|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/09/2006 10:34:43 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by RonB:
You speak of democratic accountability, and you are correct. But there IS a way to "slap the wrist" of the U.S. It's called the ballot. But it should NOT be used to vote for the one who will promise you the most return from the treasury. It should be used to vote OUT those who have failed in their responsibility to uphold what you call "moral integrity" either by commission or by omission. |
I suppose that my point was that you appeared to be asking Judith to stop criticising the president's recent actions, because we are where we are. It is an important part of democratic accountability that the populace should be informed, and debate and review of recent history is an important part of that. Ideally, given that "facts" are in short supply, people should be informed of the arguments on all sides. I don't think that it is helpful to tell someone that it does not matter if the president lied, because the troops are there now.
If that attitude becomes widespread (it may be already), it is likely to result in reduced legitimacy in future actions. Indeed, many people already think that Iran (which, unless there is some political softening and reform, might pose a genuine and widespread threat in a few years) is another area ripe for imperial aggression for nothing more than oil, or who damn the invasion of Afghanistan (which was widely supported and sanctioned) for being as ill-justified as the invasion of Iraq.
It is also a common misconception (not one that I am necessarily accusing you of) that people who deeply object to the invasion (such as me) now fail to support our troops or demand that we withdraw all our troops (I do not: we have to exercise our judgment a little less selfishly than we did when starting the war, by trying to sort out the mess that we have gotten ourselves and another nation into).
Message edited by author 2006-06-09 10:35:53.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 10:46:39 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Americans have never suffered from an occupation on their own territory the way other countries did, both during WWI and WWII, and during this war. |
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Revolutionary_War
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 11:09:09 AM · #78 |
Sorry, but this is a desperate attempt on trying to point out something out of context, but within legal boundaries.
Obviously you must know that the US waged a revolutionary war as a means to free itself from the overseas influence. America did not exist, and British did not come here to occupy it. Brits (and others) came and founded America, which then decided that it wanted to go independent.
It is a far stretch to call this "occupation", and yes, according to this article you linked to, many suffered and left the country after the war ended. The ones that remained, again, wrote history. |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 11:27:49 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by RonB:
You speak of democratic accountability, and you are correct. But there IS a way to "slap the wrist" of the U.S. It's called the ballot. But it should NOT be used to vote for the one who will promise you the most return from the treasury. It should be used to vote OUT those who have failed in their responsibility to uphold what you call "moral integrity" either by commission or by omission. |
I suppose that my point was that you appeared to be asking Judith to stop criticising the president's recent actions, because we are where we are. It is an important part of democratic accountability that the populace should be informed, and debate and review of recent history is an important part of that. Ideally, given that "facts" are in short supply, people should be informed of the arguments on all sides. I don't think that it is helpful to tell someone that it does not matter if the president lied, because the troops are there now.
If that attitude becomes widespread (it may be already), it is likely to result in reduced legitimacy in future actions. Indeed, many people already think that Iran (which, unless there is some political softening and reform, might pose a genuine and widespread threat in a few years) is another area ripe for imperial aggression for nothing more than oil, or who damn the invasion of Afghanistan (which was widely supported and sanctioned) for being as ill-justified as the invasion of Iraq.
It is also a common misconception (not one that I am necessarily accusing you of) that people who deeply object to the invasion (such as me) now fail to support our troops or demand that we withdraw all our troops (I do not: we have to exercise our judgment a little less selfishly than we did when starting the war, by trying to sort out the mess that we have gotten ourselves and another nation into). |
a) I have never said that it doesn't matter if the President lied. IF the President lied, it does matter. Two of our recent Presidents are KNOWN to have lied to the American people - Nixon and Clinton. Nixon resigned rather than face certain impeachment and removal from office and Clinton was impeached but not found to have lied about anything so egregious as to cause his removal from office. In addition, Vice-President Agnew resigned rather than face removal from office after being found guilty of tax-evasion. So yes, it does matter.
BUT...
