Why I Support Our Troops by SignyM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Ignoring his invasion of Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Isreal (since they mostly occured during or prior to 1991), how about this: daily attacks on coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone, an attempt to assanate a former US President, the Oil for Food fraud (the largest fraud in human history, with the possible exception of Barbara Steisand), terrorist safe-havens and training camps, medical aid and haven for high ranking terrorists, money for suicide bombers, failure to surrender or leave the country in the face of American invasion (hence taking the field against us in armed conflict). Torture, Murder, and Rape as state institutions (similar to our local Parks and Rec Department next door to our City law deptartment). Goes on and on.

As do you...heh heh heh... (Sorry! Couldn't resist, it was a perfect oppt'y!!)

Your original defintion of "enemy" was someone who "took to field in armed conflict". That seemed pretty straightforward, so I wondered how Saddam became our "enemy" because he didn't take to ANY field in armed combat, either against us, our interests in the Mideast, or even his neighbors. Apparently, your original definition of "enemy" was misconstructed because none of the "reasons" that you listed seems to fit under that definition. You'll have to either show how that list of reasons falls under your original definition, or you'll have to come up with a new one. Until then...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2005 5:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I was not aware that "tar baby" had any racial connotations to anyone on the planet, but I could be much mistaken. If I am, I seriously apologize to everyone here! That is never what I intended.

I'm white, so I'm sure I'm not as qualified as some to comment on racial slurs. But the term is a racial slur going back generations, although it is still in limited us today:

May 20, 2002 News Release:
“TAR-BABY” EPITHET FUELS RACIAL TENSIONS AT REDSTONE
Verbal outrage part of pattern of racism and corruption, minorities charge
"This is the rocket capital of the world, the home of Americas’ weapons of the future,” said RAM Executive Director Matthew Fogg. “But minority employees still have to struggle with obscene prejudices and insults that should have been left in the past after we defeated Jim Crow.” African Americans at Redstone “are afraid of reprisals if they speak out against discrimination”, said Fogg, also a Chief deputy U.S. Marshal. “The racial atmosphere is hostile.”

But if you didn't know, you didn't know. Now you know, although I suspect like many of the other facts I share with you, you might choose to ignore it or else enter some sort of situational compromise. Perhaps only those you disagree with warrant use of racial slurs. Such a double standard is typical of the liberal mindset.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2005 6:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CAUTION: Flame-bait.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2005 6:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
no-fly zone attacks: the US (and Britain) routinely made strikes far outside of the no-fly zone, which escalated before the official US attack on Iraq began. The stated intent was to reduce Iraq infrastructure so they could not defend themselves when the US attacked. I don't think Iraq defending itself against US airstrikes made on sovereign Iraqi soil counts as a legal reason to go to war.

The attacks began in 1993. Iraq initiated them. US and British planes responded (at the direction of President Clinton) by neutralizing missile batteries in the no-fly zone and selected radar and air-defense infrastructure outside the zone. It was very selected. Only radar units that tracked coalition planes or SAM sites that opened fire would be attacked. This continued right up until the start of American military operations in Iraq.

Quote:

assassination attempt on former president: I tried to find anything that might construe this as a legal justification for war, but couldn't find anything close. (seems perfect for prosecution by the ICC)

The attempt in itself is not enough, but together with everything else it constitutes a pattern of behaivor that rises to the threshold of being justification for war. Thats why the President included it in his recitation of our casus belli before Congress, the UN, and the nation.

If they had succeeded in killing George Bush (the first one) during a 1993 visit to Kuwait, would that have been enough? Yes, I believe so.

Quote:

oil for food fraud: A reason to attack a country? Not even close! (Perhaps Russia can attack the US b/c of Enron ....)

Russia was not a victim of Enron. Nor did Russia have a cease-fire agreement in place that regulated Enron's or American activities, nor did the US use Enron to undermine Russia's strategic global partnerships. And Enron's little scandal is what, one percent that engaged in by Iraq and its corrupt UN, French, German, Syrian (that one's just coming out) and Russian allies.

Quote:

terrorist camps etc: The only terrorist camps I am aware of operated in Kurdish Iraq under protection of US bombers enforcing the no-fly policy.

Well your not quite half right. There was a very large Al-Queda affiliated terrorist camp in the Kurdish region. It was supported by Saddam's government (as a counterweight to Kurdish rebels) and a major consideration in the planning and execution of the Iraq War. Just finished Tommy Franks' book 'American Soldier' which talks about it in great detail. There is also a central Al-Queda figure arrested in Baghdad after the fall or Saddam, he was there for medical treatment. There is also Saddam's support for Palestinian terror groups and the payment of suicide bomber families.

Quote:

failure to surrender or leave the country: That demand in and of itself was an act of war.

It was an ultimatum and an act of war. It was also done in accordance with international law and tradition. We addressed Iraq, in full view of the world community, laid out our casus belli, and issued our ultimatum. Saddam chose to fight and in doing so he and his army became our enemy.

