|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Feb 24, 2003, 8:09 PM
Post #151 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
Danooguy,
Dang, these post are getting long, aren’t they? Nothing like a couple guys who think they have something interesting to say hashing it out on the net, eh? I can imagine other readers laughing at us. Here goes some more.
In reply to: QUOTE: “How many people would actually agree that any nation is justified in attacking another based on a standard of we THINK that said nation MIGHT present a risk at SOME point?” I ask again..what was WWII, Viet Nam, The Korean Conflict?
Ok, since you insist I guess I must spell it out for you . . .
WW1
We entered WW1 over a combination of reasons. Although not all is known about how closely allied we were with Britain prior to our declaration of war, it is known that we were helping them in some way, and it is widely believed that we had a stronger alliance than was known publicly. Another reason was that Germany was waging submarine warfare against our shipping. They temporarily suspended it after the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 and the Sussex in 1916, but they announced that they would resume their U-boat operations in 1917 and we declared war shortly after that. Also, German Foreign Minister Alfred Zimmerman attempted to get Mexico and Japan to attack us with the promise that Germany would join them when they were done on their European front – and we knew this. Additionally, this was a war that was already in progress. We did not start it. Clearly, we did not enter WW1 based on a standard of anticipatory risk.
WW2
Again, another war that was already in progress, but this time against nations to which we were already strongly allied. Although we didn’t enter the war at the onset, our allies were attacked and it would only be a matter of time before we would get in involved. The Japanese sealed it by attacking us. Again, clearly, we did not enter WW2 based on a standard of anticipatory risk.
Vietnam
Again, another war that was already in progress, but this time it was a civil war. We entered to assist the South Vietnamese Government, and because of some belief in the domino theory, and it escalated from there. Clearly not an attack on another nation on a standard of anticipatory risk.
Korea
Essentially, this was another civil war. North Korea started it when DPRK artillery attacked ROK positions south of the 38th Parallel. The U.N. Security Council then passed a resolution calling for the immediate cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of North Korean forces to north of the 38th parallel. The very next day, when Uijongbu fell and the South Korean Government pulled out of Seoul, Truman instructed General McArthur to prepare U.S. forces to defend Seoul. The day after that, the U.N. Security Council passed another resolution calling for member nations to give military aid to South Korea. It was a U.N. sanctioned war, with complete international legitimacy. Clearly not entered by the U.S. on a standard of anticipatory risk.
Ok, I think I just won that discussion point (as he so arrogantly proclaims victory). ;)
In reply to: Since the infamous first reference to the poll, (which ask a most leading question) it has been attributed to three sources, USA today, Princeton Survey Research Associates, and now Knight Ridder.
The poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates on behalf of Knight Ridder. Although the results were published in USA Today, as well as in many other mainstream media outlets, an earlier poster was incorrect in calling it a “USA Today” poll. Are you satisfied now that this is a valid, scientific poll? The link I gave you before points to a Knight Ridder site where you can get the details yourself. Even if you think that we should go to war right now, does it not disturb you that a significant amount of your fellow citizens’ support is based on falsehoods? Is this a condition under which the U.S. should send its troops into battle? I think not.
In reply to: You have made many allegations in the above paragraph, 90% of which are merely opinion, not fact. Example: “These guys have wanted to do this for quite some time; all they needed was a President they could sway to their side and an event that would justify their policy to the American people. They got them both. Additionally, these same people have wanted to go to war with Iraq for some time. Before Bush even took office they met with him to tell him there was unfinished business there.
Danoo,
It is a fact that Wolfowitz wrote his Defense Planning Guidance in 1992 and that this document spelled out the exact policy that Bush is implementing now. It leaked out back then and there was a huge stink over it with a lot of publicity. You may not remember that but as one who followed politics closely, I do. It was all over the news at the time. Cheney then rewrote it with much softer language and they begged off that Wolfowitz’s document was just a working draft.
