Job Discussion Forums

[M.]

Dear John,


Just trying to push buttons. I am far from an expert on anything except my normal bodily functions. I am just trying to find the woman inside fish inside the elephant inside the man outside me. Maybe it was a conspiracy to ban Cohen from the Concert. Can Tom Waits pass as a Canadian?

M.

[johnslat]

Dear M,
Ah you slyboots, you - well, you DID " push my button ", but then I'm pretty easy. I suspect Tom Waits could pass as any nationality, if his lyrics are anything to go by. Like Mr. Cohen, he's universal.
Regards,
John

[veiledsentiments]

Richard

I expect it is a combination of factors. These British soldier have more experience with 'colonization' at least historically. American troops and even officers have no background at all in this. Normally our fearless leaders just crash in with our fearsome weapons, blow a few things up, and ride into the sunset leaving someone else to pick up the pieces. No training in piece pick-uping. We are finally starting to get word in the press here about how frustrated the troops are getting at how disorganized and dangerous this all is.

A second factor is the difference between where the two groups are in Iraq. Sourthern Iraq is a rather cohesive group religiously and this has given some organization for the British troops to use and work from. Central Iraq where most of the problems are occurring includes the Saddam stronghold areas intermixed with groups that all hate each other, Saddam, and the Americans.

Any of us with any Middle East experience could have easily predicted this situation (and did), but no one in this administration has the brains to do more than write contracts with big business to fix what we bomb.

VS

[xiaoyu]

one can only do something with what knowledge one has and accepts as being true. this is usually biased by ones cultural background and religion, esp in developed areas where the constant fight for survival is limited - an abridged quote from my aunt who has worked in NGOs for the past 25 yrs all over the world. makes you think doesn't it?

american voters - i voted for nader in the last election.... not because i liked him more than gore or bush. but because i was forced into it. there were policies that gore and bush supported that i couldn't condone. if gore was in office my family's business would have been basically shut down (if you know gore policies can you tell me what that business is?) but if i voted for bush i would have been supporting policies that promoted (in my mind) isolationism, american hegemony, christianity, etc. over other aspects of the global and american community. i couldn't do it. how do you really chose a lesser evil?

sure many of us who have worked abroad (and have taken part in those pub chats of philosophy and politics) saw this coming before it really began. what can be done about it now? what are we willing to do? the exchange of beliefs and thoughts on the current situation is admirable, but unless there is some plan that you have to help those in need there is little complaining that i think you are qualified to do.....

xiaoyu

p.s. i just finished watching cnn crossfire (i got so upset i couldn't turn it off earlier) and so i want to make sure that i don't offend anyone with the angst that program has given me through some of its ignorant and selfish thoughts!

[johnslat]

Dear Sunaru,
Well, history IS a strong suit of mine, since I am ancient of days and steeped in wisdom. Moreover, I do have " military experience " - 4 years in the USMC ( 1963 to 1967 ), some of which ( 1965/66 ) was spent in Viet Nam ( Ah, how about you? Which service and when? ). I noticed, by the way that the country I helped " export democracy to " wasn't on your list. And, I also notice that the much more recent examples ( Afghanistan and Iraq ) seem to be missing - not to mention that our " interventions " in the last three you listed - Korea, Panama and Bosnia - hardly seem to me to be arguments against what veiled sentiments wrote . Lots of pieces still scattered around in Bosnia and Korea, while in Panama - and Haiti - it's back to business as usual ( i.e. corruption, drug-running and kleptocracy). If those are " success stories ", just how would you define " failure "? So, essentially, we have to go back 60 years, to World War II, to find examples of the USA " doing the right thing " after getting involved in a conflict. The Marshall Plan was a high-water mark of American foreign policy - too bad it's never served as a prototype.
Regards,
John

[johnslat]

Dear xiaoyu,
Back before the last presidential election, I tried ti dissuade my niece from voting for Nader because I thought the election would be a close one ( even I didn't anticipate just how close, though ) and I was afraid that a vote for Nader ( rather than for Gore, who would have been her " second-choice " ) might only help Bush get in. Well, she voted for Nader, but, since she lives in Massachusetts, that didn't really matter. But the people who live in Florida and who, if Nader hadn't been running, would have voted for Gore, well, I wonder how they feel now? Oh, I'm familiar with all the arguments: it's Gore's fault, etc. Sure - but in my opinion ( which, of course, could be wrong ), if Nader hadn't been running, Gore would have been elected.

" what can be done about it now? what are we willing to do? "

I'll be going back to the States in about 2 weeks. I think the next presidential election may be the most important one since FDR's in 1938.
So, I intend to spend a lot of my time, energy and money trying to make sure Bush and Co. don't get re-elected. I'm going to volunteer for every Democratic campaign I can, go from door-to-door, do whatever needs to be done. Please don't imagine I'm a " naive idealist "; I know very well that I'm going to be working for " the lesser of two evils ". But you work with what you have and you work against what you believe is wrong. Your aunt's quote makes sense - but it hasn't stopped her from working " in NGOs for the past 25 yrs all over the world ", has it? For years, I disdained " getting involved " in politics, since politicians are ( I'd say almost ) all, to some degree, power-hungry greedheads. But the degree matters, not only to citizens of the USA, but to the rest of the world, as well.
Regards,
John

[richard ame]

Hi it's me
Since everybody and his cat has turned this thread around to the pre 911 elections and who and why people voted for him and the others ,can somebody answer this ,? If there had being somebody else in the white house after the attack on the wtc what would have they done that was so different from George B ?????

