Typical republican/conservative rhetoric. "If you don't agree, you must be stupid, crazy, evils, and you are wrong." There is no room for any other perspcetive than the rep/con view.:hammer:Originally Posted by rep
At least you've seen the light that Kerry will win "by a large margin".
I don't believe he said every single troop did these things. We know you did nothing like that.
So, Roy, please put it in writing that none of the things about which he testified happened. Apart from the Mei Lai (sp) incident , where we know some of that happened (so we know Kerry wasn't lying), are you saying that you never heard reports, or stories of any of these attrocities?
This isn't the site I originally saw this one I, but it was easy enough to find this on Google:
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...3/05_bush.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...Sheet_BUSH.jpg
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
In my opinion those are perfectly valid issues to consider when making your judgement.
I have no doubt that you and the vast majority of Americans who fought in Vietnam behaved honorably and did not engage in atrocities. Having said that, I also believe that some Americans did engage in these activities. I base this not only on well-documented news reports, but on the experiences cited to me by friends who did serve time in Vietnam and who witnessed some very questionable acts.
I was watching the evening news one night when I heard the name of one of these friends. He was barricaded in a house in a stand-off with the local police and threatening to kill himself. After about 6 hours he gave himself up without incident. He was one of the people that told me about atrocities he had witnessed. The way he descirbed these acts, I had an uneasy feeling that he was actually one of the people engaged in these acts. But of course I had no way of knowing for sure. At any rate he was throughly messed up after his Vietnam tour and spent some time in a mental institution.
One of the saddest legacies of Vietnam was that all our soldiers were tainted by the actions of a few. Although I was anti-war, I never blamed the soldiers or looked down upon them. These are people that answered the call when their country asked them to and were often put in unimaginably horrible situations for 18 and 19 year olds to deal with.
One thing to remember is that being against a particular war does not necessarily mean that one is against the men and women who are called upon to risk their lives in this war.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
When I say I think Kerry's military record is questionable you say:
But then you say:Frankly there is absolutely no proof of your claim - only supposition.
Was George Bush the author of his military record? Is a soldier able to ammend their record? He was hiding in the national guard? He was supposed to be hiding from the Viet Cong?You mean the military record in which George W cannot account for several months of duty while he was supposed to be hiding from the Viet Cong while in the National Guard?
I will answer you with;
"Frankly there is absolutely no proof of your claim - only supposition"
And as far as this thread is concerned you have absolutely no Idea to my motives... It has nothing to do with discrediting JK. I could care less.
Once again you fail to see the obvious. My only purpose in bringing up Bush's 'record' is in response to your blatant and continuous attacks on Kerry. In the absence of these attacks, I would not have posted this. I know that you and the Bush supporters would love it if people just meekly accepted these attacks without fighting back, but that's not going to happen. You'll just have to get used to it. ;)
No. Did I say he was?
Under normal circumstances, no. However I fail to see what your point is.
I believe he was - absolutely. If he wanted to show his support for the war and help defend his country, he could have. No one stopped him from volunteering. He chose not to and joined the National Guard instead. I believe he did so to avoid having to fight in Vietnam. Others are free to think differently but I believe the facts support this conclusion.
Yet nontheless you start thread after thread attacking Kerry. ;) If you could 'care less' as you state, then why are you doing this? Any reasonable person would assume that your posts are exactly what they seem to be - attacks on Kerry.
If you have some mysterious motive that has nothing to do with discrediting Kerry, then by all means share it with us. No one is stopping you.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
What W's National Guard application USED to look like
Let's wait until "my" boys are finished "image enhancing" W's original National Guard application (with black ink and Snowflake) before we pass final judgement on it.
I have confidence in our country's national security agencies.
-- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Last edited by rinselberg; 08-09-2004 at 09:44 AM.
Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...
Hi Steve:
One of the most interesting statistics about Vietnam I’ve encountered concerned combat and VA claims for Post Traumatic Stress. According to what I read, 90% of the troops in Vietnam did not see actual combat. Of those being treated for Post Traumatic Stress, only 10% were engaged in the fighting. You have to be extremely careful when listening to war stories. Often times the “warrior” served with the 90%. So, just because your friend was messed up it does not mean that he was engaged in combat and just because he says so does not make it true. The only “heavy” war stories I believe are those told by guys I served with.