Quote:

torture etc as state institutions: some considered this to be a reason for a 'just war', others did not. Either way, it was not the case made before the UN.

No it was not. Neither was the Holocaust brought before Congress on December 8th, 1941. Regardless of what our cause for war was prior to the invasion, the evidence of mass murder uncovered after the invasion justifies our liberation of that country.

Its like stopping someone for speeding and finding they have murdered someone in the backseat. Your argument would have us punish the speeding, but not the murder because it was not why we stopped them in the first place. Of course you would also argue the validty of the stop. After all its better to set the murderer free to kill again then have a questionable traffic stop. Liberal thinking sets murderers free, gets kids molested, and defends tyrants. See it all the time here in court. We just had a molester go free because the Judge said there was no force (kid was 12, man was 35, kid was 5'2 120lbs, man 6'3 230lbs, so I say force was implied), and its not the first time he's done it, although it is the first time he's gotten off in court. Not my case, I'd have sent the bastard to prison, judge or no judge.

Quote:

There are different ideas of what is a legitimate justification to go to war, but here are the big two: 1) 'just war' is based on just cause, proper authority, right intention, reasonable chance of success, proportionality of ends, and last resort; and 2) a just war is either a response to attack or a preemptive strike against a sufficient threat to territorial integrity or political sovereignty.

The US attack on Iraq is not covered by either case. Neither is it covered by any supposed attempt to enforce UN sanctions, as the UN Charter requires a specific vote to approve military action under the guise of the UN.

I disagree. The US attack was a preemptive strike against a nation that aided, harbored, and supported terrorism. That terrorism was a clear and imminent threat to the US and our interests around the world. We also got both domestic and international authority, had an assurance of success, our focus was limited to removing Saddam and eliminating his ability to support terror, rather then annexing foriegn territory, and there was a signifigant effort to find a diplomatic solution, including an ultimatum that if accepted would have prevented or delyaed the war.

I agree though that many people have different standards about what justifies armed conflict. Democratic Senators, for example, believe that its justified by the presense of Bill Clinton in the White House. Bill Clinton believe its justified by the presense of impeachment proceedings in Congress. France believes its justified to pick on little African nations who can't fight back. The Peace movement believes its justified by nothing. Saddam believed it was justified by his desire for Kuwaiti oil or the death of all jews. George Bush believes its justified by the need to defeat terror on foriegn soil rather then in New York City. I believe (in this case) that it was justified by Iraq's failure to abide by the cease-fire from the last war. The American people believe it is justified by the word of the President, their elected representive, a belief they ratified by electing him again a year later.

Oh, and your lack of UN resolutions authorizing the conflict ignores Resolution 678 (1990) (which authorized force to implement Resolution 660 and all subsequent relavant resolutions (in other words authorized force to expel Iraq from Kuwait and later to comply with the cease-fire agreement). Then there is 1441 (2002) which authorized the 2003 invasion.

Variety of the spice of liberty, aint it just?

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2005 7:07 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I was not aware that "tar baby" had any racial connotations to anyone on the planet, but I could be much mistaken. If I am, I seriously apologize to everyone here! That is never what I intended.

The specific metaphor of a 'tar-baby' isn't, itself, racial. The racism angle comes into play because of the source. The "Uncle Remus" character, who was portrayed by Joe Harris (and later by Disney) telling these stories, was in many ways sympathetic to the post-civil war caricature of blacks in the south. I'm pretty sure Disney has pulled all reprints of the old movies and has no intention of re-releasing them. Kind of sad in a way, as the stories were re-tellings of black folk-tales that can be traced back to Africa. Another bit of worthwhile culture bites the dust in the name of PC politics.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2005 7:49 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I was not aware that "tar baby" had any racial connotations to anyone on the planet, but I could be much mistaken. If I am, I seriously apologize to everyone here! That is never what I intended.
The specific metaphor of a 'tar-baby' isn't, itself, racial. The racism angle comes into play because of the source. The "Uncle Remus" character, who was portrayed by Joe Harris (and later by Disney) telling these stories, was in many ways sympathetic to the post-civil war caricature of blacks in the south. I'm pretty sure Disney has pulled all reprints of the old movies and has no intention of re-releasing them. Kind of sad in a way, as the stories were re-tellings of black folk-tales that can be traced back to Africa. Another bit of worthwhile culture bites the dust in the name of PC politics.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Yeah, that someone would twist authentic black culture into a slur against them is pretty effed up...and pretty typical. Having grown up primarily in black and hispanic neighborhoods I never heard the term used as a racial slur. Interestingly, I spent three years of my high school career at an almost exclusively white school in a very white, very upperclass city. I've never heard more racist hate than I did those three years amoung people who had the least contact with other races. Where there's hate, ignorance can't be far behind.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:17 AM

SEVENPERCENT

I hadnt checked the thread in a few days, so allow me to respond, although some of these things may have been addressed in later posts by others-

Quote:
Sevenpercent: You stated that you actually blame Bush for 9/11 because it happened "on his watch". Facts indicate that the attacks were being planned for 3 1/2 years, Bush wasn't in office during that time. Now, I don't mean to imply that I blame the one on watch during that time, but you may what to check out a book called "Derelection of Duty" to find out what was happening during that time.

