leave no president behind

[Darris Chambless]

shanbaum said:
It got him an independent India with an historically small amount of bloodshed.

But passive resistance would work against the British. It doesn't work against people with homocidal tendancies and a bomb strapped to their backside with the sole intention of blowing themselves as well as others up with it. Nor does it work with people that have a mob mentality willing to kill their own and others for no other reason than the escalated tensinon brought on by said mob mentality.

Plus there's a little more to the story than the British control and Ghandi's passive resistance leading to India's independence. Ghandi definitely got the publicity though and India did get it's independence.

GIRAFFES BE GONE!!! Hey!...It's working. ;)

Darris C.

[shanbaum]

mrba said:
You didn't expect the evacuation part!

and yes I acknowledge those two responses on the part of Iraqi's may occur... Athough I think I know where you are going with this, i will point out that Iraqi's are in no mood to fight an insugency on a large scale... Now that they enjoy furnature and such.

Yes, I'm glad to see you're mellowing.

I'm not "going anywhere" with this. I was just curious if you thought that your strategy would certainly succeed, or if you understood that it could have exactly the opposite effect from the desired one.

[shanbaum]

Darris Chambless said:
But passive resistance would work against the British. It doesn't work against people with homocidal tendancies and a bomb strapped to their backside with the sole intention of blowing themselves as well as others up with it. Nor does it work with people that have a mob mentality willing to kill their own and others for no other reason than the escalated tensinon brought on by said mob mentality.

Plus there's a little more to the story than the British control and Ghandi's passive resistance leading to India's independence. Ghandi definitely got the publicity though and India did get it's independence.

GIRAFFES BE GONE!!! Hey!...It's working. ;)

Darris C.

Well, I didn't bring Gandhi up in the first place, and I didn't assert that pacifism would work anywhere else, did I?

On the other hand, one might contemplate the notion that "people with homocidal tendancies and a bomb strapped to their backside with the sole intention of blowing themselves as well as others up with it" might not exactly be deterred by the threat of violence, either.

[mrba]

As with all chess games (even when lives are on the line its still a chess like gamble) backfire's are always a risk... you could level a few more towns, see if it works. It only took two in Japan, and had the emporer had his way it would have only taken one. I realize the military wanted to go on in their crazy senseless defense, and from what I know of Japanese culture at the time, that may have been more rational to them then we would understand...

But none the less, I would opt for a quick evac...

[Darris Chambless]

Well, I didn't bring Gandhi up in the first place, and I didn't assert that pacifism would work anywhere else, did I?

Well,... no you didn't but you did bring up his passive resistance as an attention getter though :)

On the other hand, one might contemplate the notion that "people with homocidal tendancies and a bomb strapped to their backside with the sole intention of blowing themselves as well as others up with it" might not exactly be deterred by the threat of violence, either.

Exactly! They would be detered by a bomb blowing them up before they got to anyone else or a bullet through the cranium for the same purpose. :D

Take care,

Darris C.

[karen]

BobV said:
I must admit that when I heard the news and saw some of the pictures that came out of Falluja, my first thought was "level the town, no warning, whomever dies, dies (Iraqi)".

Thought that same thing myself this morning-wish there was some way to get the women and children out of the way first. But then I wonder if the shoe was on the other foot if they would let any of us survive....

[BobV]

I admit I was never in Viet Nam. I was never in the military. I held on to my draft card until I was 40 (10 years ago). Would I have gone to Nam if drafted? Yep. No choice.

Now to answer some things...

Sorry folk, women and children go too. The reason I brought up Nam in the beginning of this post wa because the Viet Cong were boobytrapping kids to kill Americans. The palestinians and Iraqis have used teenagers to commit homicide bombings. What makes any of you think that kids won't be next? Hell, they even use innocent mules. Sorry, babe, you tried to kick me the other day-go blow up some Americans. Will the mule get it's fair share of virgins for being martyred, also?

So WHY NOT blow the town off the face of the earth...let's see them scramble for once, AND I DO MEAN SCRAMBLE.

Some other words for it...control the population or, population control.

Bob V.