It is a fact that prior to Bush’s election current and former Department of Defense personnel (including Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsberg) spent days at Crawford (at the behest of Karl Rove) giving Bush a crash course in their stance on foreign war doctrine and the Iraqi situation. You may not be aware of this, but, being in Dallas, rather close to Crawford, every time there is a meeting at Crawford we hear a lot about it down here. People with knowledge of them have written about the attendees and subjects of these particular meetings. There were newspaper columns at the time and now this information is beginning to appear in books (sorry I don’t have titles handy off the top of my head but I could get that for you if you’re interested.
It is also a fact that on 9-11 these same people were adamantly arguing that an attack against Iraq should have been our first response. It was only the reason of Powell and Rice that convinced Bush to focus on Afghanistan and Bin Laden, for the time being. This has been reported on many times from different sources.
It is also a fact that Donald Rumsfeld is on CNN, usually more than once a week, making statements on matters that are clearly within the realm of responsibility of the Secretary of State. (You don't have to take my word for it, observe his actions yourself and tell me what you think about them.) His commentary about old Europe vs. new Europe is one widely reported and discussed example of this. What other Secretary of Defense has so outlandishly inserted himself into international diplomacy such as this? I cannot remember one. To any astute observer it is obvious he is discharging a new role for his office.
Ok, so here’s the part that’s 90% opinion. Although, I think it’s only 10% opinion, and even then it’s a fairly obvious conclusion that any reasonable person could draw based upon the facts.
Fact 1, the policy and agenda of the individuals I named became public in 1992, when a possible Bush presidential campaign was only a twinkle in the eye of Karl Rove (heck, he didn’t even start prepping Bush for a Gubernatorial race until 1993). Fact 2, they swayed (or at least made their case) Bush to their way of thinking prior to his election. Fact 3, their first recommended response to 9-11 was to attack Iraq. Fact 4, Rumsfeld is acting like he’s the Secretary of State, and if that isn’t enough evidence of his new power I don’t know what is. So where’s the part that’s opinion? I think it’s pretty obvious they had a prior agenda and that 9-11 gave them the opportunity to implement it.
In reply to: “They are using 9-11 as a pretext for their agenda. There’s a lot more to this war than 9-11 and terrorism.” ---Hogwash. “using 9-11 as a pretext for their agenda?” Right, and don’t forget we want their oil too! A thinking person might wonder why we didn’t just take over the oil fields after the Gulf War, but then that wouldn’t fit with the theory like the one you’ve outlined above.
Where did you ever get that I though this war was about oil? What you call my theory has absolutely nothing to do with oil. Again, please try to argue against something I’ve actually said.
I think Bush has valid reasons for what he’s trying to do. What I’ve been saying all along is that he is really screwing it up with his atrocious lack of diplomacy and poor strategic maneuvering against Saddam, and therefore undermining our chances of actually solving the problem of terrorism.
Since you brought it up though, I’ll even address the oil issue. (What a guy, huh?) Even if one thinks the war is about oil, that doesn’t mean that taking over oil fields is the action necessary to achieve the objective. Stabilization in the region is enough. The reason we didn’t take them over after the last war is because we accomplished the objectives of the U.N. resolutions, stabilized the region, and got out - complete international legitimacy for our actions (Daddy Bush was pretty smart about the whole international diplomacy thing, but then, he had a lot more experience than his boy does, and fewer radical people advising him). We had no international legitimacy for occupying Iraq, and had we stayed behind our presence would have destabilize the region (as it probably will this time). One can make the argument that we wouldn’t even be interested in the region were it not for the strategic oil implications. For instance, why are we not involving ourselves in African wars? On a macro level, one could certainly discuss how America’s dependence on oil, and foreign oil, is something we should remedy so that we don’t have to involve ourselves as much in that region, and there’d certainly be a lot of truth in that point. But to argue in this specific instance that we are going to Iraq solely to get our hands on their oil is a bit weak, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 25, 2003, 12:37 AM
Post #152 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Ok, so maybe the darn poll is valid. (A hush falls over the crowd as danooguy makes a left-hand partial concession). I am not sure that the misconception of those poll could so easily be construed into a conclusion that many that support the war do so on a false premise. I support gutting terrorism. If our security sources conclude that his regime is supporting terrorism, I support snuffing him and his cronies. It has nothing to do with those Iraqis that flew the planes into the buildings................... (lame attempt at humor)
Note that I was not hanging the war for oil conspiracy on you. Instead I was attempting (and failed obviously) to hang a big booger of sarcasm on your theory which concluded with "“They are using 9-11 as a pretext for their agenda. There’s a lot more to this war than 9-11 and terrorism.” While you have the chain of events in order, your conclusion arguably requires hefty doses of speculation.