Sevenpercent (me) did not say this - I did not 'blame Bush' for 9/11, I'm saying that the event happened during his presidency and there is adaquate proof that he misjudged the terror threat from Al-Qaida before the event - My point was that when Bush took office, just as when Clinton took office before him and Bush elder before that, he takes on the mantle of where the buck stops- Whose responsibility is it? It isnt Clinton's, or Reagan's, it's GWB's - 9/11 was Al-Qaida's fault, not Bush's - But using the Clinton defense (blame Bill) as to why it wasnt his responsibility is where I called foul -

Quote:
It falls upon deaf ears and I will not enter argument over irrational,
egoistic chest thumping.

....like you were doing in your little pro-war diatribe to begin with- I could dispute line by line almost every point your friend made, and produce my own email from a friend serving over in Iraq who comes at this from a totally opposite p.o.v., but I'll just pick at this one -

Quote:
Opposing Bush doesn’t support the troops. Opposing the war doesn’t support
the troops.

What an overly simplistic, jingoistic standpoint you have here - "It's not supporting the troops if it isnt done the way we say it should be" - Bah- There are many ways to show your support and care for the men in uniform, but apparently you believe the only true troop support is an uninformed Fox news viewer with a magnetic ribbon on his SUV who says "turn it into a glass parking lot" - Your friend is obviously intelligent, Jadehand, so tell him to use some of that brainpower for more critical thinking, and less repetition of talking points-

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:32 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I can think of a LOT of ways to support the troops without supporting Bush or his policies. My FIRST priority of course is that young men and women not be sent to fight, kill, and die for Halliburton. The enlisted take a helluva beating mentally, emotionally, financially and sometimes physically. Latest studies show that 30% of enlisted develop emotional difficulties three months after returning stateside.

But let's grant that some of us will never agree on whether the war was "worth it", I then think about the job the troops are doing and the hardships they face during and after their tour of duty. In some cases, everything from replacement parts to armoring to water to wet-wipes were in short supply. Only the government could solve some of those supply problems- Did anyone write to their Congressmen to make sure that the enlisted had the appropriate armor and supplies? Did anyone send a care package from home? (I did). What about the Bankruptcy Bill (the darling of corporatist Rebublicans) which was originally going to drag down reservists' families who were bankrupt because of extended tours of duty? Did anyone agitate to write in an exemption? And then there is the VA funding, which is far below need. You could always write to your Congressmen (/women) to get that funding increased. (I did)

EDITED TO ADD: And am I the only one gets steamed about the Bush Aministration showering private contractors with six-digit salaries and enless supplies of GOVERNMENT MONEY while the enslisted- who are basically doing the same job- are treated like dirty stepchildren?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Saddam Hussein was in GROSS VIOLATION of UN res 687

Specifically, how?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2005 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Opus- Many people have (rightly!) accused me of perservation: a behavioral issue that coincides with autism and other syndromes. Thanks for hanging in with me for so long through my perservative phase.

The definition of terrorism/ terrorist has logical extensions. Any organization or group that threatens to use WMD on innocent civilians is guilty of terrorism. Any organization or group that harms non-combatants to instill a sense of fear is guilty of terrorism. Because even terrorists can create a fine-sounding rationale (freedom) or historical justification (to avenge the ____________massacre) those definitions apply regardless of stated purpose or temporal sequence ("who started it"). It follows that USA threats to nuke Mecca, threats to attack "Muslims", or threats to invade bystander nations would be rightly perceived by the targets and most observers as terrorism.

We know what effect terrorism has on us. Why would we expect that engaging or threatening to engage in the same behavior would have a different effect on others?

First a correction, the USA didn't threaten to nuke mecca, one congressman on a radio show made that off the cuff statement, it should also be pointed out the US hasn't been threatening all muslims, just the ones going after us. The fact that some muslim leaders will preach that doesn't make it so.
Their feelings about us are inevitably tied to our support of Isreal regardless of what we do or say, and I think boiling it down to being as simple as think about their feelings/reaction is a tad naive.
At some point you have to realize you have enemies and treat them as such. That doesn't automatically mean going to war.
If bystander nations are getting involved in a US action, against the US, any threats against them are justified and not terrorism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2005 5:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
it should also be pointed out the US hasn't been threatening all muslims, just the ones going after us.

But there is a significant minority doing just that, even people in this thread. And the Bush administration has not show a great deal of selectivity in pursuing ONLY those who've acted against us. According to several reports, they're planning to bomb Iran in response to any unrelated terrorist attack. Can we assure Iran that we would never do that, given our invasion of Iraq?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2005 6:59 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Opus wrote:

Quote:
First a correction, the USA didn't threaten to nuke mecca, one congressman on a radio show made that off the cuff statement, it should also be pointed out the US hasn't been threatening all muslims, just the ones going after us. The fact that some muslim leaders will preach that doesn't make it so.

