limited to Al Queda? Remember Terry Nichols? Tim McVeigh? A certain building in Oklahoma city exploding? Ever heard the name Ramzi Youssef? Aside from trying to bring down the WTC in 1993, he was best buddies with Terry Nichols. Youssef is an Iraqui national, by the way. Heres an article for you perusal:
Complaint Details Iraq’s Means, Opportunity and Motive. Action Brought Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
In the Philippines as part of Project Bojinka, Ramzi Youssef, on behalf of Iraq, recruited conspirators to attempt to simultaneously bomb five or more U.S. 747 aircraft over the Pacific, using delayed timer tactics with many similarities to Barbouti’s 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103. Youssef also conceived of plans to highjack planes bound for the United States in order to dive them, in suicide attacks, into U.S. targets like CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, a tactic later adopted by Osama bin Laden. Youssef flew frequently from Manila to Cebu City in the Philippines in order to recruit potential terrorists at Southwest College in Cebu City. Plaintiffs assert that at some point in time Ramzi Youssef recruited a willing convert in the person of Terry Nichols who witnesses say went to the Philippines seeking technical help in learning to build a bomb. Meetings between Terry Nichols and Ramzi Youssef were witnessed by a Filipino government informant.
In March 1998, Timothy McVeigh wrote “Essay on Hypocrisy” from federal prison in Colorado which defended Iraq’s right to “stockpile chemical or biological weapons” because the U.S. had done so. The Pentagon asserts “McVeigh allegedly collected Iraqi telephone numbers” prior to his arrest.
Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq had developed a covert network in the US to acquire materials for weapons of mass destruction. Lawsuit claims individuals operating as Agents of the Republic of Iraq took an active part in planning and financing bombing of Murrah Building in Oklahoma City
Judicial Watch has filed suit against the Republic of Iraq on behalf of 14 survivors of the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, OK. Judicial Watch’s co-counsel in this matter are John Michael Johnston, Esq. of Oklahoma City, and Jay D. Adkisson, Esq. of Irvine, California.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is brought against Iraq, as a State Department designated terrorism sponsor, under the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which addresses state sponsored terrorism and has a specific provision for retroactive application. Judicial Watch and its clients contend that other individuals, in addition to Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, were involved in the preparation for and execution of the attack on the Murrah Building. These individuals were operating as agents of the Republic of Iraq and took an active part in the planning, technical and/or financial activities of the bombing plot. The complaint details the involvement and complicity of Iraq by both direct and circumstantial evidence in classic application, i.e., means, opportunity, and motive.
The complaint cites reporting from Philippine intelligence and law enforcement sources concerning meetings between convicted Murrah Building bombing accomplice Terry Nichols and Ramzi Youssef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, during Nichols’ travel to the Philippines between 1990 and 1994. Additional evidence obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveals Interpol’s efforts to apprehend two additional Oklahoma City bombing suspects and information in the agency’s files associating Ramzi Youssef with the attack.
“It’s time the whole story about the Oklahoma City bombing is revealed, and that justice is done for the Iraqi’s state sponsorship of that brutal attack on American citizens,” stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
“The survivors of the Murrah Building bombing and the people of Oklahoma City have waited a long time for the whole, unvarnished truth to come out concerning this horrific plot, and they won’t rest until that’s accomplished,” added attorney Mike Johnston.
You didn't link Iraq and Vietnam.
I find your lack of faith in the force disturbing.
I think that Vietnam was about liberation... it was the time of the season. Iraq is about preventative maintenance.
Sir Toose speaks the truth: the "blood for oil" claim is almost completely baseless. Literature upon request, if anyone cares for it.
Furthermore, there are two things to consider:
1 - A link between Iraq and Al-Quaeda is not the sole justification for military action.
2 - Bush says there is a link. You may disagree, but the fact that you and I don't possess definitive data does not mean it doesn't exist. This military intelligence we're talking about, last I'd checked.
3 - Intentions, inschmentions. I care about results. If Bush is waging the right war for the wrong reasons, bless 'im. I want the right thing to be done, even if not for the right reason. Better than the inverse.