[mrba]

Bob V,
I don't condone the bombing of women and children. I however, have noticed that Hammas is using women and children a suicide bombers...

Does anyone think that this changes things? I suppose we are talking about a group of fanatics that doesn't always honor women and care for its children, but are we any different at times?

Generally evil would exploit our sophistocated culture against us. They wouldn't hesitate to blow up women and children, I don't know if it behooves us to do likewise however. If we sacrifice our dignity in order to destroy their evil what does it say of us.

Evacuate the town. And then level it.

As far as population control, you are beginning to sound like a liberal. Why not drop condoms from the sky and open an abortion clinic in Fallujah? The world is over populated right?;)

[shanbaum]

Darris Chambless said:
...
We forced them into a race they could neither win nor afford and "containment" wasn't what did it. Saying that "containment" was what did it is pretty arrogant on our part since we weren't containing anything. We used their arrogance against them.

As I said "containment" is a pretty word for "doing nothing" other than giving lip service.

"Containment a failure? Oh, right, I forgot about us losing Western Europe."

Yes, containment was, is and always will be a total failure.

Western Europe? Yeah, containment really helped in keeping the proliferation of communism down in Western Europe . And the fact that we were funding and still are funding most of those European countries had nothing to do with it? And those European countries saw how great communism was and welcomed it with open arms? (remember when the Eastern block fell because Communism failed?) And our armed forces in those European countries had nothing to do with keeping the peace? And Socialism rendering the USSR bankrupt had nothing to do with it's demise? Much of what happened with the USSR had nothing to do with "containment." It had everything to do with opportunity.

Oh, OK, I get it; you simply don't know what containment was.

Containment was in fact the policy of the U.S. government towards communism from at least the end of WWII through the end of the Cold War. The underlying principle was that the communist block would not be allowed to spread territorially, that the inherent superiority of the liberal Western systems would eventually prevail. This, as opposed to using military force to liberate the occupied fringes (principally in Eastern Europe) if not the Soviet Union itself.

Interestingly, one of the chief architects of containment was Eisenhower's Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles; during the immediate postwar period (that was prior to Eisenhower's presidency), he was one of the most enthusiastic advocates of liberation.

Rather than consisting of "doing nothing", as you suggest, containment consisted largely of precisely the things you mentioned - "funding most of those European countries", and "[keeping] our armed forces in those European countries," along with NATO, SEATO, propanganda efforts like Radio Free Europe, and trade and travel sanctions.

And yes, it was precisely this policy that kept communism from spreading into Western Europe. Perhaps you think it did spread into Western Europe? Or are you confusing that with Eastern Europe, as our history-challenged friend mrba appears to have done?

By the way, I don't know if you quite got my comment about Gerald Ford; you are no doubt too young to have seen the presidential debates in 1976, in which Gerald Ford's gaffe about Eastern Europe (words to the effect: "there will be no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe while I'm president") may have cost him the election. Back then, a lot of people thought that it was important for the president to be able to think and speak clearly, even under pressure.

Given that so much of what you say comes from the right-wing propaganda machine, I rather suspect that Rush & Co. have misused the term "containment" to describe what went on B.R. (before Reagan), to try to distiguish it from what followed (A.R. in the RW calendar). They probably mean "detente", which was an ancillary policy instituted by Nixon and Kissinger, which essentially resigned the West to co-existence with the communist East (a reflection, perhaps, of Khruschev's earlier offer of "peaceful co-existence", which was generally believed to be duplicitous). Certainly, Reagan abandoned detente, and he assumed a much more agressive posture towards communism. But even right-wing scholars have called Reagan's policies "agressive containment"; in fact, Reagan's posture towards the Soviets was very much akin to what Kennedy's had been, pre-detente (and pre-Vietnam, which itself could be regarded as having resulted from containment).

And Reagan certainly didn't invade the Warsaw Pact (of which Grenada was not a member).

Or did I miss that?

[Pete Hanlin]

Although the ensuing conversation has been, well- entertaining- I would like to return to the format originally offered by my friend from the left. As I recall, the thread was begun with humorous quotes which were intended to portray the mindset of President George W. Bush.