But see-and I'm not pointing fingers at you here-many folks say this sort of thing all the time, although you cant have it both ways. You want to say that when one of our leaders (and lets not have any bones about it, a congressman is a leader) says we should nuke Mecca, it's just one guy. When one cleric says we should nuke Washington, you say it's indicative of the entire religion and people in the MidEast. By a leader (ours) saying we should vaporize Mecca, other people worldwide say, the US hates all Muslims. We try to say no, it's just one guy, but no one is really listening by that point. It's the same with them. One cleric says kill Americans, we say all arabs are bad, we should exterminate them. I hear this all the time at work, and even school, where I would most expect not to- 'they should just nuke them all.'
That congressman should have been publicly criticized by the administration, if not asked to resign. But we say no, he didn't mean it, he was just 'being philosophical,' and we lose points with the arab world that we didnt have to begin with. There are some jobs in the world where an 'off the cuff' remark should cost you your job, and government is one of them. Teachers, police, and other civil servants that make casual kinds of remarks like that find themselves fined, suspended, or fired - why dont we hold our elected officials to the same standards?

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
it should also be pointed out the US hasn't been threatening all muslims, just the ones going after us.
But there is a significant minority doing just that, even people in this thread. And the Bush administration has not show a great deal of selectivity in pursuing ONLY those who've acted against us. According to several reports, they're planning to bomb Iran in response to any unrelated terrorist attack. Can we assure Iran that we would never do that, given our invasion of Iraq?

If you're saying there are people in this country who want to go after any and all muslims, I agree, although what significant minority are you talking about? Are you saying government officials? If so who, and where did they state something like that? Or are we talking about just run of the mill folks who have no say in foreign policy. I would also point out the dire predications of violence against muslims in the US after 9/11 never occured.

There are reports saying we're going to bomb everyone, reports such as that, if they originate in the middle east usually have a zionist conspircy angle attached to it. The US has contingency plans drawn up to bomb pretty much everyone. Before you believe whatever reports you've heard I would suggest you look up some info about the protest in Iran from the younger generation against the government, and consider whether the US might figure they would be better off just waiting to see if the current government ends up being deposed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Opus wrote:
Quote:
First a correction, the USA didn't threaten to nuke mecca, one congressman on a radio show made that off the cuff statement, it should also be pointed out the US hasn't been threatening all muslims, just the ones going after us. The fact that some muslim leaders will preach that doesn't make it so.

But see-and I'm not pointing fingers at you here-many folks say this sort of thing all the time, although you cant have it both ways. You want to say that when one of our leaders (and lets not have any bones about it, a congressman is a leader) says we should nuke Mecca, it's just one guy. When one cleric says we should nuke Washington, you say it's indicative of the entire religion and people in the MidEast. By a leader (ours) saying we should vaporize Mecca, other people worldwide say, the US hates all Muslims. We try to say no, it's just one guy, but no one is really listening by that point. It's the same with them. One cleric says kill Americans, we say all arabs are bad, we should exterminate them. I hear this all the time at work, and even school, where I would most expect not to- 'they should just nuke them all.'
That congressman should have been publicly criticized by the administration, if not asked to resign. But we say no, he didn't mean it, he was just 'being philosophical,' and we lose points with the arab world that we didnt have to begin with. There are some jobs in the world where an 'off the cuff' remark should cost you your job, and government is one of them. Teachers, police, and other civil servants that make casual kinds of remarks like that find themselves fined, suspended, or fired - why dont we hold our elected officials to the same standards?

Can you name more than one government official who's made that statement, or something similar?
There's more than one Iman preaching kill all the infidels/west/Americans and they were preaching it long before 9/11. A whole sect of the religion is based on wiping out everyone who doesn't believe like them.
The comparrison is hardly equal.
I would recommend that you look at the reaction of conservative pundits, especially in the blogosphere to the repub congressman's statement, everyone did condem it.
All those jobs you mentioned used their mechinisms for dealing with their people, the method for the government is called not re-electing him.
Losing points with the Arab world, muslim or not, as long as the US supports Israel they'll hate us, period, regardless of any other action we take.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 1:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Opus- Within the space of about one post you said- "there are reports that we plan to bomb just about everyone" and "Can you name more than one government official who's made that statement? [nuke Mecca]" I'm going to link that with Hero's statement that in fact we DO have contingency plans to bomb just about everyone. The mere fact that we are capable of bombing everyone sets the whole world on edge. In order to fundamentally understand how the world reacts to us, you need to mentally and emotionally remove yourself from the magic circle and imagine those crosshairs aimed AT YOU. Until you shift perspective you will never ever understand. And that lack of understanding means that you will fail to perceive the significance of even YOUR OWN statements- let alone the statements and actions of our government.