I’m going to spend a few days this week with an observer who flew with me more than a few times and participated in his share of “real” combat. If we discuss what we did in Vietnam it will only be briefly. Please take a few minutes and read something he wrote. Keep in mind that on the day he’s describing I seem to recall that he got a couple more kills, I got three or four, and neither of us got a medal. It was just our job.
First Kill" as a Scout
Posted by: Hightail
Now I’m caught up in this story site! My first kill that I saw die, what a nightmare for some people. But for a scout, it was commonplace! I had 31 confirmed kills. I can vouch for them as a lot of kills were most likely, but somehow mine had to be checked over and confirmed! At least I felt that way because the pilots actually had to keep their own tally separate from mine. If the minigun split a sampan in half with occupants aboard, it was his and if we hovered over the survivors and I shot them while climbing up the bank then it was mine. It seemed like splitting hairs but that is the way it was with LT Fergie. He had no need to claim kills for himself that he didn’t actually pull the trigger on since he had one of the highest number of kills in the troop. One day while working the A-O we happened across a particularly bad group of VC. You may have heard of these guys because they would leave a trail of dishonor behind them. They would terrorize a village by killing people and them mutilating the dead! We cleared the area and the C&C dropped off the interpreter and a couple of "Intelligence Types,” to find out what happened and why there were dead females lying on their backs with dead males {all nude} lying on top of them, out on the rice patty banks in the open. The townspeople told the ARVN that the VC were still in the fields hiding in the grass. Well that caused us to do our usual “DRAG THE SKIDS” through the tall grass and use the rotor wash to try and uncover them {sort of like hide and seek}. Scouting was not always zooming at low level trying to draw fire. In fact, sometimes scouting was actually putting your *** on the line or in the line of fire without thinking about what you are about to accomplish. Be careful what you wish for!! While we were dragging, from under the left skid a body appeared lying on his back with an AK-47 across his chest. He was young, as young as me, and he had his eyes closed. BUT he had an AK on his chest, with his hand on the trigger area and his finger over the end of the barrel! I FROZE! Then I yelled to my pilot "I’ve got one!!" LT Fergie yelled back where? I said under my skid and then he said, "BUST HIM!!" "BUST HIM!!" As I held out the AR-15 pointed down at him, he let loose of the AK-47 and raised his hands over his face, in the form of a prayer. I could not do it!! The skid passed over him and he disappeared for a few seconds under the belly of the ship. Fergie kept yelling, "BUST HIM, BUST HIM!!" The LOH swung back to the right and there he was in clear view again with his hands still clasped over his chin praying. Still with the AK-47 laying across his chest. I thought for a split second about Christianity and then I let loose on full "Rock&Roll" directly down on his face. The barrel of my AR-15 was only 4 feet from his face and hands. As the rounds entered his skin I remember thinking how clear his complexion was and now how each round was creating a small entry that was looking spewing back like pimples that were bursting open across his forehead and cheeks. All the time he was still praying, for he must have known that he had met his end. To this day I have a clear and vivid picture of this event and this boys demise. Hightail
Last edited by Roy R. Ferguson; 08-08-2004 at 03:20 PM. Reason: spacing
SPECVET
Evidently your in that category by not to realize that I was talking about the stupid things we ALL do and say when we are young. Not that I said anyone was dumb and stupid for their political point of view. Your also politically corrupt enough to make it a rep/con issue rather than a statement.When your young you do and say stupid things. If there's anyone on this board that disagrees you just aren't old enough to realize how dumb and stupid the things you are doing and saying are.
In addition you don't read very well because I said that the public had already voted with their channel changers and rejected the poodle and the ambulance chaser with the worse convention viewing ratings and post convention poll numbers in hisory.
Rep
Now you've added "don't read very well" to the crazy/wrong/evil attributes. And you've lowered yourself to name-calling. :finger:
That's why I respect you rep/cons so much (NOT!).:hammer:
Rep....
