Here are some very interesting quotes from John Lewis Gaddis, a professor of military and naval history at Yale University:
?.. by a kind of back-handed circuitous route, this swing of the conservative movement has come around to an old liberal position, which is that reform of other countries, reform in other cultures, is, in fact, possible -- not just possible, but is necessary.?
".. paradoxically, we have come around in a Republican administration to the sense that the task of this country, the great task of the early 21st century, really has got to be to complete the task that Woodrow Wilson started at the beginning of the 20th century and that is democratization. Because only democratization leads to a system that can accommodate the different desires of different groups and prevent this kind of frustration from developing."
I think reform of other countries is essential, just that reform through war is not the best way to do it. Were Saddam rampaging across the land like Hitler, then I'd be in favor of an attack.
The problem I see is that the republicans aren't actually for reform of other countries, they just want economic markets for goods.
Saddam is definitely Hitler-esque within his own borders (although we've contained the Kurdish problem as far as I can tell.)
As for the motive, to me that's more important than the outcome. That's just my philosophical view.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wasn't Hitler an ultra-nationalist that wanted the world as his domain? Sounds much more like the US than Iraq... So what if the US fires IMF loans instead of Shells.
Oh yeah, when jrBush started HIS iraq tirade, right after 911, who was Iraq attacking? None of the 911 terrorists were from Iraq. I dont think Iraq has any ICBMs that threaten the US. if you argue that he has terrorist connections, well so does every nation in the world (including the US). Whether we like it or not terrorists live in all corners of the world.
Maybe, they have a reason to be angry.
A great man once said (and I paraphrase):
Try to understand the position of someone who conflicts in opinion. They are merely what you or I would have been under the same circumstances.
Abe Lincoln, if the grey-matter serves me correct. Please again, this is not a quote... so dont flame me on that. Flame me on my opinion
<strong>Oh yeah, when jrBush started HIS iraq tirade, right after 911, who was Iraq attacking?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess the US shouldn't have gone after the Taliban in Afganistan after 911, either? Afganistan wasn't "attacking" anyone during 911, either. Nice logic. Just let the Trade Towers deaths blow over. ...or maybe we should have appealed to the UN to make a resolution with the terrorists? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Better yet, lets not act upon any terrorists threats until after disaster has occurred. We can build plenty of trade towers and hopefully we can build them faster than they can wreck'em. US deaths mean nothing. Ooookay...
so we are attacking for the kurds?? they have said they didn't want us to attack....neither did turkey till we gave them 15 billion...and even so they are hesitating...if we are going to get rid of all awful leaders in this world, we have a large job ahead of us....not saying it is the wrong job, just that it is not the usual role america plays...i think if that is the case, we should have elections to see what the people think...do the people that voted for bush accept the ideal of going to many countries across the world and attacking and replacing governments...spending billions, putting our boys in uniform at risk, nation building in iraq, north korea, iran, somalia, syria, libya, saudi arabia, etc?? i know times change, but if we are going to change a basic philosophy of america (like quit the UN and nation build through out the arab world), i think the people should have a say....so let bush run on that platform....perhaps he will finally win the popular vote....or not, and the people will have spoken....g
<strong>...if we are going to get rid of all awful leaders in this world, we have a large job ahead of us...</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is yet another vacuous assertion touted by the antiwar party line. No, the objective is not to rid all awful leaders in the world (not a bad mission, but there is that sticky issue of how to determine "awful", if it can even be done). The objective is to rid awful leaders that present/will present a threat to the US and its interests.
<strong>so we are attacking for the kurds?? they have said they didn't want us to attack....neither did turkey till we gave them 15 billion...and even so they are hesitating...if we are going to get rid of all awful leaders in this world, we have a large job ahead of us....not saying it is the wrong job, just that it is not the usual role america plays...i think if that is the case, we should have elections to see what the people think...do the people that voted for bush accept the ideal of going to many countries across the world and attacking and replacing governments...spending billions, putting our boys in uniform at risk, nation building in iraq, north korea, iran, somalia, syria, libya, saudi arabia, etc?? i know times change, but if we are going to change a basic philosophy of america (like quit the UN and nation build through out the arab world), i think the people should have a say....so let bush run on that platform....perhaps he will finally win the popular vote....or not, and the people will have spoken....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right. People should be fully informed.
But if you read the articles I linked to, I don?t think it?s a republican or democrat issue. You either do this now, or suffer a great deal later. (Economically, politically, and yes even militarily).
[quote] The objective is to rid awful leaders that present/will present a threat to the US and its interests. <hr></blockquote>
a very broad statement...
and by war? nation building? or simple assassination??
so, not for the kurds, not for turkey, not for kuwaitt, not for oil.....so why again?? they are not a threat to the US....they have not attacked nor threatened the US...they did not bomb the twin towers...they did not bomb the federal office in Oklahoma...we are getting our oil from other countries...they don't have the ability to wage war against any country around them (hell, kuwaitt would kick their ass this time)...so why again???.....g
While I agree with this sentiment, I still feel at this point it's more important to do it 'properly' than at any cost.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the administration tried very hard, and is still trying very hard, to do this "properly". But that shouldn?t dissuade them from getting this done, should secretary Powell?s diplomatic efforts fail to bear fruit.
Comments
the president sez so...so let's roll....
me, i see death all the time and it is never pleasent....
i'm not asking for everyone to be convinced...i am asking that "I" be convinced...i am not yet...g
so is the word "threat", and especially "future threat"
potential threat
we will attack for relative terms....g
g
Here are some very interesting quotes from John Lewis Gaddis, a professor of military and naval history at Yale University:
?.. by a kind of back-handed circuitous route, this swing of the conservative movement has come around to an old liberal position, which is that reform of other countries, reform in other cultures, is, in fact, possible -- not just possible, but is necessary.?