We have all heard, ad nauseum, about the run-up to the war, and how it was a mistake, etc., etc., etc. I just don't see any point in continuing to beat that dead horse. Everyone knows the story and repeating it for the umpteenth time does no good. As Councilor Craig said during Clinton's impeachment trial ( following Sidney Blumenthal's 4th appearance, Vernon Jordan's 7th appearance, and Monica Lewinski's 23rd appearance ): "Why should we expect Mr. Blumenthal's fifth appearance, Mr. Jordan's eighth appearance, and Ms. Lewinsky's twenty-fourth appearance to add anything more?". Likewise, I would ask, what additional information is there in bringing up past failures for the forty-ninth time time that we did not know after the forty-eighth time?
That's why I asked Judith to stop beating a dead horse, and give us her ideas of what we should do now apart from criticizing that which is already too late to change.
b) I do not buy into the common perception foisted by ultra-conservative radio talk-show hosts that those who oppose the administration, and oppose the war, do not support our troops. Unfortunately, there are some rather vocal critics of the war, who denounce the President's handling of current military operations in Iraq. That kind of criticism does send a message to our troops that their mission is illegitimate. And that kind of rhetoric does NOT show support for the troops, who need to believe that they are doing the right thing, and for the right reasons. If some of those who write in these fora were somehow able to convince all of our troops that it really WAS all about the oil, which is the position they continue to espouse, do you believe that our troops would feel "supported"? I don't think so.
c) just for what it's worth - I beleive that entering the war in Iraq was wrong - in retrospect. It was based upon faulty intelligence, coupled with a combination of frustration and fear ( frustration that Iraq wouldn't comply with UN resolutions, and fear that Hussein was working on WMD ). However, we did engage in war. And now, I support the continuance of military presence in Iraq until such time as we can reasonalby believe that the country is stable and self-sufficient. |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 02:04:13 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by RonB:
You speak of democratic accountability, and you are correct. But there IS a way to "slap the wrist" of the U.S. It's called the ballot. But it should NOT be used to vote for the one who will promise you the most return from the treasury. It should be used to vote OUT those who have failed in their responsibility to uphold what you call "moral integrity" either by commission or by omission. |
I suppose that my point was that you appeared to be asking Judith to stop criticising the president's recent actions, because we are where we are. It is an important part of democratic accountability that the populace should be informed, and debate and review of recent history is an important part of that. Ideally, given that "facts" are in short supply, people should be informed of the arguments on all sides. I don't think that it is helpful to tell someone that it does not matter if the president lied, because the troops are there now.
If that attitude becomes widespread (it may be already), it is likely to result in reduced legitimacy in future actions. Indeed, many people already think that Iran (which, unless there is some political softening and reform, might pose a genuine and widespread threat in a few years) is another area ripe for imperial aggression for nothing more than oil, or who damn the invasion of Afghanistan (which was widely supported and sanctioned) for being as ill-justified as the invasion of Iraq.
It is also a common misconception (not one that I am necessarily accusing you of) that people who deeply object to the invasion (such as me) now fail to support our troops or demand that we withdraw all our troops (I do not: we have to exercise our judgment a little less selfishly than we did when starting the war, by trying to sort out the mess that we have gotten ourselves and another nation into). |
a) I have never said that it doesn't matter if the President lied. IF the President lied, it does matter. Two of our recent Presidents are KNOWN to have lied to the American people - Nixon and Clinton. Nixon resigned rather than face certain impeachment and removal from office and Clinton was impeached but not found to have lied about anything so egregious as to cause his removal from office. In addition, Vice-President Agnew resigned rather than face removal from office after being found guilty of tax-evasion. So yes, it does matter.
BUT...
We have all heard, ad nauseum, about the run-up to the war, and how it was a mistake, etc., etc., etc. I just don't see any point in continuing to beat that dead horse. Everyone knows the story and repeating it for the umpteenth time does no good. As Councilor Craig said during Clinton's impeachment trial ( following Sidney Blumenthal's 4th appearance, Vernon Jordan's 7th appearance, and Monica Lewinski's 23rd appearance ): "Why should we expect Mr. Blumenthal's fifth appearance, Mr. Jordan's eighth appearance, and Ms. Lewinsky's twenty-fourth appearance to add anything more?". Likewise, I would ask, what additional information is there in bringing up past failures for the forty-ninth time time that we did not know after the forty-eighth time?