What do you consider young? I am 35 years old, I didn't grow up with vietnam happening, but I did indeed study it in school. Are you saying that because of my age that I must be stupid and cannot make an intelligent decision on whom to vote for?
You know... if your statements are saying that, I would like to say that I am deeply offended!
Jana Lewis
ABOC , NCLE
A fine quotation is a diamond on the finger of a man of wit, and a pebble in the hand of a fool.
Joseph Roux
Any candidate has to have a reason to be were he or she should be.. George W does represent most of the United States. WE are a land of Christian people. Our forefathers came here to avoid persecution for the way they practiced their religion. This we seem to forget because it's easy.
I don't care if Kerry was in Cambodia at Christmas. I don't care either whether or not his medals are real. What I do care about is his actions after and since then. He has voted down anything that has had to do with defending our country. That's my concern.
I also care about that fact that he lives with defending the right to abortion(said a bad word, no doubt will hear about this comment)when he states his values(per him)states he doesn't believe in abortion.
I also care about being told by him that the entertainment industry represents the regular American public.
I asked Steve to educate me on what Jk will do for me and other Americans. I haven't heard anything. I personally don't want to have to ask permission from the United Nations for anything. I don't want terrorist to know we will negotiate with them to save lives(won't stop the hate or the worldwide attacks) I could keep going but I would like to have a regular non hateful conversation about this.
Christina
What a great post! Your a "typical American" As I am. I won't vote for Bush because, I want my right to have an abortion! It's my body and I don't want the government to put their hands on it. I want our troops out of Iraq, I want us to gain back the respect of our allies. I want to work with the UN. ( that's why it's there) I want to be able to photgraph a building for pleasure without persecution. I want social security to stay intact. I want to be able to practice any religion that I want to. That's why I want John kerry for prez. No problem with what you believe in, I believe in alot of things too. That's why I am so proud to be an AMERICAN! :cheers:
Jana Lewis
ABOC , NCLE
A fine quotation is a diamond on the finger of a man of wit, and a pebble in the hand of a fool.
Joseph Roux
Incorrect - more Americans voted for Al Gore in 2,000 than voted for W. It was electoral votes that made him president.
We were a land of Christians. Now there are many different religious factions in our country.
...
I like that about him. I don't support abortion, but I support a woman's right to choose. I am not Christian, but support a persons right to worship the way s/he chooses. I am not republican, but I support ....
...
Last edited by Spexvet; 08-09-2004 at 02:29 PM.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040412fa_fact
Alrighty then. Forget Kerry's Vietnam record, forget Bush's Vietnam record. How about accountability for the foreign policy/military actions of the here and now? If I look at this and say this is a disaster, am I a Bush hater or merely making a reasonable judgment?
The middle east situation starts with, and largely revolves around, the Israel/Palestinian problem. It maintains turmoil, feeds radicalism, and is the lens through which the Arabs see the world. Call me a Pollyanna, but the notion that the Bush administration effectively ignored this situation up til 9/11 and afterwards pursued a wildly erratic policy, falls far short of what a responsible and sober government of the world's only super power should have been doing.
Of course dealing with this is a tedious, complex task, calling for diplomatic skills, economic discipline, and the ability to state a coherent and goal oriented set of strategies. Things connect, actions have consequences, short term has a way of becoming long term if no one is paying attention.
My problem with GWB? One:
He's not a serious thinker--he admits he sees the world in black and white, and doesn't do "nuance", doesn't read the newspaper, prior to being president traveled outside the US twice, thus studiously avoiding the broadening experience of seeing other countries and cultures--pretty much the definition of an intellectual lightweight.
Two: I do not require any politician preaching values to me, thanks very much, particularly the value of patriotism. The only patriotism worth talking about is the patriotism Stevenson defines: "Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." So while the Vietnam debate has passed over to the sorry state we now see, I suggest the candidates' lives as a whole present a mosaic that is a rightful element of evaluation.