".. paradoxically, we have come around in a Republican administration to the sense that the task of this country, the great task of the early 21st century, really has got to be to complete the task that Woodrow Wilson started at the beginning of the 20th century and that is democratization. Because only democratization leads to a system that can accommodate the different desires of different groups and prevent this kind of frustration from developing."
What do you think?
[ 02-23-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
<strong>
What do you think? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think reform of other countries is essential, just that reform through war is not the best way to do it. Were Saddam rampaging across the land like Hitler, then I'd be in favor of an attack.
The problem I see is that the republicans aren't actually for reform of other countries, they just want economic markets for goods.
<strong>
I think reform of other countries is essential, just that reform through war is not the best way to do it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure it?s not the 'bestest" way, but it does get the job done.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
Were Saddam rampaging across the land like Hitler, then I'd be in favor of an attack.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You need to speak with some Kurds and some Shiites. Maybe some Sunnis as well.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
The problem I see is that the republicans aren't actually for reform of other countries, they just want economic markets for goods.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does their motivation really matter all that much, if the results are the same? (Not that agree with your characterization).
<strong>
Does their motivation really matter all that much, if the results are the same? (Not that agree with your characterization).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Saddam is definitely Hitler-esque within his own borders (although we've contained the Kurdish problem as far as I can tell.)
As for the motive, to me that's more important than the outcome. That's just my philosophical view.
<strong>
Saddam is definitely Hitler-esque within his own borders (although we've contained the Kurdish problem as far as I can tell.)
As for the motive, to me that's more important than the outcome. That's just my philosophical view.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wasn't Hitler an ultra-nationalist that wanted the world as his domain? Sounds much more like the US than Iraq... So what if the US fires IMF loans instead of Shells.
Oh yeah, when jrBush started HIS iraq tirade, right after 911, who was Iraq attacking? None of the 911 terrorists were from Iraq. I dont think Iraq has any ICBMs that threaten the US. if you argue that he has terrorist connections, well so does every nation in the world (including the US). Whether we like it or not terrorists live in all corners of the world.
Maybe, they have a reason to be angry.
A great man once said (and I paraphrase):
Try to understand the position of someone who conflicts in opinion. They are merely what you or I would have been under the same circumstances.
Abe Lincoln, if the grey-matter serves me correct. Please again, this is not a quote... so dont flame me on that. Flame me on my opinion
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: I-bent-my-wookie ]
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: I-bent-my-wookie ]</p>
<strong>Oh yeah, when jrBush started HIS iraq tirade, right after 911, who was Iraq attacking?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess the US shouldn't have gone after the Taliban in Afganistan after 911, either? Afganistan wasn't "attacking" anyone during 911, either. Nice logic. Just let the Trade Towers deaths blow over. ...or maybe we should have appealed to the UN to make a resolution with the terrorists? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
Afganistan wasn't "attacking" anyone during 911, either. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's wrong.
<strong>so we are attacking for the kurds??</strong><hr></blockquote>
No.
<strong>...if we are going to get rid of all awful leaders in this world, we have a large job ahead of us...</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is yet another vacuous assertion touted by the antiwar party line. No, the objective is not to rid all awful leaders in the world (not a bad mission, but there is that sticky issue of how to determine "awful", if it can even be done). The objective is to rid awful leaders that present/will present a threat to the US and its interests.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>so we are attacking for the kurds?? they have said they didn't want us to attack....neither did turkey till we gave them 15 billion...and even so they are hesitating...if we are going to get rid of all awful leaders in this world, we have a large job ahead of us....not saying it is the wrong job, just that it is not the usual role america plays...i think if that is the case, we should have elections to see what the people think...do the people that voted for bush accept the ideal of going to many countries across the world and attacking and replacing governments...spending billions, putting our boys in uniform at risk, nation building in iraq, north korea, iran, somalia, syria, libya, saudi arabia, etc?? i know times change, but if we are going to change a basic philosophy of america (like quit the UN and nation build through out the arab world), i think the people should have a say....so let bush run on that platform....perhaps he will finally win the popular vote....or not, and the people will have spoken....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right. People should be fully informed.
But if you read the articles I linked to, I don?t think it?s a republican or democrat issue. You either do this now, or suffer a great deal later. (Economically, politically, and yes even militarily).
<strong>
You either do this now, or suffer a great deal later. </strong><hr></blockquote>
While I agree with this sentiment, I still feel at this point it's more important to do it 'properly' than at any cost.
a very broad statement...
and by war? nation building? or simple assassination??
so, not for the kurds, not for turkey, not for kuwaitt, not for oil.....so why again?? they are not a threat to the US....they have not attacked nor threatened the US...they did not bomb the twin towers...they did not bomb the federal office in Oklahoma...we are getting our oil from other countries...they don't have the ability to wage war against any country around them (hell, kuwaitt would kick their ass this time)...so why again???.....g
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>
While I agree with this sentiment, I still feel at this point it's more important to do it 'properly' than at any cost.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the administration tried very hard, and is still trying very hard, to do this "properly". But that shouldn?t dissuade them from getting this done, should secretary Powell?s diplomatic efforts fail to bear fruit.
What more would you have the administration do?
<strong>
.
.
so why again???
</strong><hr></blockquote>
To set an example.