That's why I asked Judith to stop beating a dead horse, and give us her ideas of what we should do now apart from criticizing that which is already too late to change. |
Ron, when you stop mischaracterizing the run-up to the war as merely a mistake or a series of mistakes, I'll stop talking about it. Everyone apparently does not know the story, including you. It only does no good to talk about it with people who have completely closed their minds to the facts. As legalbeagle said, there can be no accountability at the ballot box if people are either not informed or misinformed. There is potentially a big difference (in terms of holding our politicians accountable) between believing this administration made a series of innocent mistakes and believing they used all of their power and resources and influence to manipulate the public's vulnerabilities and whip up support for an unnecessary war.
Likewise with regard to your question about what to do now, it might help in making a wise decision to be informed by history. For example, I have been reading lately that the average lifetime of an insurgency is something on the order of 27 years. Well, if that's true, and if it's reasonable to assume, based on facts, not fantasy, that the current insurgency in Iraq may last a very long time, that one bit of information may influence to a great degree what options the taxpayers in this country are willing to support. In that event, Senator Biden's suggestion for breaking up the country into three semi-autonomous regions might warrant some serious consideration. It might also warrant some serious consideration if unity between the various factions is an unrealistic expectation. Attempting to impose a so-called "unity" government on the Iraqis if unity is not possible... what will that accomplish?
What I'm saying is that there are apparently several options, none of which I'm terribly informed about at the moment, but let's have an open and intelligent discussion about it nationally. I'm not inclined at this point to take seriously anything the Bush administration has to say on the subject, mainly because I don't trust their motivations and I resent it when my loyalty is called into question. If we're going to talk about it, then let everyone have their say, let them lay out their cases openly and honestly, hopefully informed by history and the facts, without the name-calling and hate rhetoric and bullying.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 02:42:29 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Sorry, but this is a desperate attempt on trying to point out something out of context, but within legal boundaries.
Obviously you must know that the US waged a revolutionary war as a means to free itself from the overseas influence. America did not exist, and British did not come here to occupy it. Brits (and others) came and founded America, which then decided that it wanted to go independent.
It is a far stretch to call this "occupation", and yes, according to this article you linked to, many suffered and left the country after the war ended. The ones that remained, again, wrote history. |
Your original statement was "Americans have never suffered from an occupation on their own territory the way other countries did during WWI and WWII, and during this war.."
Yes I agree the circumstances were different. But once America declared independence in 1776, England waged war to keep it and sent an army over here to occupy us. Different reason for occupation, but still occupation in my book. You may not agree with me, and that's fine, but that was my point. Not a desperate attempt, just a difference of opinion. I think as a country we know exactly what it feels like to be occupied by another county.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 03:14:56 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
...I think as a country we know exactly what it feels like to be occupied by another county. |
First, sorry for cutting out most of the previous discussion, I think that it is more readable this way. For other readers, please scroll up/down for original text if interested.
Now, I beg to differ. OK, if that was an occupation, it happened 200+ years ago, and with a completely different scenario than current and last century's occupations.
No, I do not believe for a single moment that any American knows what is it like to see foreign soldiers marching in their streets, how it is to have rationed flour and rice with no sugar, no oil, and no heat to cook it on when you finally lay your hands on some, how it is to not have natural gas, electricity, or water while a possibility of getting killed is 50:50 on any given moment, day or night, inside or outside.
That's the occupation I'm talking about, not pouring some tea in the ocean.
Now I got emotional, sorry. Had to have it out of the system. This is rant, after all. |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 03:20:29 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by RonB:
We have all heard, ad nauseum, about the run-up to the war, and how it was a mistake, etc., etc., etc. I just don't see any point in continuing to beat that dead horse. Everyone knows the story and repeating it for the umpteenth time does no good. |
Why would you want to leave liars and screw-ups in charge? Usually, if someone consistently screws up their job they get replaced with someone competent. Reviewing past results is a common step in predicting future performance -- otherwise all that No Child Left Behind testing nonsense is a big waste of time and money, diverting teachers from being able to teach kids to think.