QUOTE: "I think Bush has valid reasons for what he’s trying to do. What I’ve been saying all along is that he is really screwing it up with his atrocious lack of diplomacy and poor strategic maneuvering against Saddam, and therefore undermining our chances of actually solving the problem of terrorism."
Now we hit the tarmac of common ground. I agree that his crew has mishandled this situation. However, given the situation, it is an easy thing to screw up. But better leadership skills would have resulted in a much higher consensus of approval on a global basis. America has not seen true leadership skills at the helm in a long time (in my book anyway).
I also agree with most of what you say about the idea of war for oil. You and I aren't all that far apart.
I have less of a problem with a nation manuevering for its own interests than most folks do...I understand that power means influence, influence means favorable results, etc.
I have argued on this thread for eleven pages over a number of days. I will now let you in on something. Yes, I can clearly see the flys in the ointment. There are credibility issues that have gone begging. It is difficult to accept that we will do what we must do, even if we do it with massive approval. That massive approval has not been assembled.
On another board, in the days that followed 9/11, I noted that we are forging ahead into uncharted waters by declaring war on an enemy that we cannot see, in lands that we cannot specify, under terms that we cannot define. We have no map. We have no template of experience for this thing. I knew back then that this day of division would come and said so. You cannot march to war without clearly defined goals, and a finite mission. This mission is infinite in scope. It could last for decades. It provides few boundaries within which we should contain our actions.
I had hoped my sons could grow older without the threat of war looming over them. If this explodes and it certainly could, we could see much worse than duct taped windows.
But I will not live in fear, and I hope in the end, we do not have to live that way. I support America and President Bush. I do not envy anyone that has to call the shots in the treachorous times to come. Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, we all favor peace over war. The question is how to best achieve that peace under these newest and ugliest of threats.
Thus, my opinion is that we must move on the maniac with the brick.
|
|
|
|
|
shortfatoldguy
Feb 25, 2003, 3:21 AM
Post #153 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 1694
|
In reply to: On another board, in the days that followed 9/11, I noted that we are forging ahead into uncharted waters by declaring war on an enemy that we cannot see, in lands that we cannot specify, under terms that we cannot define. We have no map. We have no template of experience for this thing. I knew back then that this day of division would come and said so. You cannot march to war without clearly defined goals, and a finite mission.
Well, then. If it doesn't walk like a duck, and it doesn't talk like a duck, maybe we shouldn't bother with the decoys and the steel shot. I mean, if the circumstances of this "war" fail to meet any of the above criteria, maybe it's just illogical to call it a "war."
Does this mean we just cower behind our plastic sheeting and duct tape? No. The choice between "war" and passivity is a false dichotomy.
What if, instead of thinking of our actions against terrorism as "war," we thought of them in the following way--as a combination of
1) intense police-work on an international scale, backed by multilateral military force
2) intense diplomacy, to secure the above
3) intense intelligence-gathering and covert actions (shhh!)
4) finally, for the long term, more effort at actually understanding how other people really think and why (for ex., more support for, and attention to, research in Area Studies)
Granted, all that would be harder to cram into a soundbite. It would make the work of writing press releases and political speeches a little more difficult. But, my god, what is leadership if not a) being creative in assessing the options and b) making what emerges from that creativity clear to the people you're leading so that they pull together?
I recently heard that there's a saying in the military: "When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." There's a lesson there for our politicians.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 25, 2003, 4:40 AM
Post #154 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Shortguy, you been lurkin out there this whole time. You daaaawg!
Excellent post. The flip side is that what happened to us on 9/11 felt like, walked like, smelt like war.