So as an outgrowth of the comfort that you find in all of our nukes, bombs, missiles, and guns, you couldn't remember who ELSE might have said anything about using nukes besides one unimportant official. I keep harping on perspective because, believe me, if you already felt fundamentally threatened, even ONE statement from a USA official would set off klaxons and be carved in memory. Okay- have you remembered that other official yet?

How about.... Bush himself? Starting with the "axis of evil" and ending with his latest "we will keep ALL options on the table" Bush threatens Iran regularly with everything including tactical nukes. I don't know about you, but if I were Iranian I would feel threatened, and rightfully so. He's also threatens Syria pretty regularly. Combine that with our very recent history of two Mideast invasions which deposed two governments and killed tens of thousands, ANY Mideast nation and her citizens will rightfully feel those crosshairs on the backs of their heads. The only step left is for the Mideast provide for itself the explanation- the reason why- they are constantly being threatened by the United States. The cynics in the Mideast believe that it's all about oil. But our support of Israel- which has nothing to do with oil- lends credence to the idea that we simply hate Muslims. And it's a hard point to argue because the data is pretty much all around them.

And BTW- you may quibble about the EXACT nature of Bush's threats (he didn't SAY tactical nukes- altho that was clearly the context of that statement) or whether Bush's invasions were justified or whether there is a whole group of people in the Administraion aiming to wipe out other Mideast nations (there is). That might fly in the USA, but it's that crosshair problem again- those self-comforting little stories just don't fly in the Mideast, especially when you're picking bodies up off the street every hour.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:54 AM

Your complaint then is that because the US has the ability to defend itself against ANYONE, that, that in itself is a threat? Self defense?
Or simply that we're powerful? We should base our defense policy on how the rest of the world feels?
That's sucide, the point of having a strong military with the willingness to use it is to lessen the likely hood of being attacked. To not have plans ready to implement would be imcompetence. ANY military, from ANY country does the exact same thing.

The US's policy for engagement has always been everything, including nukes are on the table, with everyone. Should the policy be,if you attack us we won't ever use the strongest weapon in our arsonal?
If countries hostile to the US feel threatened by that, that's the point.
Syria and Iran as well as North Korea are countries already hostile to the the US,look at their actions and ask why WE would see them as evil. You speak as if until Bush came along they had been our friends.
Name names of all the people in the administration who want to wipe out middle east nations and where they've stated it as policy. If you can't then it's speculation and opinion.
The large muslim population in the US is proof enough of our policy regarding muslims as a group. One way countries in the mid-east hold power is by portraying the US as hating ALL muslims, and nothing we do or say will change that. It's one of their main pillers for holding power.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 5:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Your complaint then is that because the US has the ability to defend itself against ANYONE, that, that in itself is a threat? Self defense?
Or simply that we're powerful? We should base our defense policy on how the rest of the world feels?

How can anyone so totally misinterpret what I'm saying? Please, please, please re-read my post. I'll give it a half-day or so before I reply.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 9:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ok. Let's both take deep breaths and relax: me so I don't go off on a rant, and you so that you're prepared to listen with an open mind.

Ready now?

It goes without saying that if we're attacked, we should- and we will- defend ourselves to whatever level necessary. But Bush wasn't talking about what we would do if Iran attacked us. Bush was talking about a pre-emptive strike. The Iraq occupation is a stark example that a nation doesn't even need to be a credible threat to incur invasion.

We ARE the 800-lb gorilla. That kind of strength can be reassuring to friends and attractive to neutrals provided that it comes with self-control and self-assurance. But a panicked 800-lb gorilla is a dangerous thing, and if we blunder around threatening and destroying nations that have not attacked (or even threatened) us, then we become a source of danger and fear to everyone- not just our enemies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 12:26 PM

G1223

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
We ARE the 800-lb gorilla. That kind of strength can be reassuring to friends and attractive to neutrals provided that it comes with self-control and self-assurance. But a panicked 800-lb gorilla is a dangerous thing, and if we blunder around threatening and destroying nations that have not attacked (or even threatened) us, then we become a source of danger and fear to everyone- not just our enemies.

The reason they do not threaten us is they know they would lose. So they support terrorists. They give them training areas and shelter from nations looking for them.

So no they are not going to say anything against us they are going to harbor the folks who do and supply them with weapons and training. And these are the folks who are killing our troops. Are setting bombs off among innocent civilians.

So they are the hidding place for these people and we should sit down with them and ask them to cooperate ask them to take action against the terrorists in their country.

I think the reason most of those supporting the war are doing so because they are tired of this situation.

So I'd rather be feared than considered an easy mark and that is what I see the oppostion to this war as being. Folks who want to play nice with the folks who would open us up like a fish.

TANSTAAFL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 1:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And the prize for NOT GETTING THE POINT GOES TO

Quote:
The reason they do not threaten us is they know they would lose. So they support terrorists. They give them training areas and shelter from nations looking for them.