I notice that the Presidency is one of a very few government jobs for which there are absolutely no qualifications required other than being born in the US more than 35 years ago ...
Message edited by author 2006-06-09 15:21:16. |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 03:25:46 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
I am sure that American Horse would disagree that the natives in this country have welcomed the culture and even given up their land to the pilgrims because they loved them so much. But we do not teach occupation here, we teach about one nation... but enough about this. |
Relevant limerick |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 03:52:57 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
That's the occupation I'm talking about, not pouring some tea in the ocean. |
I think most would consider the 8 years of war that took place in our backyards a little more then pouring tea in the ocean, but you are welcome to your opinion.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 04:03:32 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by srdanz:
That's the occupation I'm talking about, not pouring some tea in the ocean. |
I think most would consider the 8 years of war that took place in our backyards a little more then pouring tea in the ocean, but you are welcome to your opinion. |
You are again hanging on the unimportant details. Who here remembers it? Who can you stop on the street and ask about revolution and get a correct answer (within 50 years) about that occupation? Again, probably 80% of the today's US population's predecessors came to this country in the past 100 years, so that does not qualify the revolution as the experience of the majority today.
Message edited by author 2006-06-09 16:03:54. |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 04:14:44 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by srdanz:
That's the occupation I'm talking about, not pouring some tea in the ocean. |
I think most would consider the 8 years of war that took place in our backyards a little more then pouring tea in the ocean, but you are welcome to your opinion. |
If this war was being fought with muzzle-loading muskets and Pennsylvania rifles, then maybe there'd be a basis for comparing the experiences of the residents of 1776 Boston and 2006 Baghdad, but I don't think those New Englanders had 500-pound bombs falling out of the night sky ...
Also, the Revolutionary War was largely "conventional" (despite the Americans' less-than-honorable guerilla tactics) -- I suspect that proportionally the numbers of civilian dead ("collateral damage") were orders of magnitude lower than in Iraq.
Message edited by author 2006-06-09 16:23:40. |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 04:21:34 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
You are again hanging on the unimportant details. Who here remembers it? Who can you stop on the street and ask about revolution and get a correct answer (within 50 years) about that occupation? Again, probably 80% of the today's US population's predecessors came to this country in the past 100 years, so that does not qualify the revolution as the experience of the majority today. |
Not hanging on to anything here. I stated my opinion and you chose to argue with me. I believe I made it clear I didn't have a problem if you disagreed with me. I peronally feel it was an occupation. I can deal with the fact that you don't, please offer me the same courtesy.
But then you trivialized the American Revolution, were a lot of people died so I can live in a free country, into simply pouring tea into the ocean. That's insulting and I'm not going to let that comment go unchallenged.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 04:28:12 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by srdanz:
That's the occupation I'm talking about, not pouring some tea in the ocean. |
I think most would consider the 8 years of war that took place in our backyards a little more then pouring tea in the ocean, but you are welcome to your opinion. |
If this war was being fought with muzzle-loading muskets and Pennsylvania rifles, then maybe there'd be a basis for comparing the experiences of the residents of 1776 Boston and 2006 Baghdad, but I don't think those New Englanders had 500-pound bombs falling out of the night sky ... |
We were occupied by England during the American Revolution. That is the only point I tried to make. I'm not stupid, I did not compare the wars. Obvioulsy technolgy has changed, but people still died, houses were burned down, people were afraid to speak their mind for fear of death...
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 04:32:38 PM · #90 |
If anyone cares, my people, a sauvern (sp) nation, the Lakota Nation, and all the other indian peoples that are on this land called North America have been occupied for over 400 years.
Does anyone remember that history, or do the lives, cultures, and homes of the concurred red human matter to a white man?
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 04:37:15 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Not hanging on to anything here. I stated my opinion and you chose to argue with me. I believe I made it clear I didn't have a problem if you disagreed with me. I peronally feel it was an occupation. I can deal with the fact that you don't, please offer me the same courtesy.