I would love to have a discussion on the subject of leadership at some point. It would be interesting to hear the spectrum of thought as to the job description of a president, congressman, etc.
I wish your way would work. If it were that simple, it would have been done long ago. In fact to a degree, it has been tried. But look at the pitfalls of semantics in your suggestions.
Police action for example.. most people, American and otherwise despise the very term, especially when Americans are the one doing all the policing. If it were attempted on an international multinational scale, it would be the pinnacle of New World Order, no? It might also require massive 2nd amendment violations (what was that sound? a can of worms being opened?).
Intense intelligence gathering would be fine, but covert ops smacks of assassination and other dastardly violations of human rights. But I can personally condone assassination if done tastefully. Some people are not human and need to die. I find it interesting to hear both pro-Iraqattackers, and the anti-war crowd all make allusions to "taking out Hussein." America does not assassinate, at least not above the table. It considered in bad taste, like a Victorian woman showing her legs. Its just not done.
#4 is the one about which I am most pessimistic. Its like trying to educate people away from bias. I have no such faith in humanity.
That is not to say that I don't agree because basically I do. I just don't think you could sell it on the necessary scale. Sure would be nice if you could.
|
|
|
|
|
shortfatoldguy
Feb 25, 2003, 5:22 AM
Post #155 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 1694
|
In reply to: The flip side is that what happened to us on 9/11 felt like, walked like, smelt like war.
Did it to you? It didn't to me. It really didn't. It felt like "terrorism," on a big scale. I'd figured, for years, that something like this was going to happen, and I knew there'd be all kinds of confusion about who deserved to get hammered for it.
In reply to: Police action for example.. most people, American and otherwise despise the very term, especially when Americans are the one doing all the policing. If it were attempted on an international multinational scale, it would be the pinnacle of New World Order, no?
I said, I think, police work, not "police action." That means civilian police work, with lots of info-sharing among civilian agencies across borders. Not that such isn't going on, thank god. But my larger point has to do exactly with semantics--and the politics that go along with the semantics. If some heinous act is done by people acting independently of a national government, they need to be treated as what they are: criminals. They need to be hunted down. (And if we get word they're in Saddam's guestroom, we let Saddam know he needs to bid them adieu, or else.)
But if they're not acting on behalf of a government, you can't declare "war" on them because "wars" are fought by nations. To declare "war" on an amorphous group of stateless a$$hole fanatic murderers is to commit a category error. It just leads to confusion. (The "war" on this, and the "war" on that. Pretty soon the word has no meaning at all, and I'm spending my day on the "war" on bad writing. Pretty soon I figure it's okay to put a round in that irritating punk who refuses to pay attention to my comments on his rough drafts. Heh, heh...just kidding.)
And I think I said "backed by multilateral military force, which would be secured through intense diplomacy." This, in my opinion, has not been close to adequately attempted by the administration. And that failure of leadership, I fear, is liable to lead to all kinds of "blowback."
|
|
|
|
|
shortfatoldguy
Feb 25, 2003, 5:37 AM
Post #156 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 1694
|
And, hey, how about that number four?
Seen any slaves in your neighborhood lately??
Do the women around your parts get to vote??
C'mon, man. I'm an educator. I've got faith. Whatever you believe about "human nature," you've got to admit that societies and values change, and not necessarily for the worse.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 25, 2003, 1:46 PM
Post #157 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: I said, I think, police work, not "police action.
My mistake. I misread that.
In reply to: It just leads to confusion.
Agreed...and confusion is one of the primary objectives of terrorism.
In reply to: C'mon, man. I'm an educator. I've got faith. Whatever you believe about "human nature," you've got to admit that societies and values change, and not necessarily for the worse.
Any advancement in human nature requires high-end optics to find. Man is now only fractionally better than the creature that grunted into the darkness from within his cave quarters while weilding the jaw of an ass. "Societal advancement" is an oxymoron.
In reply to: Do the women around your parts get to vote??
You make that sound like a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
shortfatoldguy
Feb 25, 2003, 2:22 PM
Post #158 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 1694
|
OMG, what a naked troll...lol.