"They"? Our lack of specificity was exactly my point, which you demonstrated brilliantly and repeatedly. Special bonus goes for referring to two entirely different sets of "they" in one sentence, without making any distinction between "them". [applause]

Quote:
So no they are not going to say anything against us they are going to harbor the folks who do and supply them with weapons and training. And these are the folks who are killing our troops*.

*Which happen to be on foreign soil at the moment. Or do you truly expect that we should be able to invade any nation on any pretext at any time and not meet resistance? Well, of course you do. And thank you for masterfully demonstrating lack of perspective.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 1:22 PM

Well I've been trying to find a quote where Bush was saying we were going to pre-emptively attack Iran, I did find where I think one of your quotes came from. If it is, then you forgot to include the entire statement.

"(CBS/AP) President Bush said Tuesday that it is "simply ridiculous" to assume that the United States has plans to attack Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program after discussing the issue with European allies.

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table," Mr. Bush said. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/22/world/main675340.shtml

So we have a country hostile to the US, who sponsors terrorism and is developing nuclear weapons and letting them know we're willing to act against them is us terrorising them?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 1:29 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

The whole notion that Iran is developing nuclear weapons is a lot like those infamous WMD in Iraq- ie. non-existant. Would it surprise you to know that Pakistan beats Iran in terms of sponsoring terorism and in spreading nuclear technology?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 2:27 PM

CHRISISALL

* Chrisisall pokes his head in to make a comment, which is instantly taken off in the crossfire. It might have been funny, but headless Chrisisalls make even lamer jokes than headed ones. He'll return once this has healed*

Chrisisall-bot

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
The whole notion that Iran is developing nuclear weapons is a lot like those infamous WMD in Iraq- ie. non-existant. Would it surprise you to know that Pakistan beats Iran in terms of sponsoring terorism and in spreading nuclear technology?

Contingency plans, they also have them for bombing Russia and China and. and and and...planning ahead. Nothing new.
Regarding the rest of the article and the statements and claims, please give the source. Are we talking a conventional media source,or a partisan site, which is it?
Iran is developing a long range ballistic missile,the Shahab-3. They're going to put what type of warhead on it? Conventional? They hide a supposedly peaceful nuclear program? A country awash in more oil than it could use wants to build nuclear power plants why?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:40 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The quote is from the American Conservative hardcopy. I accessed a prtion of it here: www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/22/164841/163Opus-

If you notice, Cheney is asking for contigency plans for a UNPROVOKED NUCLEAR ATTACK. Is an unprovoked nuclear attack a contingency plan we SHOULD be developing? If so- what kinds of effects, both positive and ngative, would this have?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 4:50 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Chris-- HAHAHAHA!! But D*MN, give me credit man- I'm trying to be as nice as I can!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 5:03 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Rue, I am not going to turn this thread into another Iraqi WMD rehash.

Well, SignyM made his point and no one replied. So I thought this might be a good time to pursue the topic you brought up. As you may recall, no 'massive stockpiles' of WMDs or programs were found in Iraq. At that point Iraq was shown to have never been a threat to US territory or self-rule. As to the US acting on the UN's behalf:

Quote:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 47
There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.

...

The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.

The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.

Article 48
The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Remember too, the UN was in Iraq conducting inspections and carrying out UN business with Iraq when the US attacked.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 5:15 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
give me credit man- I'm trying to be as nice as I can!

The credits have been deposited to your account. even bigger

Chrisisall, healing nicely

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 29, 2005 6:21 PM

HKCAVALIER

I don't think the contigency plan thing is gonna get anywhere with the apologists. Lordy, we're talking about the Pentagon, they got plans written up to kill my cats if "the need should arise."

The point you don't seem to be getting, Opus et al, is that we're not trusted over there. We have betrayed the trust of the peoples of the Middle East a whole bunch of times and we have done nothing to regain that trust. I'm talking foolishness, why in the world should we try to regain their trust, right? Like puting Osama on the Oprah Show or some such. Okay then. Anyway, Bush knows they don't trust us, Bush knows they're scared of us. You all know he's threatening Iran and whoever else every chance he gets. You love it when he talks tough, and makes vague threats to "them." You all use "them" and "they" to mean half a dozen ethnic groups and crimial organizations across the globe and so does he. He knows it, they know it, I know it and you know it. Stop this foolishness, I say!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2005 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The quote is from the American Conservative hardcopy. I accessed a prtion of it here: www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/22/164841/163Opus-

If you notice, Cheney is asking for contigency plans for a UNPROVOKED NUCLEAR ATTACK. Is an unprovoked nuclear attack a contingency plan we SHOULD be developing? If so- what kinds of effects, both positive and ngative, would this have?

First your link doesn't work, second, daily (screw them)kos. You can't get more partisan than that. If that is your only source hmmmmm...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The quote is from the American Conservative hardcopy. I accessed a prtion of it here: www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/22/164841/163Opus-

If you notice, Cheney is asking for contigency plans for a UNPROVOKED NUCLEAR ATTACK. Is an unprovoked nuclear attack a contingency plan we SHOULD be developing? If so- what kinds of effects, both positive and ngative, would this have?