But then you trivialized the American Revolution, were a lot of people died so I can live in a free country, into simply pouring tea into the ocean. That's insulting and I'm not going to let that comment go unchallenged. |
Oh well. Sorry I offended you with the tea party, but that's what's happening every day. Someone trivializes something, because it is easier to understand when it is trivial. However, I wrote about ignorance (or worse yet about unwillingness to understand) of many today when the middle east situation is concerned. I wrote about occupation and its effect on people, and you kept taking turns away from the topic and pushing the revolution as the 'great american sacrifice that everyone still feels today'. I only state that you people do not know and cannot possibly know what is it like to be in the war.
Why don't you take a stab at trying to explain to me what is it like to be occupied, and yes, give me an example from 1776 if you want to. But give it from the heart, and not from wikipedia. It just doesn't count.
Or, I guess you don't have to.
Cheers!
-Serge
Edit: Won't rant any more, I just got a 3 and a 2 on my submission in last hour... I love you all, peace!
Message edited by author 2006-06-09 16:47:19. |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 04:47:17 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
We were occupied by England during the American Revolution. That is the only point I tried to make. I'm not stupid, I did not compare the wars. Obvioulsy technolgy has changed, but people still died, houses were burned down, people were afraid to speak their mind for fear of death... |
But we weren't -- "we" were English citizens (albeit second-class, but then, they had classes back then) who chose to break a great many laws in order to overthrow the existing government and take away its property. That's not being "occupied by a foreign conqueror." |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 04:48:47 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
If anyone cares, my people, a sauvern (sp) nation, the Lakota Nation, and all the other indian peoples that are on this land called North America have been occupied for over 400 years.
Does anyone remember that history, or do the lives, cultures, and homes of the concurred red human matter to a white man? |
See my limerick link a few posts ago. |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 05:14:33 PM · #94 |
srdanz: I imagine living in an occupied area in 1776 or in 2006 would suck either way. I doubt i'm capable of imagining the horror but I've never gone though it so I can't speak from the heart on it. I'd agree with you if you simply changed changed your original statement to "in recent times" instead of "never." That was basically my whole point.
General: As of July 4th 1776 we were no longer English in my opinion. I'm sure the King disagreed though.
And American Horse, I care. My ancestors royally screwed you. I'm very ashamed of that part of our history and I only wish they taught our kids more about that in school. Very few people in the history of the world were treated worse, but that's a whole different discussion.
Have a good weekend all!
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 05:49:27 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Ron, when you stop mischaracterizing the run-up to the war as merely a mistake or a series of mistakes, I'll stop talking about it. Everyone apparently does not know the story, including you. It only does no good to talk about it with people who have completely closed their minds to the facts. |
OK, Judith, keep talking about it, if it makes you feel better.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
As legalbeagle said, there can be no accountability at the ballot box if people are either not informed or misinformed. |
And I agreed with him.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
There is potentially a big difference (in terms of holding our politicians accountable) between believing this administration made a series of innocent mistakes and believing they used all of their power and resources and influence to manipulate the public's vulnerabilities and whip up support for an unnecessary war. |
You're right. That's why I pay attention to reports like that produced by the Senate select committee on Pre-war intelligence - a committee that found no evidence of the use of power and resources and influence to manipulate the intelligence that was used to justify the war. You know that it is available on the internet. You can read it yourself. but here's are a couple of their conclusions:
"(U) Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."
and
"(U) Conclusion 102. The Committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the Committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq's links to terrorism. After 9/11, however, analysts were under tremendous pressure to make correct assessments, to avoid missing a credible threat, and to avoid an intelligence failure on the scale of 9/11."
But why let a little thing like a Senate Committee report dissuade you from having a different view?
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Likewise with regard to your question about what to do now, it might help in making a wise decision to be informed by history. For example, I have been reading lately that the average lifetime of an insurgency is something on the order of 27 years. Well, if that's true, and if it's reasonable to assume, based on facts, not fantasy, that the current insurgency in Iraq may last a very long time, that one bit of information may influence to a great degree what options the taxpayers in this country are willing to support. |
Gosh, Judith, the average lifetime of a Republic is only 200 years. SO it must be reasonable to assume that the U.S. is somewhat overdue for destruction, wouldn't you say? That is, if history is a valid indicator of the life expectancy of a political entity.