Ehhh...
I was unimpressed by the article, or at least the way it tries to use past military actions to justify this recent.
Sorry if I'm just reiterating someone else's point, haven't had time to read the thread, for off I must go. I'll argue with you guys later.
r3port3r66
02-18-03, 06:47 PM
That article Sir Toose, I think is a sentiment that all veterans share. When I was a kid we had a family room, where my dad kept all his medals and uniform patches framed, and hung on the walls. I always thought they were neat, but it wasn't until I grew up that I appreciated them, and him. I mean when I was a kid all I had to do was go to school and do some chores in order to get what I wanted. I never knew how well I had it, thanks primarily to my father's efforts in Korea and Vietnam. It wasn't until later on that I understood my father's hatred for Jane Fonda, for her anti-war stance.
The thing I don't understand is what do ther countires want from us?
Do they want world domination?
Let's say another country attacked the US and won, then what? I mean is the US some sort of prize, or is it purely revenge?
My ignorant point of view is this:
There will be a war. There is nothing we can do about it. American citizens can't vote on the matter, and it seems Washington has already made up its mind.
Bush is a politician. Since when has any politician ever been concerned about right and wrong? Just doesn't happen. Politicians are concerned with political advantage. If that means sacrificing the lives of so many poverty-stricken unfortunates in the US and/or abroad, do you think they could care less?
Iraq and Timothy McVeigh??? :laugh: I won't comment on that one.
16% of US oil comes from Iraq. That may not seem like much on paper, but, believe me, it is a LOT of oil. If Iraq sabotages their own oilfields, gas prices the world over would skyrocket. But is oil Bush's main motive? Maybe a partial motive. I personally believe it is a personal family agenda on the part of Bush Jr. to deal with the family nemesis once and for all.
Vietnam was about liberation? Vietnam is a classic example of right-wing belligerency and the horrendous cost of war--it is a textbook example of everything going wrong that could go wrong in a war. And it achieved absolutely nothing other than destroy a lot of lives and property. Today, Vietnam is still staunchly Communist and the domino theory used to justify the Vietnam war has proven itself to be a fallacy.
Intentions, inschmentions. I care about results. If Bush is waging the right war for the wrong reasons, bless 'im. I want the right thing to be done, even if not for the right reason. Better than the inverse.
Right and wrong are DEFINED by the underlying motives or intentions! How can you say you don't care about the intentions and only the results and then say that you want the "right thing" to be done, even if not for the "right reason"? If the "right thing" is done for the wrong reason, it BECOMES the WRONG THING!!! :yup: Besides, your comments about right and wrong in a political context strike me as somewhat naive. Do you really believe that George W. Bush, or, for that matter, any politician, is really concerned with doing the "right thing"? The right thing for his own political agenda, sure! But do you really believe that Bush, for all his hollow rhetoric, is really concerned with moral issues? If so, why doesn't he fight this war himself? Why doesn't he enlist or go to Iraq himself to lead his troops into battle against the tinhorn dictatorship that he equates with the quintessence of evil? Instead, all we get from Bush is a lot of rhetoric about a so-called "Axis of Evil" embodied by Saddam Hussein, a petty dictator whose nation has become so demoralized by repeated US attacks since the Gulf War, that they have literally resigned themselves to more punishment. The fact is that were it not for Bush and the media giving Saddam Hussein all this free publicity, Hussein would long since have retired into inconspicuous anonymity with no one the wiser!
Originally posted by Django
Right and wrong are DEFINED by the underlying motives or intentions! How can you say you don't care about the intentions and only the results and then say that you want the "right thing" to be done, even if not for the "right reason"? If the "right thing" is done for the wrong reason, it BECOMES the WRONG THING!!! :yup:
Incorrect. If I'm mad at you, and therefore lunge at you inappropriately, but in doing so knock you out of the way of a runaway pickup truck, thus saving your life, was my action "wrong"? No. The act itself did you one hell of a favor. The intentions, however, WERE wrong.