I think all of us could agree that President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was capable of speech far more eloquent than our current Commander in Chief. Here's a particular favorite of mine that I believe sums up his mindset...

"I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me ... I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." 26 January 1998

Related to the above statement, the President also relayed-
"I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work..."

Ironically enough, these statements were made during a discussion of after-school care. Over the next couple of years, many of America's school children would learn by example the value of eloquence. Namely, if you speak well enough you can always be just obscure enough to leave yourself room to wiggle on to the next level of obfuscation.

The President offered many lessons in the finer art of this skill to our youngsters in the years that followed. One of my favorites-
"That would depend on what the definition of is is."

These lessons, combined with terrific examples of linguistic tips and tricks on subjects ranging from one's draft status to one's experience with narcotics left us all realizing just how important language skills are to the Presidency.

It is therefore my pleasure to nominate President Bill Clinton as the honorary "Education President." I think we all learned far more than we ever imagined we might from this interesting and eloquent man.

Personally, I enjoy the linguistic faux pas (sp?) of our current President far more than the moral errors of the previous... Then again, I never really enjoyed soap operas- but some do.

[Joann Raytar]

Not exactly a spoken faux pas, don't forget George H's sudden illness in China.

[shanbaum]

Pete Hanlin said:

Personally, I enjoy the linguistic faux pas (sp?) of our current President far more than the moral errors of the previous... Then again, I never really enjoyed soap operas- but some do.

You win, Pete... I swear, I will never, ever vote for Clinton for president again. Never. No matter what he says.

[BobV]

Robert,

does that mean you also will never ever vote for Hillary, the one who really wore the pants in that family? (Considering she had her pants on more than her hubby.)

Bob V.

[shanbaum]

BobV said:
Robert,

does that mean you also will never ever vote for Hillary, the one who really wore the pants in that family? (Considering she had her pants on more than her hubby.)

Bob V.

That depends on a) who runs against her, and b) what the likely composition of the congress is, post-election.

[Pete Hanlin]

Well, on the off chance that a Constitutional Amendment is passed, I'm glad we can all count on your non-vote for Clinton, Robert...

Even though I try to remain open-minded on most issues (with varying success), I believe I can unequivocally state I would never even consider voting for Senator Hillary Clinton for President (although I hope against hope the Dems try to run her in 2008, since it guarantees a GOP victory).

[shanbaum]

Pete Hanlin said:

Well, on the off chance that a Constitutional Amendment is passed, I'm glad we can all count on your non-vote for Clinton, Robert...

Yeah, well, one never knows, these days, for what the Constitution might be amended.

[Judy Canty]

Darris Chambless said:
Yes Judy,

I read it from tip to toe did I say something that made you think otherwise?

"I can understand chm's frustration with mrba."

I can't. Truth is truth.

"I am willing to bet that those of you who are ranting the loudest have never had to say goodbye to someone on a pier or at an airport as they left on a tour of duty knowing that someone may or may not come home."

While I agree with mrba that this is a silly generalization I do have to say that No, I've not had to do that. What I have had to do is sit with a dear friend of mine and reassure him he was loved and that God would take care of him while I held his hand and waited for him to die (he was on Hospice) He was a dear friend of mine for many years and my best friends father. So do I get browny points for that Judy? I would certainly hope not and I would never ask for them because that is selfish, especially when it's not me personally having to face these uncertainties or dangers.

Just my rational thoughts,

Darris C.

No, Darris. Your truth is your truth. Nowhere in that article did Dr. Blix say that Iraq was better off with the former regime in place.

As to your sabre-rattling, sadly it is usually done by people who don't actually have to don a uniform or hear a shot fired in anger...or say goodbye to someone who will as I did when my husband left with a contingent of Marines bound for Beiruit. He was there, flying an H1-N off the USS Inchon when the barracks were bombed. Brownie points for compassion, certainly not. Nor do you get brownie points for wrapping yourself in the flag and declaring that anyone who disagrees with you is selfish or unpatriotic. In my mind, it begs the question, "Why aren't you there?"

[BobV]

Judy,

I won't knock you for your thoughts...but what exactly is the military for???