As for taxpayer support, what does the average taxpayer know about the real threats to their homeland? And those threats can't be revealed in full without divulging the methods used to uncover them. Sorry, but I trust the judgements of the President and his Administration far more than I trust the judgements of even a well informed taxpayer when it comes to national security.
Not to mention the fact that the "average" taxpayer really isn't - a tax PAYER, that is. The "average" tax payer doesn't pay one cent in federal income taxes. ALL of the federal income taxes are paid by fewer than 50% of income earners.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
In that event, Senator Biden's suggestion for breaking up the country into three semi-autonomous regions might warrant some serious consideration. |
And just who would be in charge of that break-up?
The U.S.? Wouldn't a U.S. imposed break-up of Iraq infuriate the insurgents even more?
Not to mention that with a breakup the Kurds, with their new-found wealth ( the northern oil reserves ), might become a threat to Turkey, Syria, and Iran, in an attempt at Kurdish reunification; and the Shias, in the south, might attempt to join forces with the Shias in Iran and Saudi Arabia to build a new power base.
The factions are not to be taken lightly, nor are they to be cut out or cut off without serious consideration of the potential outcomes.
It gives me comfort to know that the President and his staff ARE seriously considering all of the options, and their ramifications.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It might also warrant some serious consideration if unity between the various factions is an unrealistic expectation. Attempting to impose a so-called "unity" government on the Iraqis if unity is not possible... what will that accomplish? |
Oh, I don't know. If history can be counted on to provide any guidance, I would use the U.S. itself as an example. It would seem that "unity" was not something that the southern states wanted back in the 1860's. But a "unity" government was imposed, through military action, I believe. And look what it's led to. The various states kinda, sorta get along now, don't you think?
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
What I'm saying is that there are apparently several options, none of which I'm terribly informed about at the moment, |
If you are not terribly informed about the several options at the moment, it would probably be best that you NOT challenge the choices that ARE being made by those who are informed about the several options. And if you don't trust those choices, then you really should undertake to research them and offer them up for consideration.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
...but let's have an open and intelligent discussion about it nationally. |
Who should be involved in the discussion "nationally"? Everyone? A national referendum? Is that how we should decide every national issue?
If not the people as a whole, then who?
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I'm not inclined at this point to take seriously anything the Bush administration has to say on the subject, mainly because I don't trust their motivations |
Yes, I think I understand that
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
...and I resent it when my loyalty is called into question. |
Who has called your loyalty into question? I don't believe that I did. Or maybe the question ought to be: Which loyalty has been called into question? Loyalty to who, or to what?
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
If we're going to talk about it, then let everyone have their say, let them lay out their cases openly and honestly, hopefully informed by history and the facts, without the name-calling and hate rhetoric and bullying. |
Our national security depends on NOT having everyone lay out their cases openly and honestly. That would only expose to our enemies the methods that are being used to uncover their schemes to destroy us. So, sorry, once again I have to disagree with your proposal.
And I think that your hate rhetoric and bullying in this thread alone ( e.g. accusing me of dismissing your voice and right to say things; referring to "every other miserable lie of the Bush Administration"; and accusing the administration of using "all of their power and resources and influence to manipulate the public's vulnerabilities" ), lead me to think that you, yourself do not take your own suggestion seriously. |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 07:30:55 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
In that event, Senator Biden's suggestion for breaking up the country into three semi-autonomous regions might warrant some serious consideration. |
Not sure about this: there ar lots of examples of this not working very well (eg India and Pakistan, Yugoslavia).
RonB, the case for war was carefully massaged. Invasions on that scale take many months to organise. I was managing a cargo and passenger ship owning company a year before the war started. The price for capacity international cargo carriers capable of moving tanks soared. The decision to move the forces into place had effectively already been made. Given the cost of the exercise and the amount of face that would have been lost in a withdrawal, war was all but inevitable. In my opinion, everything that came later to justify an invasion was always against the background that the commitment had in practice already been made. The desperate attempts by TBlair to legitimise the war with a further UN resolution pay testament to the need to find justification.