Well I found info on your quote myself,infact I found an online interview with the man who wrote the article.

http://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=118

An hour long ingterview with Philip Giraldi. On a pretty leftist site.
He ADMITS it's a contingency plan and ADMITS that just because the plan is drawn up that it doesn't automatically mean it's going to be used. His basic objection is THIS admin has the plan.
The host tries to debunk that Iran has nukes or a nuke program, Mr. Giraldi tells him, basically that isn't necessarily true.
This from a man who doesn't like the Bush admin.
The interview rambles on for an hour, covering various things that could be argued about forever. But for this discussion I'll stick with the info about the quote.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2005 5:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
First your link doesn't work, second, daily (screw them)kos. You can't get more partisan than that. If that is your only source hmmmmm..

C'mon Opus! I was very clear about my source. TO REPEAT: My source is the American Conservative hardcopy which we can't access on-line. This was the only link I could find that has an extended quote. Feel free to run out and purchase the issue if you want.

And while I fix the link, take a deep relaxing breath, and reflect calmly on how you managed to totally mangle a simple name reference. After all, that info is less complicated than an address. And if your brain can glitch on a simple name, what about the reliability of the rest of your information? Is it possible that your ability to comprehend is somehow fundamentally compromised?

EDITED TO ADD: Since you found the info independently (YAY for you. Too bad I can't play it on my PC) and you admit that the contingency plan exists (You do accept it's existance, right?) then we can skip all the BS about my source and whether the information is true and get to the heart of the question:

SHOULD we be preparing a contingency plan for an umprovoked nuclear attack on Iran?

Oh, and BTW, I just noticed that in a very roundabout way, we came back to personal responsibility and rationalizing horrors. Amazingly, we're on-topic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2005 6:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
First your link doesn't work, second, daily (screw them)kos. You can't get more partisan than that. If that is your only source hmmmmm..
C'mon Opus! I was very clear about my source. TO REPEAT: My source is the American Conservative hardcopy which we can't access on-line. This was the only link I could find that has an extended quote. Feel free to run out and purchase the issue if you want.

And while I fix the link, take a deep relaxing breath, and reflect calmly on how you managed to totally mangle a simple name reference. After all, that info is less complicated than an address. And if your brain can glitch on a simple name, what about the reliability of the rest of your information? Is it possible that your ability to comprehend is somehow fundamentally compromised?

EDITED TO ADD: Since you found the info independently (YAY for you. Too bad I can't play it on my PC) and you admit that the contingency plan exists (You do accept it's existance, right?) then we can skip all the BS about my source and whether the information is true and get to the heart of the question:

SHOULD we be preparing a contingency plan for an umprovoked nuclear attack on Iran?

Oh, and BTW, I just noticed that in a very roundabout way, we came back to personal responsibility and rationalizing horrors. Amazingly, we're on-topic.

When you use the daily(screw them)kos, for any type of reference that pretty much shows where your head is at, whether you are just passing on a link posted there or not.
I've never denied we have contigency plans for any and everything I've said that more than once. But no, I have no objection to the plan being drawn up. Until it's used, it's just a contingency plan.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2005 7:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
O: First your link doesn't work, second, daily (screw them)kos. You can't get more partisan than that. If that is your only source hmmmmm..

S: C'mon Opus! I was very clear about my source. TO REPEAT: My source is the American Conservative hardcopy which we can't access on-line. This was the only link I could find that has an extended quote. Feel free to run out and purchase the issue if you want

O: When you use the daily(screw them)kos, for any type of reference that pretty much shows where your head is at whether you are just passing on a link posted there or not.

My reference was hardcopy American Conservative. My head was at providing a secondary source (dailykos) for your convenience! This must be a terribly difficult concept!

Quote:
But no, I have no objection to the plan being drawn up. Until it's used, it's just a contingency plan.

Would you have objections to it being implemented?

NOTE: Still on topic. YAAAY!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2005 11:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The whole notion that Iran is developing nuclear weapons is a lot like those infamous WMD in Iraq- ie. non-existant. Would it surprise you to know that Pakistan beats Iran in terms of sponsoring terorism and in spreading nuclear technology?

True. Iran has decided to meet its energy needs with nuclear power rather then the trillion barrels of oil it has underground. While nuclear power costs more I think we can all agree that the side effects are whats driving Iranian policy. In particular oil produces smog and greenhouse gasses which could affect not only Iran but causes acid rain in Afganistan's deserts. Nuclear power on the other hand is clean and results in weapons grade uranium which can be easily disposed of in selected locations (Tel Aviv, New York City, and so on). So its really all about making efficiant use of resources, something the Mullahs running Iran know all about.

As for Pakistan's program, it was entirely in response to India's program, and yes, we helped them, because the Soviet Commies were helping India. The Soviets needed a conunterbalence to China in the 70s and 80s, we then needed a counter to India (and later a conduit to Afganistani freedom fighters). Pakistan might be a Muslim nation, but their interests have always been tied to the Indian subcontinant rather then the Persian Gulf and Holy Land.