Intentions matter, but results matter more. What's preferable? Doing the wrong thing, or doing the right thing for the wrong reasons? And yes, that question is wholly rhetorical.
Originally posted by Django
Besides, your comments about right and wrong in a political context strike me as somewhat naive.
Don't take this the wrong way, but the "don't be naive" argument is a weak one, IMO. I'm a firm believer in government as, for the most part, a necessary evil, made up of both honest and power-hungry men. As easily as you could call me naive, I could call you unreasonably pessimistic.
Originally posted by Django
Do you really believe that George W. Bush, or, for that matter, any politician, is really concerned with doing the "right thing"?
It's ridiculous to say that all politicians as wanting to do the "right thing." It's just as ridiculous to say that NONE of them are, too, which is the stance you seem to be taking.
Originally posted by Django
If so, why doesn't he fight this war himself? Why doesn't he enlist or go to Iraq himself to lead his troops into battle against the tinhorn dictatorship that he equates with the quintessence of evil?
You're kidding, right?
Originally posted by Django
The fact is that were it not for Bush and the media giving Saddam Hussein all this free publicity, Hussein would long since have retired into inconspicuous anonymity with no one the wiser!
But we don't WANT him inconspicuous. We don't want Saddam hidden. We need to keep an eye on him; that's kinda the whole point. I'm sorry, but I can't accept a "ignore it and it'll go away" philosophy, least of all from someone who implies naivete on my part.
Sir Toose
02-18-03, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Django
Iraq and Timothy McVeigh??? :laugh: I won't comment on that one.
It really won't be necessary for you to do so... McVeigh himself admitted his allegiance with Nichols/Youssef despite your unwillingness to read up on it. It's in the court records. His reasons were not to forward the cause of Iraq but to serve retribution to the ATF for Waco. McVeigh's reasoning doesn't change the fact that Youssef/Iraq were involved.
sacrificing the lives of so many poverty-stricken unfortunates in the US and/or abroad, do you think they could care less?
I think you contradict yourself. WHO can he garner position from if the world is against him??
I also think your statements to Yoda were rhetoric of your own brand. Would you care to dispute any of the points I laid out or are we just trading niceties?
Originally posted by Yoda
Incorrect. If I'm mad at you, and therefore lunge at you inappropriately, but in doing so knock you out of the way of a runaway pickup truck, thus saving your life, was my action "wrong"? No. The act itself did you one hell of a favor. The intentions, however, WERE wrong.
You're talking about a fortunate side-effect to an ill-intentioned action. Similarly, there might be an unfortunate side-effect to a well-intentioned action! This has nothing to do with right and wrong.
Originally posted by Yoda
Intentions matter, but results matter more. What's preferable? Doing the wrong thing, or doing the right thing for the wrong reasons? And yes, that question is wholly rhetorical.
Depends on the context. From a practical standpoint, results are all that matter. From a moral standpoint, intentions are all that matter!
Originally posted by Yoda
Don't take this the wrong way, but the "don't be naive" argument is a weak one, IMO. I'm a firm believer in government as, for the most part, a necessary evil, made up of both honest and power-hungry men. As easily as you could call me naive, I could call you unreasonably pessimistic.
Hey, if you believe that G.W. Bush is an "honest politician", you ARE naive in my book! He's as power-hungry as they come! As for me being pessimistic--listen, dude, I'm as optimistic as you can get! I believe in positive thinking even when the chips are down and totally against me! I'm just one bright, happy ray of sunshine! :D :yup: Even my name means "dawn" or "sunrise"! (Just thought I'd throw that one in! :D) But your belief in G.W. Bush's "good intentions" strikes me as totally misguided.
Originally posted by Yoda
It's ridiculous to say that all politicians as wanting to do the "right thing." It's just as ridiculous to say that NONE of them are, too, which is the stance you seem to be taking.
Not exactly. What I mean to say is that an honest, well-intentioned politician is about as rare as they come--kind of like a dinosaur, if you get my meaning! ;)
Originally posted by Yoda
You're kidding, right?