[johnslat]

Dear richard ame,
Hypothetical question? OK, here's a hypothetical answer:

1. Not invaded Iraq - on the basis of hyped-up and, in at least one case, forged " intelligence documents " regarding the ( strangely hard to find ) WMDs and the ( purely speculative ) links between Saddam and Osama.

And, of course, if Iraq hadn't been invaded, then Afghanistan could have gotten the time and attention it desperately needs, rather than having been " put on the back burner " and pretty much ignored. Moreover, no invasion would have meant 1. no loss of lives ( both " coalition forces " and many " collateral damaged " Iraqis ), and no mess in that country such as we have right now. Things are going from bad to worse there every day, and the promised " worms " are crawling out of that can. Hypothetically speaking, how many recruits to the fundamentalist cause would you say the Iraqi invasion has spawned and will continue to?
Regards,
John

[richard ame]

Hi John
Once again your wisdom shines through ,everbody with any nounce could have predicted the result of the war in Iraq and now it 's going to open the flood gates for all the militant armed groups not only in the middle east but beyond so the cow pat is going to hit the fan BİGtime . What a pity the vast majority or at least enough people put the wrong person in the white house ,so now the good people of America have to live with that decision ,who posts all the time with " I may be responsible,but I 'm not to blame "? The country was angry as well the world after 911 so what was done to show some people they couldn't get away with it ,are we now saying that decision was wrong ?

[johnslat]

Dear richard ame,
" Once again your wisdom shines through . . "
Lord, I know - it's embarrassing, really. I've tried putting it under a bushel basket, but it just too gosh darn powerful. Well, we all have our personal crosses to bear, I guess. So glad you added that " or at least enough " to your previous " vast majority ", since the majority ( though only a little over half a million or so, not so terribly vast ) voted for Al.

http://www.gwbushwatch.com/nytimes1.htm

But, it's not the voters at all, but the Supreme Court we can thank for Bush's being in office. As for what should have been done after 9/11, well, my personal opinion is that getting the Taliban out in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. It's afterwards that, I'd say, the administration started going down the wrong trail. First, they didn't really finish the job in Afghanistan - as is quite evident. these days Then, because they couldn't find Osama ( heck, they couldn't even find Mullah Omar ), and probably for " other reasons ", they decided to divert attention to a non-threat ( but a really bad guy ): Saddam. Of course, now they seem to be having a little difficulty finding him, too. And some other things - those threatening WMDs, for example. And the people supposedly " running things " in Iraq now are not, in my opinion, doing such a great job of it. So, to sum up - wrong decisions? I'd say so, but maybe not so wrong if all you're really interested in is getting Bush another 4 years ( wasn't his " Top Gun " photo op just so macho - of course, his draft-dodging and AWOL National Guard service, well, that was then and this is now. )
Regards,
John

[johnslat]

Dear Sunaru,
Let me begin by saying - I LOVE combat medics. Every single one of them I saw in Viet Nam was insane. Well, what I'd call insane, anyway. When you don't seem to have any sense of self-preservation, when you go running around at the same time everybody else is doing his best to disappear into the ground, that's fairly crazy. Now, as to Afghanistan - I think what we should have done there is finished the job - instead Bush went after Saddam, which, in my opinion, was at best unnecessary and ill-considered, at worst, stupid ( and I'll let you guess which one I favor ). Now we've got troops getting ambushed there every day and before long the total number of our guys killed AFTER the " war " is going to exceed those killed DURING it. I don't know what they're showing at home in the States, because I get e-mails from people there saying stuff like - " Well, Iraq is looking better these days ". Really? Is there ANOTHER Iraq somewhere? Because the one next-door here is nothing but a bad mess getitng worse.
Regards,
John

[johnslat]

Dear veiledsentiments and richard ame,

Invulnerable no more:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20030624/ap_on_re_mi_ea/britain_iraq

Regards,
John

[veiledsentiments]

Yes, John - that was one of the first things I saw this morning when I opened my news page. I am glad that you came out and responded to Sunaru. I knew that my responding to him would not have had the validity that a response from a fellow vet would.

It is funny, well not funny, but actually sickening. As I read the daily news online of what is happening in Iraq, I get that same sick feeling in the pit of my stomach as I did when I was watching my classmates dying in Viet Nam on the nightly news.

And I am haunted by the fact that there is nothing being said about the number of our boys who are being maimed for life. It seems that it is mostly attacks involving explosions. Every time they report a death, it is always 5 or 6 or 10 injured - but that is the last we hear of them. I expect Sunaru can tell us what that means. How many missing limbs are being buried in the sands of Iraq --- I hope their families know exactly who to blame for this travesty

VS

[xnihil]

John:

[johnslat]

Dear xnihil,
Well, it's all pure speculation - and your guess is as good, maybe better than, mine. But I still think a Gore administration wouldn't have gone after Saddam. Bush had some possible " additional motives " that Gore wouldn't have had, especially the urge to both finish his Dad's business, and, at the same time, outdo Pappa ( not to mention payback for Saddam's foiled assassination attempt ( or so it was reported ) on Bush Sr. Then there's the oil - Bush's ties to BIG OIL are a LOT closer and stronger than Gore's were/are. Now, could someone please explain to me what the " connection " is between Saddam and 9/11? The great American public apparently has little difficulty seeing this link-up, but it escapes me.
Of course, I suspect the American public's " reasoning " may go something like this:

9/11 - done by Arab bad guys

Saddam - Arab bad guy

Ergo - Saddam in some way responsible for 9/11

Regards,
John