Pakistan does not engage in state-sponsored terrorism like Iran. Pakistan's government chose sides on 9/12/2001 and have been firmly in our camp ever since. The Pakistani people where always a question, however recent efforts by Al Queda to generate a grass roots civil movement fell flat on its face as dozens turned out to answer the calls for protest and nationwide strike (although to be fair it was nationwide, but a few hundred people protesting across the entire nation really insignifigant).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2005 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Would you have objections to it being implemented?

Shouldn't that depend on the details? Not just the details of the plan, but the circumstances under which it was used.

We had a detailed plan to attack the Soviet Union. We had many of them. Some even required us to shoot first (for example, if the Soviets were overunning Europe, we would have used nukes first to stop them).

I don't have a problem with Pentagon war planners planning out every scenario they can think of. Not only does it give them practice, but its practical. Say we are attacked and it was Iran, and we need to respond in minutes, not weeks, luckily we already have a response plan we can adapt to current circumstances.

But the use of nuclear weapons first, just because we woke up one morning ans decided to do it. Wouldn't happen. Especially given that we could destabilze and eliminate Iran's leadership and take out their WMD research sites, chemical weapons, air defenses, and launch an Iraqi style invasion from without or an Afgan style invasion from within, all without using such weapons or losing more lives then we've already lost in the current war, bout a thousand, spread out over a couple years. But no, we're all just going to be headed to work on Monday and suddenly nukes are dropping on Iran with no explanation or anything, not even the five minute warning. Thats just what Reagan did with the Soviets, so its what Cheney and Bush are going to do to. You know that, your just slingin mud.

You'd think after our nuclear war with the Soviet Union that America would learn to listen to Democratic and liberal warnings bout those awful Republicans.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2005 6:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Would you have objections to it being implemented?

Depends on the surrounding factors, on the surface though, against.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 5:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, according to the person who leaked this, it would be after a terrorist attack on the USA. The point, apprently, would be to use the fear generated from such an attack to create support for something that we otherwise wouldn't even consider. Not that there's been any recent precedent ....

But it's nice to know that overall you wouldn't support it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 7:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, according to the person who leaked this, it would be after a terrorist attack on the USA. The point, apprently, would be to use the fear generated from such an attack to create support for something that we otherwise wouldn't even consider. Not that there's been any recent precedent ....

Oh, well under those circumstances, nuke the bastards.

Twice.

Just don't hit the oil wells.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2005 8:47 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero, the first part of the scenario was: Nuke Iran in the event of a terrorist attack on the USA. The rest of the scenario (which I didn't reproduce, I presumed you scrolled up to the original quote) went... even if Iran had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. So, would you be in favor of nuking Iran in the event of a terrorist attack on the USA in the case where Iran had nothing to do with it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2005 6:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero, the first part of the scenario was: Nuke Iran in the event of a terrorist attack on the USA. The rest of the scenario (which I didn't reproduce, I presumed you scrolled up to the original quote) went... even if Iran had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. So, would you be in favor of nuking Iran in the event of a terrorist attack on the USA in the case where Iran had nothing to do with it?

Depends on how many are killed and how many we would kill. If, for example, we were going to use a half kiloton battlefield nuke with little or no fallout and a "relatively" small blast radious and kill say, hundreds and we were responding a terroristic refusal to pay City utility bills (thus placing a greater burden on the rest of us) then I'd say 'no' to being in favor of an attack.

If the terrorist act was a coordinated attack on many nuclear facilities that resulted in the irradiation of the eastern seaboard, then I'd say a response that turns the most radical of the Islamic states into glass would find approval from my corner of Ohio.

Like we said before, its all in the details, the details of our plans and the details of the circumstances in which it is used.

At the end of WW2 the Japanese navy was finished. Yet Hiroshima, with a Japanese naval base, was the target of the first military weapon of mass destruction. The dead included women, children, fishermen, shopkeepers, thousands of innocents. It was almost entirely a civilian target, as was Nagasaki that followed. Truman then promised to destroy every Japanese city, one by one until they stopped making war or they were all dead. He did this to save a couple hundred thousand American dead who would have died invading the home islands. In the end a people whose culture dictated fanatical devotion and suicide attacks was brought to its knees not by the defeat of its military, but because of an absolute certainty demonstrated by promise and action that we could and would end the history of the Japanese people.

Do I believe the people of the Middle East need a similar understanding of American resolve? No. But I have an open mind on the subject. If the terrorists convice me otherwise, then I would support both the threat, the demonstration (the destruction of one or two Iranian cities) and, if they prove to be so much more foolish then Japan, the execution of the threat by the systematic and complete eradication of the Arab world until such a time as they are unwilling or simply unable to continue this conflict. I'll feel bad about it. I'll help them rebuild. Heck, look what we did for Japan. But if the terrorists pull off an act worthy of such a response, then they deserve the fallout (in every sense of the word) for their actions.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 5:49 AM