Actually, I'm paraphrasing a speech made by a war-veteran in the recent anti-war demonstrations held in Washington DC.
Originally posted by Yoda
But we don't WANT him inconspicuous. We don't want Saddam hidden. We need to keep an eye on him; that's kinda the whole point. I'm sorry, but I can't accept a "ignore it and it'll go away" philosophy, least of all from someone who implies naivete on my part.
That's hardly what I said. What I said was that this whole Iraq "problem" or situation has been created by the Bush administration and the media! There wasn't any problem before the Bush administration began blowing its horn against Saddam Hussein. Hussein is just a petty despot who has become so emasculated by repeated aggression against his country that he has turned into an object of pity and ridicule rather than posing any sort of threat to the US, let alone the world at large!
Sir Toose, I'll be back for you later! Too busy at the moment! :cool:
You're talking about a fortunate side-effect to an ill-intentioned action. Similarly, there might be an unfortunate side-effect to a well-intentioned action! This has nothing to do with right and wrong.
See response below.
Depends on the context. From a practical standpoint, results are all that matter. From a moral standpoint, intentions are all that matter!
Yes. That's my point. "Right" and "wrong" do not merely refer to morality, but to correct (and incorrect) decisions. IE: a "right" choice and a "wrong" one. If the "right" choice is to go to war, the reason why that choice is chosen is of secondary importance.
Hey, if you believe that G.W. Bush is an "honest politician", you ARE naive in my book! He's as power-hungry as they come!
I said nothing of the sort. If you'd like to know, I think Bush is far more virtuous than you give him credit for, and has our interests very much in mind. Does that make him honest? Dunno. But I think it makes him genuine as to his overall intentions, if not specifics, which is good enough for me.
But your belief in G.W. Bush's "good intentions" strikes me as totally misguided.
Your belief in Saddam's alleged harmlessness strikes me in a similar fashion.
Not exactly. What I mean to say is that an honest, well-intentioned politician is about as rare as they come--kind of like a dinosaur, if you get my meaning! ;)
Yes, I know you didn't mean that absoultely no politican is an honest man, but I still disagree with your sentiment that you'd be so very hard-pressed to find one.
Actually, I'm paraphrasing a speech made by a war-veteran in the recent anti-war demonstrations held in Washington DC.
Borrowed or original, it's still nuts.
That's hardly what I said. What I said was that this whole Iraq "problem" or situation has been created by the Bush administration and the media! There wasn't any problem before the Bush administration began blowing its horn against Saddam Hussein.
How do you know, exactly? Seems to me you have your cart ahead of your horse. You say the talk caused the danger. I say the danger got them talking.
Hussein is just a petty despot who has become so emasculated by repeated aggression against his country that he has turned into an object of pity and ridicule rather than posing any sort of threat to the US, let alone the world at large!
Unless you're an isolationist, this still doesn't necessarily advocate a lack of military action.
Hi! Just a quick post to let you know that I'm still around, but too busy to address all the issues that have been tossed my way. However, I'll be back soon to address each and every one in turn. Take it easy! :D ;)
Originally posted by Sir Toose
It really won't be necessary for you to do so... McVeigh himself admitted his allegiance with Nichols/Youssef despite your unwillingness to read up on it. It's in the court records. His reasons were not to forward the cause of Iraq but to serve retribution to the ATF for Waco. McVeigh's reasoning doesn't change the fact that Youssef/Iraq were involved.
I did read up on it. But your words demonstrate that McVeigh was, essentially, a disgruntled individual who was dissatisfied with the state--a dissatisfaction that he expressed by, firstly, the Oklahoma bombing and, secondly, by his allusions in court to the Gulf war and the Waco tragedy. His comments prove nothing more than that he was a deranged individual with a serious problem with authority. None of this proves any sort of political connection with Iraq either on his part or on those of Nichols and Youssef. They strike me as a group of radical nutcases of varying backgrounds with a common agenda--hostility towards the US administration brought on by the Gulf war and Waco. This is, in fact, one of the main reasons I oppose a second Gulf war--it will only give nutcases like McVeigh and bin Laden a further incentive to commit more acts of terrorism on US soil.