Your comments about GWB not lying remind me of the joke "how can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving..."
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 07:39:48 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Your comments about GWB not lying remind me of the joke "how can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving..." |
Which, along with Mr. DeLay's retirement today, reminds me of the definition of an Honest Politician: one who, once bought, stays bought. |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 09:25:55 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
In that event, Senator Biden's suggestion for breaking up the country into three semi-autonomous regions might warrant some serious consideration. |
Not sure about this: there ar lots of examples of this not working very well (eg India and Pakistan, Yugoslavia).
RonB, the case for war was carefully massaged. Invasions on that scale take many months to organise. I was managing a cargo and passenger ship owning company a year before the war started. The price for capacity international cargo carriers capable of moving tanks soared. The decision to move the forces into place had effectively already been made. Given the cost of the exercise and the amount of face that would have been lost in a withdrawal, war was all but inevitable. In my opinion, everything that came later to justify an invasion was always against the background that the commitment had in practice already been made. The desperate attempts by TBlair to legitimise the war with a further UN resolution pay testament to the need to find justification.
Your comments about GWB not lying remind me of the joke "how can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving..." |
I do not doubt that cargo carriers had already been retained. Just as I'm sure that even now, actions are being taken "in the event" that certain future "possibilities" that tend toward being "probabilities" will eventually become "realities".
In the commodities market, such run-ups or run-downs in delivery guarantees at a given price are called "futures". They are best-guess gambles made about future prices based on current knowledge, future guidance, and historical evidence of price changes under similar circumstances.
However, just as not every commodity trade results in a profit, nor does every one result in a loss, so to are the reasonable gambles of governments, which are also based on current knowledge, future guidance, and historical evidence under similar circumstances. Sometimes you retain cargo vessels and do not use them. Sometimes you do.
That being said, the fact of deployment of tanks at the Iraqi border did not, in and of itself, indicate imminent invasion - in fact the tanks arrived, for the most part in December 2002. The tanks were there for months prior to the invasion - presumably to put additional pressure on Hussein to admit full and open inspections in compliance with U.N. Resolutions that he had agreed to honor. The deadline for that was late January, hence it would make sense to build-up the ground force prior to that time, if pressure was the primary objective, and invasion the secondary objective - to be initiated only in the event of non-compliance.
I can't speak for you, of course, but I think that to many, myself included, ______ ( pick one: the U.S., the President, the Administration, the coalition ) would absolutely NOT have lost face in any way if Saddam Hussein had changed his mind, honored his agreement to comply with the U.N. Resolutions, and the coalition forces standing by at the border had merely remained in place for a while - then packed up and returned home - mission accomplished.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. And thank you for stating it as such. |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 10:37:36 PM · #99 |
I may be getting out of my depth here but it was mentioned earlier in this thread about Iran as well and their drive toward nuclear energy. As I see it, they are entitled (right or wrong) to use nuclear energy. This is what they claim they are working toward for their country. Whether they will use that technology for military purposes ofcourse is debatable. Now there seems to be some good negotiations underway to resolve this issue but Iran has still said it will not stop enriching uranium, which is their right under the non-proliforation treaty. But, Israel has stated they would strike pre-emptively if they get to a point where they could produce weapons. Where would the coalition and the west stand on this issue if they have negotiated differently?
EDIT: In my own opinion I find it quite wierd that my country (Australia) is one that doesn't want Iran to have nuclear energy, but this week we have started discussing using nuclear energy for our own purposes in parliament. How can we condemn one nation from striving for nuclear energy on one hand but push to develop it for ourselves on another. We ship uranium to numerous countries from our own anyway!
Message edited by author 2006-06-09 22:41:43.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 11:07:45 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Makka:
How can we condemn one nation from striving for nuclear energy on one hand but push to develop it for ourselves on another. We ship uranium to numerous countries from our own anyway! |
Your country's President hasn't stated for the record that some other country should be wiped off the map. Nuclear weapons are the only practical tool for accomplishing that. Or do you think the President of Iran was lying? |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 11:45:42 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 11:45:42 AM EDT.
|