People enter the military for all kinds of reasons...economic, education purposes, benefits where they couldn't get them with any other job, etc. I hope you get the picture.

Now, if I'm correct, this is an "all volunteer military". So, whoever enters into it does so on their own. All who enter those hallowed halls know the risks that come with the job. If it means war, so be it. If it's peacetime and all they have to do is twiddle thumbs, (and I KNOW that isn't the case), so be it.

I can sympathize with the soldiers for what they are going through and the same for their families, but let's face it, THEY are doing THEIR JOB.

Bob V.

[Judy Canty]

So are the chain-employed Opticians that many on this board are so eager to bash, but what has that to do with objecting to an administration who, dreaming of glory and flower-strewn streets, started a conflict with no idea of how to finish it? Or with right-wing demagogues declaring that anyone who disagrees with this administrations policies is some how unpatriotic? Or with actually espousing a belief that assasination is an acceptable strategy? I simply believe that just because Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rice or Powell said something, it's not necessarily gospel. I'm old enough and smart enough to form my own opinions. I can listen and read with both ears and both eyes, not just the ones on the right.

[BobV]

I have an opinion and I'm not allowed to say anything because I just might agree with this administration, but you as a democrat who despises this administration is allowed to voice your opinion and I'm supposed to take it as gospel?

I think not.

I have never called anyone unpatriotic, not even when conscientous objectors were fleeing to Canada during Nam.

Unfortunately Judy, I DO believe you are listening from your left ear only.

Bob V.

[Darris Chambless]

"No, Darris. Your truth is your truth. Nowhere in that article did Dr. Blix say that Iraq was better off with the former regime in place."

No, Judy. The truth is the truth and not for me to own. I can't find anywhere mrba said tha Blix said that Iraq was better off with the former regime. Can you please point me to that part?

"As to your sabre-rattling, sadly it is usually done by people who don't actually have to don a uniform or hear a shot fired in anger...or say goodbye to someone who will as I did when my husband left with a contingent of Marines bound for Beiruit."

I don't own a sabre. It's a Broadsword and I got a good deal on it and can use it quite effectively. I know you might find this shocking but this is not about you, it's about them. I have never understood why you interject yourself into these situations and then point out why others have no reason or right to speak their minds about them. You have never donned a uniform or heard a shot fired in anger. As to saying goodbye to someone, I'm sorry but to me my friends passing is just as relevant especially since we all KNEW he wasn't coming back from his journey, but I'm sorry that you feel he was less important in that matter.

"Brownie points for compassion, certainly not."

I'm certainly glad you see it that way because no one would give you brownie points for compassion when so many are left out of that equasion by you. If they aren't you or your life then they don't count for some reason.

"Nor do you get brownie points for wrapping yourself in the flag and declaring that anyone who disagrees with you is selfish or unpatriotic."

I checked my wardrobe and there were no flag suits or shawls to be found in there. Today I'm wearing a light gray J. Farrar Shirt, black pleated slacks with a black belt and gold buckle and black loafers. It's a rather conservative look actually and definitely not as bright as the colors of the flag. If you mean that figuratively I would have to say that Yes, I do wrap myself in the flag. Why? Because I'm proud of my country, proud of the fighting men and women of the military and very proud of all the people that make up this great country (yourself included btw) Without all of us we would have one heck of a mess on our hands. I'm proud to say I'm an American and never worry about whether or not that may offend someone. I'm proud to be a Texan too, and I also wrap myself in the Texas flag for the same reasons. Aren't you proud of all that?

I can't recall claiming anyone to be "unpatriotic" could you point me to that as well. I can't seem to find it anywhere. Selfish if someone doesn't agree with me??? No. I only think of people as being selfish...well, when they are.

"In my mind, it begs the question, "Why aren't you there?""

They haven't had need of my skills that I'm aware of yet. Plus would you feel any better about my voicing my opinion if I were over there or had been over there? My money would be on "No." You would find some other reason to loathe me.

"Or with right-wing demagogues declaring that anyone who disagrees with this administrations policies is some how unpatriotic?"