Originally posted by Sir Toose
I think you contradict yourself. WHO can he garner position from if the world is against him??
I also think your statements to Yoda were rhetoric of your own brand. Would you care to dispute any of the points I laid out or are we just trading niceties?
I'm not sure I follow you. Bush's support comes from his right-wing clique and corporate interests. He is obviously interested in promoting this war to help his buddies in the oil and arms industries, while exploiting and further fomenting the already prevalent anti-Arab sentiment in the US following September 11, 2001. I don't agree that my comments were rhetoric--they made a very cogent point through a valid generalization. I would be glad to address each of your points in turn as and when I find the time in my busy schedule!
Originally posted by Yoda
Yes. That's my point. "Right" and "wrong" do not merely refer to morality, but to correct (and incorrect) decisions. IE: a "right" choice and a "wrong" one. If the "right" choice is to go to war, the reason why that choice is chosen is of secondary importance.
"Correct" and "incorrect" decisions in what context? In a cynically political context? In a moral context? In a practical context? It all depends on the context. If morality is an issue here, then the reason is of paramount importance. If cynical politics is the issue here then the reason is of no importance--only the result matters.
Originally posted by Yoda
I said nothing of the sort. If you'd like to know, I think Bush is far more virtuous than you give him credit for, and has our interests very much in mind. Does that make him honest? Dunno. But I think it makes him genuine as to his overall intentions, if not specifics, which is good enough for me.
Sorry, I completely disagree. Bush is basically a political power-broker. He is primarily interested in personal political and commercial gain. Your opinion of Bush IS naive, I am sorry to say.
Originally posted by Yoda
Your belief in Saddam's alleged harmlessness strikes me in a similar fashion.
Oh, come on! Saddam Hussein is all but retired! What possible threat could he pose to the world? :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Yoda
Yes, I know you didn't mean that absoultely no politican is an honest man, but I still disagree with your sentiment that you'd be so very hard-pressed to find one.
Look at the world around you a little more closely, my friend! :yup:
Originally posted by Yoda
Borrowed or original, it's still nuts.
Tell that to the Gulf War veteran (or was it Vietnam veteran?) who made the speech! I, personally, think he made a VERY valid point. If Bush is so anxious to have a show-down with Saddam, for whatever reason, why doesn't he go down to Iraq personally and duke it out with Hussein one-on-one instead of endangering the lives of thousands of American and Iraqi citizens to further his personal political agenda?
Originally posted by Yoda
How do you know, exactly? Seems to me you have your cart ahead of your horse. You say the talk caused the danger. I say the danger got them talking.
What danger? If there is any danger, it's from Osama bin Laden and Al Quaeda! How do Saddam Hussein and Iraq figure into the
equation at all? The whole "crisis" has been brought about by the administration making a major issue out of nothing and the media coverage of all this political headbanging! The weapons inspectors have yet to determine that there is a case against Iraq and the White House has yet to prove that there is any connection at all between Iraq and Al Quaeda, while all the evidence thus far points against it.
Originally posted by Yoda
Unless you're an isolationist, this still doesn't necessarily advocate a lack of military action.
Oh, come on! All that waste--of human resources, artillery, time, energy, funds, etc. for a "threat" that hasn't even been conclusively proven to exist? What about the damage to an already fragile domestic economy? What about the incentive it would provide for further terrorism against the US? Is it all worth it, in the end? :rolleyes:
Caitlyn
02-20-03, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Django
16% of US oil comes from Iraq.
Only 3.2% of US oil comes directly from Iraq…
Sir Toose
02-20-03, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Django
[quote]Sorry, I completely disagree. Bush is basically a political power-broker. He is primarily interested in personal political and commercial gain. Your opinion of Bush IS naive, I am sorry to say.