In reply to: You make that sound like a good thing.
You're making me think that it might be.
lol.
|
|
|
|
|
thrasher
Feb 25, 2003, 5:03 PM
Post #159 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 603
|
Some restaurant back east changed the name of their "French" fries to "Freedom" fries. McDonalds is considering doing the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
shortfatoldguy
Feb 25, 2003, 5:30 PM
Post #160 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 1694
|
^^Well then they're gonna have to stop using "hamburger," too, aren't they?
Or are we wussy little girly-men that are afraid to pick on the Germans?
Huh? Huh?
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Mar 1, 2003, 2:46 AM
Post #161 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Horror. Horror has a face...And you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared.
They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces...Seems a thousand centuries ago...We went into a camp to innoculate the children. We left the camp after we had innoculated the children for Polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every innoculated arm. There they were in a pile...A pile of little arms. And I remember...I...I...I cried...I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I
wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized...like I was shot...Like I was shot with a
diamond...a diamond bullet right through my forehead...And I thought:
My God...the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect,
genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were
stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not
monsters...These were men...trained cadres...these men who fought with
their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with
love...but they had the strength...the strength...to do that. If I had ten
divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You
have to have men who are moral...and at the same time who are able to
utilize their primordal instincts to kill without feeling...without passion...
without judgement...without judgement. Because it's judgement that
defeats us. "
-Colonel Kurtz - Apocolypse Now
|
|
|
|
|
shortfatoldguy
Mar 1, 2003, 7:03 PM
Post #162 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 1694
|
"How many heroes lie in forgotten stillness while far off a clammering world sings odes to villains? It is disagreeably true that "Harry" of Agincourt and Nelson of Trafalgar are still saluted after all this time, while not the slightest remnant of memory remains for that man courageous enough to first attack the mighty artichoke."
---Don Baratta, The Sicilian Gentleman's Cookbook
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 1, 2003, 7:14 PM
Post #163 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
I say that we wait until after the next UN Security Council vote before deciding about France. Do you think France will:
A) Vote with the US?
B) Abstain from the vote?
C) Veto the US/UK/Spanish backed resolution?
I think (A) is unlikely.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Mar 1, 2003, 7:21 PM
Post #164 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
wait a minute. we have Spain's support? shit, that changes EVERYTHING!!!
viva la leyenda negra
tema la inquisición
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 1, 2003, 7:24 PM
Post #165 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Paul,
Sure--Spain is with us. I knew there was some intrinsic reason that I have always preferred Spanish/Mexican food to French.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Mar 1, 2003, 7:31 PM
Post #166 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
I say the navy seals draft Josune Bereziartu, then. although, she's Basque, and they're kind of wild cards anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Mar 1, 2003, 9:43 PM
Post #167 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
B) Abstain.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 1, 2003, 10:12 PM
Post #168 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Thomas,
I think you are most likely correct. I heard that France has not used a veto in the Security Council since 1956.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Mar 2, 2003, 8:33 AM
Post #169 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
The US has more vetos in the SC than any other country.I heard that Russia will veto it,but I don't believe it.I wish they would,it would give the UN more credibility.It would be nice to see a country take a stand and do what they believe is right as opposed to having their vote bought by the US,or folding due to economic threats from the US.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Mar 2, 2003, 3:46 PM
Post #170 of 170
(4115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Shortold: I tried to read that book, but it was poorly illustrated. :D
WILLARD
"I was sent on a classified mission, sir."
KURTZ
"It appears.. that its no longer classified, is it? What did they
tell you ?"
WILLARD
" They told me that you had gone totally insane and that your
methods were unsound."
KURTZ
" Are my methods unsound?"
WILLARD
" I don't see any method at all, sir."
KURTZ
" I expected someone like you. What did you expect?"
Willard only shakes his head :
KURTZ
" Are you an assassin?"
WILLARD
" I'm a soldier."
KURTZ
" You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks
to collect a bill."
http://www.destgulch.com/images/apoc10.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
|