Judy dear. The left-wing media made that assertion of the right I'm afraid. Please find where anyone's patriotism was in question by anyone other than by the media moguls.

"Or with actually espousing a belief that assasination is an acceptable strategy?"

Fewer casualties civilian or military, less response time for the enemy, harder to blame an invisible "perceived" enemy than a visible "perceived" enemy by the masses, better recon, identifiable targets, etc. Why is that an unacceptable strategy?

"I can listen and read with both ears and both eyes, not just the ones on the right."

You may want to have that right eye and ear checked Judy because it appears you only see and hear with the left. :)

Robert,

You know what happens when we assume don't you? ;)

I know exactly what "containment" is and despite who supported it, invented it or decided on it it was, is and always will be a complete and total failure as a policy. To stop the spread of communism? So then how were we containing communism from Cuba? How were we containing Communism from Vietnam? China? If "containment" worked then why all the take overs? Or was it a Republican in office at just the right time that allowed these things to happen? Perhaps I am undereducated about "containment" so could you please tell me just exactly how it "worked"? We didn't lose Western Europe to communism so "containment" was successful? But we lost Eastern Europe for a time and "containment" was successful?

Here's my theory (you'll just love this one ;) Communism and Socialism will always destroy itself because in every instance it has failed as an experiment. It has historically failed every time it's been tried. It is not Utopia by any stretch of the imagination. Intelligent non-fanatics reject communism overwhelmingly. Had Communism spread to other areas of Europe, in time it would implode on itself just like it does everywhere else. So did we really "contain" it or Russia? Or was it a failed ideology that couldn't spread to anywhere other than third world countries and a bankrupt USSR that caused the demise of the USSR?

Everywhere Communism spreads, economically it collapses on it's own and internally stays in constant turmoil. It kills itself. So did "containment" or its inherent self destruction bring about it's collapse?

"Containment"? Huh. GIRAFFES BE GONE!!! I...I do believe it's working very well. No Giraffes around here. Amazing how well this works. Next week I'm going to use "containment" against Dolphins to keep them from spreading to this area. I wonder if my policy of "containment" will do the trick or if it's the fact that they can't live out of water indefinitely that will actually prevent the spread of Dolphins? We'll have to wait and see I guess. ;)

As to the Warsaw Pact, Robert, it was just that...a Pact. Not "containment." If that is what you wish to use as a defining factor then the action in Iraq could be considered "containment." After all aren't we setting up alliances to "contain" terrorism??? What shall we call it? The Sand Pact? The Dirt Pact? The Sand Container? Hee hee :)

As to the rest, (yawn!)

Take care,

Darris C.

[Judy Canty]

No, dear. Your opinion is yours. I don't have to agree with yours any more than you with mine. I did not disagree that the military are there doing their jobs. I just disagree with the decisions that put them there and the strategies that are keeping them there and will continue to keep them there well beyond the 30 June deadline that their Commander-in-Chief is clinging to.


BTW, I'm pretty sure that I feel as strongly about President Bush and his administration as you did about President Clinton and his. That's just politics. Republicans ranted, raved and spewed vitriol for years during the past administration, yet when the shoe's on the other foot they seem surprised, if not downright offended, that anyone could or would speak unfavorably of their President.

Sorry, Bob, both ears are working, I can even tell the difference between right, left and center.

[keithbenjamin]

Two hundred or so years ago, many were mourning the loss of their homes, their sons, thier husbands, asking why. In 1776 George Washington had been defeated or forced to retreat at least 8 times in as many battles, His men were often starving or freezing. His leadership ability was in doubt, by most.

Things were much better under the King.

....

Guess what folks, freedom is not free.

Honor those that have given their lives so we could be free to have this discussion, by continuing the fight against those who would take it from us.

-KB

[Judy Canty]

mrba said:

I was making a point albiet Shanbaum would point out correctly I was not being clear. Blix says Iraq is better with Saddam.

[shanbaum]

Darris Chambless said:

Everywhere Communism spreads, economically it collapses on it's own and internally stays in constant turmoil. It kills itself.

Well, I tried.

But this one comment made me wonder - why don't we just introduce the Islamicists to - communism!