You never explained how he could garner political support by going against the rest of the world and half of America.
Oh, come on! Saddam Hussein is all but retired! What possible threat could he pose to the world? :rolleyes:
Gee! Dude! :rolleyes: Who's acting naive now? Sure he has Anthrax, sure he bought nuclear warheads from Russia! It's obvious he wanted to use them to decorate his house! He's old, he's no danger!
Look at the world around you a little more closely, my friend:yup:
Tell that to the Gulf War veteran (or was it Vietnam veteran?) who made the speech! I, personally, think he made a VERY valid point. If Bush is so anxious to have a show-down with Saddam, for whatever reason, why doesn't he go down to Iraq personally and duke it out with Hussein one-on-one instead of endangering the lives of thousands of American and Iraqi citizens to further his personal political agenda?
Why don't you go to Iraq and fight on their side to further yours? This is so ridiculous I almost can't respond. Almost.
What danger? If there is any danger, it's from Osama bin Laden and Al Quaeda! How do Saddam Hussein and Iraq figure into the
equation at all? The whole "crisis" has been brought about by the administration making a major issue out of nothing and the media coverage of all this political headbanging! The weapons inspectors have yet to determine that there is a case against Iraq and the White House has yet to prove that there is any connection at all between Iraq and Al Quaeda, while all the evidence thus far points against it.
Did you read the list of offenses I posted? If he has no Anthrax he needs to disclose how he disposed of it. If he has no nukes why the hesitation to open up? The White House would let it go if these things were done. Hussein is digging his own grave.
Oh, come on! All that waste--of human resources, artillery, time, energy, funds, etc. for a "threat" that hasn't even been conclusively proven to exist? What about the damage to an already fragile domestic economy? What about the incentive it would provide for further terrorism against the US? Is it all worth it, in the end? :rolleyes:
In August of 2001 the 'threat' of Osama was not conclusive. It was there, the CIA knew about it from the Clinton years. Nothing was done to contain the threat. What would you be saying were Hussein to uncrack a bottle of Anthrax in downtown DC? You'd be saying that damn ineffective Bush! it's all his fault!
Originally posted by Caitlyn
Only 3.2% of US oil comes directly from Iraq…
Okay, whatever! I was quoting Sir Toose (I think) who said it was 16%. Point is that Saddam Hussein is sitting on some of the richest oilfields in the world and the US would probably be itching to get to some of it. But if Hussein sabotages his own oilfields, the price of oil worldwide would certainly skyrocket, I imagine.
Originally posted by Sir Toose
You never explained how he could garner political support by going against the rest of the world and half of America.
Well, he's using the support he already has from the 9/11 aftermath to further his personal political and commercial agenda--to serve the interests of his corporate buddies and his right-wing clique.
Originally posted by Sir Toose
Gee! Dude! :rolleyes: Who's acting naive now? Sure he has Anthrax, sure he bought nuclear warheads from Russia! It's obvious he wanted to use them to decorate his house! He's old, he's no danger!
Look at the world around you a little more closely, my friend:yup:
I'll leave that to the weapons inspectors to decide! I'm in no position to make such judgments. All I can say is that Iraq is a petty middle-Eastern dictatorship, one of many in the Islamic world. It is, from a western standpoint, a backward nation, hardly in a position to threaten civilization, as the Bush administration facetiously claims. The whole "threat" posed by Iraq has been blown way out of proportion, to say nothing of the fact that there has been no established connection between Iraq and bin Laden. Surely the Bush administration should focus its efforts on addressing the REAL threat--namely, Osama bin Laden--and forget about Iraq. The fact is, and it has only just recently occurred to me, that Bush is going after Saddam because he wants a quick and easy media victory over the Islamic world. It's all a big publicity stunt, it appears to me, except that it is seriously backfiring. Bin Laden is taking it easy because thet heat's off him and he now has time to plot his next terrorist venture, while the Bush administration is alienating pretty much everybody by going after Iraq.