By that measure, I am more comfortable with a man who has spent his life in public service, is not ashamed of his intellect, and is less inclined to serve the interests of a narrow band of the population to the detriment of the whole. I am less comfortable with a man who traded on his father's name for most of his life, ran several businesses into the ground and was hand picked by those who stood to benefit the most from his election. And, who while president has taken us to war against an enemy who presented a far less immediate danger than the real enemy who is daily growing in power, has needlessly alienated most of the world, has run the deficit to record levels and who has polarized the population to the greatest extent in my memory. It is stunning to me that the administration speaks openly about the election being a dead heat and there is no attempt, or even rhetoric, by the president to unite the country behind him. Being president used to have a higher standard than being a candidate.
My big fear is that the upcoming election will have more voting fraud and/or breakdowns. The touchscreen systems provide no back-up, no way to confirm results. Some states that have these systems are implementing a paper trail back-up, which seems like a good idea. Here's a funny story, guess which state has the new systems but isn't going to implement the parallel tracking? Righto, Florida. The tragedy here will not be that the election is invalid, it will be that people will lose faith in the process, a loss of unimaginable consequences.
Let the games begin.
Last edited by chm2023; 08-09-2004 at 02:16 PM.
I think we should cut the man some slack - I think he was just trying to say, albeit rather clumsily, what he has now clarified: that young people say and do stupid things.
A powerful observation, indeed; but one that complements his statement, "[w]hat I do care about is their record as mature adults. One candidate stands out far above the other and yes I am voting for that candidate."
And of course, if I were supporting Bush, I wouldn't want to focus attention on a comparison of how he and Kerry comported themselves in their respective youths, either. I'd try to make it seem irrelevant, too.
I'm curious, rep - I'm assuming that you're voting for Bush - exactly what is it in his "record" as a "mature adult" that you find so compelling? His (untreated) alcoholism? His failure in the oil business? Trading Sammy Sosa (my favorite)? Something in his record as governor of Texas?
And which bits compare so favorably to Kerry's record - at which point in time?
Or are you referring to his more recent "accomplishments" - you know, making us "safer" (those of us still alive, anyway), and all that?
Actually I did answer you:
I can understand and respect that you and I will have honest disagreements about this. :)
However I did tell you what I think Kerry will do as President. As I said, I am not looking for someone to 'do' something for me. I want a President who will respect our rights and freedoms and will fight to defend them. I sincerely believe that Kerry will do a better job of this than Bush has.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
I find the recent post "Another foreign policy triumph" debatable from top to bottom. I used boldface to remark the single most contentious statement. This post will be in keeping with the history of this thread, which started with the narrower issue of "Kerry in Vietnam" and then morphed into a general Bush Vs. Kerry debate with the spotlight on the DoD missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The real enemy who is daily growing in power ...? How are any of us to know whether AQ (AlQaeda) is gaining power, losing power, or just holding its own? Just a few months ago, Secretary Rumsfeld said for the record that reliable metrics on AlQaeda are not well known. Even if it were possible to know that AQ recruiting has taken an upwards trend since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, it would not lead us directly to the conclusion that AQ is gaining power. There are other variables. Are the latest recruits as fanatic and committed as the previous generations? Or could some just be having a little personal anti-American temper tantrum that doesn't last very long? What if there are more new recruits but fewer mid-level and top-level terrorists? What if the number of AQ recruits has been on an uptrend and, at the same time, AQ funding has been diminished by more aggressive financial interdiction efforts worldwide?
Alienated most of the world ...? The conservatives in Spain, who were our allies in Iraq, might still be in power if they had not panicked and indulged in a transparent (and witless) plot to fob the Madrid train bombings onto Basque Separatists even before the smoke from the wreckage had time to drift away. What other government has been voted out or overthrown because they supported the U.S. effort in Iraq? The Bush administration COULD become the first (on November 2), but we're not there YET. Alienated suggests that they used to like us a lot, but not anymore. When were we ever remarkably well liked all over the world? Was it before the Vietnam era? Right after the end of World War Two? Did anyone expect the almost universal sympathy for the U.S. at the moment after Nine-Eleven to endure?
Most of the world ...? The U.K. has been our steadfast ally in Iraq and Afghanistan. Poland, a notable contributor in Iraq. Canada in Afghanistan. NATO (with tangible military contributions from France, Germany and Spain) contributing much less than warranted in Iraq, considerably more in Afghanistan (check the NATO website) and still meeting its obligations in Kosovo. France, Germany and Russia have all written off some of the old Iraq's international debt. India and China (two giant populations), not particularly agitated by our policy in Iraq. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia more for us than against us. Iran openly cooperating with the interim Iraqi government on security issues. Egypt, Malaysia and Pakistan just passed on sending security forces to Iraq for the present, but they are part of a group of Islamic countries that cannot be written out of the future in Iraq.
Kerry's record includes his vote against using force to push Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991. As Dick "more contracts for Halliburton" Cheney observed just a few months ago: "Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in Kuwait."
The DoD missions in Iraq and Afghanistan: Looking more up than down, on the whole. I'm aligning my posts with the two missions and their objectives. And for not a single reason personally, except that it's my pleasure.
Last edited by rinselberg; 08-10-2004 at 06:07 PM.
Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...
Personally I think the American Left is a far greater thread than the Arabs. The Arabs/Moslems, etc. and be identified and killed and if really pressed they will come out and fight.
Those would be an invisible fifth column within our borders and undermine our beliefs and institutions present a far greater danger.
J. Edgar Hoover and Joe McCarthy were actually right.
However the main question is why do we spend so much time debating all this junk on optiboards?
No one on the left is going to see the light and change his/her/? votes or opinions.
No one on the right is going to see the dark and change his/her votes or opinions.
Most of what we are accomplishing on Optiboards of late is just infuriating each other with no effect on the others opinions of politics but a negative effect on others opinions of us.
None of this stuff has anything to do with spectacles or contact lenses so why do we waste the time to infuriate each other in this forum? I am sure there are other forums the devote themselves to politics and are available to us. We all need to know how to do the mechanical/technical parts of our job better and none of us knows everything everyone else knows.
So why ain't we sharing optical knowledge alone?
Chip
Chip,
The title of this forum is "Just Discussion". You don't have to post here, if you don't want to, and you certainly don't have read the posts. There are other forums for optical topics. I find that this is fun banter, and if I can open one conservative mind, I will consider myself successful. Personally, I think Karen is juuuust about to flip.;)
Would the shill for Baghdad Bob care to comment on what negative effect that would have had on the United States?He was good enough for us for over 20 years, what possible difference would another couple of years have made? (At which time, perhaps, the action would have been in concert with the majority of members of the UN)
hj
Last edited by hcjilson; 08-10-2004 at 08:29 AM. Reason: addendum
"Always laugh when you can. It is a cheap medicine"
Lord Byron
Take a photo tour of Cape Cod and the Islands!
www.capecodphotoalbum.com
Chip,
I don't get "infuriated" when I read these posts. I enjoy the debate. If you get "infuriated" I would suggest not reading these posts. No reason to raise the ol' blood pressure if you don't have to.:D I respect everyones right to have their opinion. Can we get anymore patriotic than that? ;)
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Jana Lewis
ABOC , NCLE
A fine quotation is a diamond on the finger of a man of wit, and a pebble in the hand of a fool.
Joseph Roux
The extent doesn't really matter. The fact that we are creating enemies, instead of working toward peace is disturbing to me.
I'm disappointed. You don't read my posts, do you? Remember when I did the math showing that yes, 186 (or so) out of 226 (or so) countries of the world is considered "most". Demonstrations around the world show that even if other governments support us, the rank and file Human Being has issues with our behavior.
Can Dick tell me what todays lottery number will be, since he's so good at predicting the future?
Hello HARRY and company. I doubt that anyone who has been drawn into this conversation on one side or the other is going to change their thinking very much. As I said at the end of my previous post: "It's [just] my pleasure." It is also my surprise, as I find that the exercise of drafting this rather ambitious post has put me more at ease that I have generally been on one of the more logical tracks about this whole "Iraq thing".Would the shill for Baghdad Bob care to comment on what negative effect that would have had on the United States? He was good enough for us for over 20 years, what possible difference would another couple of years have made? At which time, perhaps, the action would have been in concert with the majority of members of the UN.