Originally posted by Sir Toose
Why don't you go to Iraq and fight on their side to further yours? This is so ridiculous I almost can't respond. Almost.
Firstly, my cause is not pro-Iraq--it is against the Bush administration's belligerency and war-mongering. I have little sympathy for the brutal and dictatorial military regime in Iraq. However, it seems to me that the Bush administration, in its war-mongering, is assuming a stance not unlike the Hussein dictatorship. My concern is that the Bush administration is gradually becoming more and more like the Iraqi regime--a brutal military dictatorship rather than a democracy in which human rights and the rights of individuals to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the freedom of religion and the freedom to express oneself and to be oneself are respected rather than violated and trampled upon. Before the Bush administration attacks Iraq for its human rights violations, perhaps it should consider whether it is, itself, not violating the human rights of US residents and citizens.
Originally posted by Sir Toose
Did you read the list of offenses I posted? If he has no Anthrax he needs to disclose how he disposed of it. If he has no nukes why the hesitation to open up? The White House would let it go if these things were done. Hussein is digging his own grave.
Again, this is for the weapons inspectors to decide. I'm not in a position to pass judgment without evidence.
Originally posted by Sir Toose
In August of 2001 the 'threat' of Osama was not conclusive. It was there, the CIA knew about it from the Clinton years. Nothing was done to contain the threat. What would you be saying were Hussein to uncrack a bottle of Anthrax in downtown DC? You'd be saying that damn ineffective Bush! it's all his fault!
There are any number of possibilities. Is it practical to devote all the resources of the state to one, apparently (to me, at least) rather farfetched possibility while neglecting to address any number of more immediate and potentially even more devastating threats? The economy is badly in need of recovery, Osama bin Laden is still at large, North Korea is flaunting its nuclear weapons, and the list goes on. Why is the Bush administration devoting all its energies and resources on Iraq when a danger from Iraq hasn't remotely been proven to exist? Or, at least, seems extremely farfetched and ludicrous from the existing evidence? There are any number of possibilities of things going wrong. The question is one of priority--what is more important right now? Finding Bin Laden and cracking the Al Quaeda terrorist network? Resuscitating the US economy? Or going after Saddam Hussein--a petty mid-Eastern despot with no proven connection to 9/11 at all? Don't tell me that all this doesn't stink to high heaven of a personal political and commercial agenda on the part of the Bush administration and G.W. Bush himself. It's all a massive eyewash! I, personally, find it hard to believe that so many people have fallen for it! What about Pakistan, another brutal military dictatorship guilty of harboring AL QUAEDA terrorists and sponsoring terrorist activities against India in the Kashmir province? Why is the Bush administration buddying up with a military dictatorship which could potentially be harboring Osama bin Laden himself? Doesn't Bush's stance against Iraq strike you as a little hypocritical and superficial in this context?
Isn't this debate old news? The administration has gone so far with their stance on Iraq now that if there isn't an attack, it'll feed the evil regimes' notion that the U.S. is a weak nation. It's a sign of weakness not to do it after building it up so much.
Honestly, I'm sort of conflicted about the whole thing. I mean, yeah, I'm sure there's some truth to what Django's saying about the Bush administration, but would the people of Iraq benefit in the long run from Saddam's removal? Most definitely. He's a corrupt, power-mad dictator who oppresses his people. My conflict lies in whether or not it's the U.S.'s place to remove him. In all honesty, I appreciate the Bush administration's stance on foreign policies much more than I do Clinton's. Bill Clinton can be held responsible for bombing Iraq, Bosnia, and wiping out a factory in Sudan that was responsible for half that nation's pharmaceutical supplies...and the reasons he gave for them are just as sketchy as Bush's case for an invasion of Iraq. At least we know where we stand with Bush. And I know I don't want Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons.
Before you other lefties call me a turncoat, allow me to say that I think the case against war has been just as strong as the case for it. U.S. history is full of the unjustified use of force and bullying of other countries, and that's what complicates the issue. Is there a truly genuine threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, or is it some kind of 'stunt' being posed so we can get what we want?
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.