So there is a suggestion that the U.S. should have waited up to two more years in an effort to secure the U.N. resolution that we wanted? I would call it an ill-considered gamble. A gamble that would more likely than not put us into an even more appalling situation than we are faced with today. More ways to lose and more to lose. Not so many ways to win and not that much on the table for us if we did win. How much of an improvement would it be for us if we did have the U.N. resolution? It would be easier politically for more countries to join the Coalition of the Willing and U.N. Authorized. Some of the token contributions that we have received from so many countries could probably have been enlarged to something more than just token contributions. But we would still have the lead military assignment going into Iraq against Saddam and in the first efforts to secure and stabilize the country after the "end of major combat" or as we more usually say, the traditional Mission Accomplished ceremonies. We would still have the most soldiers at risk in the beginning of it.
In reality, as it has actually unfolded for us, it seems to be the reverse of what most of us were probably expecting. Major combat, a (relative) breeze. Securing and stabilizing the country afterwards, an appalling nightmare. But after your hypothetical two year delay, wouldn’t we still have probably expected it to be the other way around? A costly battle going in, possibly with WMD used against us, followed by some variant of the happy (and liberated) Iraqi scenario? So we would still expect to take the brunt of it; to see the U.S. forces take the largest number of casualties, regardless of whatever more assistance would be afforded to us by the U.N. resolution. I am not seeing a compelling upside at this point, in exchange for waiting up to two years to secure the U.N. resolution.
Would bearing U.N. authority translate into any less violent resistance, insurgency or terrorism waged against our coalition? I can’t quite picture it. I don’t see that a U.N. flag would be much of a deterrent or pacifier to any of the forces that are now arrayed against us. What would AlQaeda care, particularly, whether we are U.S. or U.N.? The die-hard Baathists? The relatively few but well armed Shiites that comprise the Sadr Militia? The more or less common criminals that are also assaulting us? Review what actually happened when the U.N. tried to establish its first major presence in Baghdad: A massive bomb attack that killed the U.N. head of mission, among many others. Of course, hypothetically, that wouldn't have happened yet, so we wouldn't know about it. But isn't it about what we would expect? We knew that there would be some violence after the end of major combat. We didn't expect it to be so prevalent and hard to stop. So far, I am still not seeing a lot of upside to our taking up to a two year delay in exchange for a U.N. resolution.
Inside of Iraq there would be a lot that could happen during as much as a two year window. But it could just as likely be more to the bad as more to the good. Up to two more years of the sanctions regime to further break down Iraq’s badly decaying civilian infrastructure? Two more years without the full complement of medicines and facilities to contain Iraq’s already troubling general health problems? Two more years of oil revenues wasted on more of Saddam’s luxuries (or worse)? Two more years for Saddam to stockpile the chemical or biological WMD that he was almost universally thought to have possessed? Two more years for Saddam to think of more plans against us – time that he could probably use to at least as much advantage as we could? Two more years of Saddam’s habitual atrocities? Against the possibility of what? That something good was going to happen instead? I don’t see that much good happened inside Iraq during all the years that we did wait, between the end of the first Gulf War and the start of the second one.
What else was likely to happen while we are waiting up to two years for the U.N. resolution that we are only hopeful of securing? We lose a plane and a pilot in one of the No Fly Zones? A little downer for us, a little upper for Saddam and also for Osama, no doubt: He’s always watching and waiting. Isn’t it just as likely that the U.N. would find some way to put the WMD issues aside, and then the international support for the economic sanctions regime collapses? It wouldn't make much difference whether the U.S. still suspected Iraq of WMD or not. Saddam was doing well enough for himself under the U.N. sanctions regime ("Oil for Palaces" program, as General Tommy Franks liked to say.) Having Saddam or Saddam Junior (Qusay Hussein) wriggle out from under the economic sanctions would make the U.S. a political laughingstock in many eyes, including Osama’s. Inadvisable. It's the kind of thing that encourages more attacks on us.
This is probably about as much post as any of us can take. I am not suggesting that anyone would actually do this, but if someone were to take all of the other posts that I have made on this one subject in this thread and perhaps some other threads, and put it all together, that would be it. Roll it all into one big post. And there you have it. I'd still vote for doing it ...
... The Rumsfeld Way
Last edited by rinselberg; 12-07-2006 at 05:18 AM.
The fact? It's your opinion that we are creating enemies. It's my opinion that we are confronting those who have already shown themselves to be enemies. You find the policy disturbing. I think we are doing our very best to set the conditions for a wider and more enduring peace all around the world, and especially in the Middle and Greater Middle East. In some ways, W is tyring to reverse the directions taking by previous U.S. administrations. That always happens. Every foreign policy has immediate consequences, short term consequences and long term consequences. It's often a tradeoff. What's helpful in the short run is not always the best policy in the long run. And the other way around. It's almost always situational. There is seldom if ever a single, one size fits all policy that works with every other country in every situation that comes up.
I think that you are saying that there are (or were) about 30 nations that contributed to the so called Coalition of the Willing: The coalition that went ahead with Operation Iraqi Freedom (not trying to sloganize, just to be very precise about what I am saying.) And over 180 nations that were not contributors to the coalition. But of that 180 nations, not all explicitly or directly OPPOSED our Operation. Many just did not take a public position on it. And it still would not make your case if all of the 180 or 186 other nations did come out directly and unambiguously against our policy in Iraq. Your "math" is controversial. What do you say if someone else thinks the national votes should be weighted by national population size? So China gets the most votes and some small island somewhere gets just 1 vote. It's all beside the point. President Bush is not going to put U.S. security issues up for a worldwide vote. Nor is the possible next President Kerry. You may think that Kerry will have more consideration for international views, and maybe so. That's not something to be argued in this post. You said in a previous post that you are not advocating a single, centrally organized world government, but how else could anyone interpret this kind of math, when a sovereign national government (=W) claims that it's a matter of national security? You need to "do the math"! TWO national security threats: Afghanistan and Iraq. TWO DoD missions: Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. And there is no such thing as a Rank and File Human Being. It's a diverse world population. And demonstrations? Are there any big demonstrations going on right at the moment? So there were some frankly awesome sized demonstrations in London about a year ago. Have they voted the Blair goverment out of office? Are you for a government of laws, or government by whatever seems to be the prevailing sentiment? And please don't take the line that we broke the U.N.'s laws. The U.N. does not make laws. It makes resolutions.I'm disappointed. You don't read my posts, do you? Remember when I did the math showing that yes, 186 (or so) out of 226 (or so) countries of the world is considered "most". Demonstrations around the world show that even if other governments support us, the rank and file Human Being has issues with our behavior.
That's beside the point. In 1991 Senator Kerry cast a vote on a very major issue that I did not agree with and still do not agree with. We needed to force the Iraqis out of Kuwait in a timely and expedient way, not let things roll on in a very bad way for many months and more likely years, hoping that economic sanctions would eventually persuade the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein to back out of Kuwait. Military force was the only practical option. Perhaps there were other mistakes AFTER we forced the Iraqis out of Kuwait, but using force was not a mistake.Can Dick tell me what todays lottery number will be, since he's so good at predicting the future?
I appreciate the chance to consider your views; if not, I would not take the time to respond. I am curious about something. Are you actually enthused about the national elections coming up in November? Are you planning to vote for Kerry? Or Ralph Nader? I don't follow Ralph Nader much, but I would guess that you are much closer to Ralph Nader's ideas about defense issues than you are to John Kerry's. I would say that you are either on the extreme "left wing" of the Democratic Party (which I think that you identify with), or somewhere on the "left" and outside of the Democratic Party. All just IMO -- of course! See ya. AND HAPPY BIRTHDAY, I HOPE!
Last edited by rinselberg; 08-21-2004 at 10:08 AM.
Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks