|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Because We Could
Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist
The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.
Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there — a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.
The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government — and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen — got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.
The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states — young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others — and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us.
The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.
But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Mr. Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.
Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to find any W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But I have to admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr. Bush took the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage America and be a very serious matter.
But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and the C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he would use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of the Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget that. |
Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks RTeacher ...
Uselful & highly informative  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
[
(1) Honestly, a guy in uniform who wants to talk up the value of this conflict, I can handle that, he's made the commitment ... the rest of ya - fawgeddabahdit.
(2) Let's get back to it, though - all you Canadians who support this war : what do you risk in it? So very easy for you to talk when your brothers, nephews and cousins are not enlisting and your national debt is not affected.
(3) I guess my point is ... where do you guys get off having ANY opinion at ALL about this, considering how little negative effect it is having on your own nation? Though, goodness knows, with Harper in office, y'all might go looking to grab a little of the "glory" of battle for yerselves ... but then, maybe not.
[]
(4) If American troops go, I'm looking forward to seeing all you Canadians who support this thing start making the sacrifices we've been making so far ... and I only spoke a bit about the troops dying and more about the money, which you have not addressed at all. Nor do I expect you to.
(5) Because every indication I have seen is that they all think they would be better off without us there ... WE are the main reason the place is poised on civil war, you know.
. |
(numbers are mine)
1. And a guy in uniform who wants to say that this conflict should be stopped now, has also made the commitment..."the rest of ya fawgedabahdit"
2. Do you even read the news? There are 31 Canadian military officers serving with the U.S. military in Iraq (one from my hometown actually). And we are in Afghanistan which frees up U.S troops to participate in Iraq. Both of these affect the national debt
3. See number 2
4. I think that the troops dying are more important than the money.
5. This is untrue. The Kurds want the U.S. there, so do the moderates from the other parties. The country is on the brink of civil war because of the actions of the hardliners by blowing up mosques and killing people from the opposing side. Not because of the U.S. which only one sect wants out (at least for now) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
(1) I'm an American, and I care about my country. I don't especially care about the welfare of Iraqis or Afghanis, not nearly so much as the people I know and love back home.
(2) I think it's fair for an American to encourage his country to desist from a venture that is costly to Americans in terms of American lives and American wallets, especially when said venture offers little benefit to the American nation.
(3) I also think it is fair to question non-Americans when they support a venture like this when they themselves have nothing at stake and very little to lose. Yes, I think this is fair.
And, Bulsajo, your behavior on this thread has been atrocious. |
(numbers are mine)
1. So I guess this goes for international aid as well. After all these people are foreigners and therefore not as important as Americans right?  That being the case, I expect we will hear no more about Iraqi civilians being killed from you as you have just said you "don't especially care"
2. By this logic America should not have entered WW1 or WW2. Nor should it be feeding the poverty-stricken in other countries or attempting to halt the spread of AIDS in Africa. But then again I guess you don't care.
3. Nothing at stake? The British have troops in Iraq, so do the Canadians. As for "very little to lose" as our largest trading partner, should the U.S. economy go down, it WILL take Canada down with it (more so than most other nations as our economies are so intertwined.)
That's what gives Canadians the right to comment on this war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Lemon wrote: |
I get no pleasure out of watching posters I greatly respect wail on each other. But - point of clarification and all that, I'll interrupt the flames for this nitpick:
| Sooke wrote: |
| I'd imagine if the US economy went down the tubes, Canada would be f*cked. |
Conventional wisdom has always held that - largest trading partners, sleeping with the elephant, NAFTA...
But current conditions don't support the hypothesis.
The American government is going deeper and deeper into debt, while the Canadian economy, for the first time in my adult life, is soaring. Surpluses abound.
The Canadian currency, which for decades has been a punchline, is now freakishly strong and approaching par with the US dollar. (And as a Canadian who earns a salary outside of Canada, I'm not thrilled about this.)
This is all happening for many reasons, including a huge windfall resulting from oil exports. But there's no sign of this going away any time soon, despite the sickness in the US economy. |
But the only reason this holds true is that "foreigners" (meaning non North Americans) are still buying up vast amounts of American dollars, Treasury bonds... Should this stop the "sickness" will turn into a full-fledged infection and Canada will be hurt badly by the fallout. With a bad economy Americans will not buy from us nearly as much as before. Since they are our largest trading partner, that would really damage us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| And, Bulsajo, your behavior on this thread has been atrocious. |
I missed this before.
Ditto, Bobster, ditto.
Such chest-beating "But I'm an American so it's my right to be more outraged!" hyperbole is pretty pathetic- good thing for you there are no Iraqi nor Afghani emigres who frequent this site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| So I guess this goes for international aid as well. After all these people are foreigners and therefore not as important as Americans right? |
International aid is nearly always a tool, almost never given with no strings attached. (Private donations from individuals and NGOs are something else, of course.) I get so tired of explaining the most elementary concepts to you ... do you REALLY think the Iraq debacle is all about helping the poor downtrodden Iraqis laboring under Saddam's yoke? Really?
| Quote: |
| That being the case, I expect we will hear no more about Iraqi civilians being killed from you as you have just said you "don't especially care" |
You'll have a hard time finiding examples of a case where I have expressed outrage merely for the fact that Iraqis are dying, rather than the damage their deaths have and are doing to my country, both in the eyes of the world and in the eyes and hearts of Americans who want to believe we are a just nation upholding the good.
| Quote: |
| By this logic America should not have entered WW1 or WW2. |
We did not do so until late in the game, and are often criticized for that even now. It's unrealistic to expect a country to sacrifice its young until and unless there is some threat to be faced.
| Quote: |
| Nor should it be feeding the poverty-stricken in other countries or attempting to halt the spread of AIDS in Africa. But then again I guess you don't care. |
We actually don't do a whole lot of either of those things, not nearly so much as we are capable of.
| Quote: |
| Nothing at stake? The British have troops in Iraq, so do the Canadians. As for "very little to lose" as our largest trading partner, should the U.S. economy go down, it WILL take Canada down with it (more so than most other nations as our economies are so intertwined.) |
I take back what I said. You have so much at stake with regards to America, it is clear we ought to let you guys vote in our elections ... gimme a break.
| Quote: |
| That's what gives Canadians the right to comment on this war. |
Naw, that's just a bunch of silly talk.
Frankly, I got no problem with comments about the war from Canadians, just so long as everyone knows what it is : People who have very little to risk, thinking they ought to have a voice in how much sacrifice their neighbors ought to be making.
| Quote: |
| There are 31 Canadian military officers serving with the U.S. military in Iraq (one from my hometown actually). |
Wow. 31. Let me express by condolences for your grief at their deaths ... oh, wait, none of them have died yet.
| Quote: |
| I think that the troops dying are more important than the money. |
Generally speaking I would agree with you, but the two things are inseparable in this case.
Also, of course, it's not your money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Bulsajo"]
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Such chest-beating "But I'm an American so it's my right to be more outraged!" hyperbole is pretty pathetic. |
Address the question that was raised. You can't, anymore that TUM was able to.
I'll say it again. Unless your country is facing the same level of future hardship and peril, both in the lives of its young enlistees and in the future solvency of the treasury, you have no moral standing to advise it to continue.
If you you do have any such place to stand, please tell us where that firm rock is, and how we all might have a look at it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| So I guess this goes for international aid as well. After all these people are foreigners and therefore not as important as Americans right? |
(1) International aid is nearly always a tool, almost never given with no strings attached. (Private donations from individuals and NGOs are something else, of course.) I get so tired of explaining the most elementary concepts to you ... do you REALLY think the Iraq debacle is all about helping the poor downtrodden Iraqis laboring under Saddam's yoke? Really?
| Quote: |
| That being the case, I expect we will hear no more about Iraqi civilians being killed from you as you have just said you "don't especially care" |
(2) You'll have a hard time finiding examples of a case where I have expressed outrage merely for the fact that Iraqis are dying, rather than the damage their deaths have and are doing to my country, both in the eyes of the world and in the eyes and hearts of Americans who want to believe we are a just nation upholding the good.
| Quote: |
| By this logic America should not have entered WW1 or WW2. |
(3) We did not do so until late in the game, and are often criticized for that even now. It's unrealistic to expect a country to sacrifice its young until and unless there is some threat to be faced.
| Quote: |
| Nor should it be feeding the poverty-stricken in other countries or attempting to halt the spread of AIDS in Africa. But then again I guess you don't care. |
(4) We actually don't do a whole lot of either of those things, not nearly so much as we are capable of.
| Quote: |
| Nothing at stake? The British have troops in Iraq, so do the Canadians. As for "very little to lose" as our largest trading partner, should the U.S. economy go down, it WILL take Canada down with it (more so than most other nations as our economies are so intertwined.) |
(5) I take back what I said. You have so much at stake with regards to America, it is clear we ought to let you guys vote in our elections ... gimme a break.
| Quote: |
| That's what gives Canadians the right to comment on this war. |
(6) Naw, that's just a bunch of silly talk.
(7) Frankly, I got no problem with comments about the war from Canadians, just so long as everyone knows what it is : People who have very little to risk, thinking they ought to have a voice in how much sacrifice their neighbors ought to be making.
| Quote: |
| There are 31 Canadian military officers serving with the U.S. military in Iraq (one from my hometown actually). |
( Wow. 31. Let me express by condolences for your grief at their deaths ... oh, wait, none of them have died yet.
| Quote: |
| I think that the troops dying are more important than the money. |
Generally speaking I would agree with you, but the two things are inseparable in this case.
(9) Also, of course, it's not your money. |
(numbers are mine)
1. International aid does not just go to Iraqis, which was the focus of my point. I was talking about all the other countries that receive it. And as for strings attached it IS your (American) money (as you keep reminding us), it seems only fair that America have a say in how it is spent.
2. So as you admit, you don't really care about people dying and suffering, only for the bad PR. Glad you finally own up to it.
3. So Hitler was not a threat? Not an immediate one to the U.S to be sure, but he very likely could have been, if his ally Japan had not stupidly attacked the U.S.
4. Still the U.S is actively involved, which is a drain on U.S wallets and which does not seem to be giving the U.S a benefit. So by your logic America should just let them die. Nice.
5. Where do you get this nonsense about voting in your elections? I never said that, and wouldn't want that. If we could, Bush would likely not be president today. But what the U.S does affects us like it or not.
6. If you are talking about your posts, I concur.
7. Since we have troops in Iraq we have a voice. And since we enable U.S troops to be in Iraq rather than Afghanistan, we also have a right to a voice.
8. So if some had died we would have a voice? Seems to me that the biggest fatalities that we did have in Afghanistan was by U.S pilots dropping bombs on Canadian forces. I think we should have a right to critize how the U.S wages war, when our troops get downed by their fire.
9. But for you it's all about the money, as your last sentence makes clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
again this is article is appropriate.
| Quote: |
Because We Could
Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist
The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.
Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there � a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.
The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government � and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen � got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.
The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states � young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others � and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict � are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us.
The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.
But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Mr. Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.
Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to find any W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But I have to admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr. Bush took the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage America and be a very serious matter.
But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and the C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he would use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of the Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget that. |
Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman
The Bathists , Khomeni followers and the Bin Laden followers don't have a right to their war. They have to give up their war- and if they don't want to then the US is justified in doing anything or anything to force them too. That is about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| International aid does not just go to Iraqis, which was the focus of my point. |
You really really REALY see this whole adventure in the same category as UNICEF. That is just wierd.
| Quote: |
| I was talking about all the other countries that receive it. |
So was I.
| Quote: |
| And as for strings attached it IS your (American) money (as you keep reminding us), it seems only fair that America have a say in how it is spent. |
Therefore Canadians have no leg to stand on with regard to advising that the Iraq War continue for one more day.
| Quote: |
| So as you admit, you don't really care about people dying and suffering, only for the bad PR. Glad you finally own up to it. |
I've never said anything else. I care about my country. This war is bad for my country. End it. End it now.
| Quote: |
| So Hitler was not a threat? Not an immediate one to the U.S to be sure, but he very likely could have been, if his ally Japan had not stupidly attacked the U.S. |
Is there relevance to this? The US was very instrumental in bringing Hitler down. I really don't see your point.
| Quote: |
| Still the U.S is actively involved, which is a drain on U.S wallets and which does not seem to be giving the U.S a benefit. So by your logic America should just let them die. Nice. |
To the extent that America is involved in relieving famine or stopping AIDS in Africa, it is tied to a plethora of other strategic objectives. Please stop being naive. The greatest American efforts to stop AIDS in Africa seem to be coming from Bill Gates and Bill Clinton, non-governmental efforts.
| Quote: |
| Where do you get this nonsense about voting in your elections? I never said that, and wouldn't want that. If we could, Bush would likely not be president today. But what the U.S does affects us like it or not. |
Hey, just saying, we have such a great effect on you that you have a right to advocate that our sons and daughters die in Iraq, and the rest of us pay the bills for the next 47 years, seems to me you ought to help us choose our leaders. Just makes sense, from the rest of what you say.
| Quote: |
| If you are talking about your posts, I concur. |
Obviously, I was talking about yours.
| Quote: |
| Since we have troops in Iraq we have a voice. |
By your tally you have 31. On my side, we have over 150,000. Do the math regarding how loud your voice ought to be.
| Quote: |
| And since we enable U.S troops to be in Iraq rather than Afghanistan, we also have a right to a voice. |
So why don't you want to vote in American elections? That part really confuses me.
| Quote: |
| So if some had died we would have a voice? |
I already said it, you can talk all you want, but we all need to know and be aware of how little moral standing your opinion carries given the famine of investment y'all have in all this.
| Quote: |
| Seems to me that the biggest fatalities that we did have in Afghanistan was by U.S pilots dropping bombs on Canadian forces. I think we should have a right to critize how the U.S wages war, when our troops get downed by their fire. |
Why are you guys still over there at all, if that's how you feel about it?
| Quote: |
| But for you it's all about the money, as your last sentence makes clear. |
I always thought you were a conservative, and I always thought conservatives were very much against the notion of letting other people tell them how to spend their money.
But then, as the stuff at the top indicates, I seem to be talking to someone who thinks this was was a humanitarian venture ... oy vey.
| Quote: |
| again this is article is appropriate. |
Yet again? Jeezus, that one's almost three years old and it STILL doesn't make any sense, and makes less sense considering all we now know.
BTW, since he wrote that I think Friedman has reversed himself and is now against the war, for alot of the reasons I'm talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Saddam Hussein killed 300,000 in his 30 years in power and would have killed many more were he not contained. His sons were coming up next too they were as ruthless as him
What would he have done if he had gone free? Probably slaughtered the Kurds - even more. If not contained by the US he probably would have gone after Kuwait and perhaps Israel too.
The US could not have contained him forever. He never gave up his revolutionary agenda or his war.
Anyone who says they oppose the US action on humanitarian grounds is either disingenuous or ignorant or both.
The US did not take out Saddam for humanitarian reasons but it is also probably true that whatever the US does in Iraq it is nothing compared to what Saddam would do if he got free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 8:45 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to find any W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But I have to admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr. Bush took the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage America and be a very serious matter. |
Oh, so mass graves were a big surprise to Thomas Friedman?
Darfur?
And carefully chosen words. "Fabricate". I highly doubt that Bush "fabricated" the evidence.
He focused selectively on the evidence in his interest and clearly ignored that which didn't suit his purpose.
Is that a lie? Perhaps not. But, at this point, we are playing a word game.
The evidence of presidential misconduct is obvious.
The question is more of whether it should be condoned or called out.
I'm afraid it does come down to that.
And we are signing up for more of whatever if it's not called out and curbed. This is a bi-partisan issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Such chest-beating "But I'm an American so it's my right to be more outraged!" hyperbole is pretty pathetic. |
Address the question that was raised. You can't, anymore that TUM was able to.
I'll say it again. Unless your country is facing the same level of future hardship and peril, both in the lives of its young enlistees and in the future solvency of the treasury, you have no moral standing to advise it to continue.
If you you do have any such place to stand, please tell us where that firm rock is, and how we all might have a look at it. |
|
I threw the question right back at you when you first asked it- and you have ignored it:
By your argument some of us have more of a moral/ethical higher ground than others.
If that's the case, then:
I refuse to listen to you until you return to the US where you can vote and particpate in an anti-war movement.
Hiding out in Korea is cowardice.
You have no moral standing on issues of US finance until you resume residency and pay taxes.
So, we should both shut up, as should Igothisguitar and most of the people who regularly particiapte here, and listen to those Americans in America, as they are the only ones entitled to speak on these subjects (as there are no Americans in Iraq nor Iraqis themselves posting here).
That would mean that Bucheon Bum, Joo Rhip Gwa Rhee, Gopher, Superfly and other American posters posting in America have more of an entitlement to an opinion than you do, Bobster.
And arguably Canuckistan does too, being that she is living in the US and is married to a serviceman.
And so Bobster, that's why telling anyone who doesn't agree with you on the future of Iraq that they need to put their money where their mouths are and enlist in the army was- and remains- BS.
As I have already stated (either in this thread or another), I am for Canadian (among others) participation in the reconstruction of Iraq, be they Army engineers, disaster recovery teams, mobile hospital units (and troops to defend them), RCMP (policing and police training duties), as well as CIDA (Cdn Int'l Development Agency).
I still think taking down Saddam was the wrong goal (or rather, one of the right goals but the wrong place and time), and was poorly executed (whereas proper planning and execution very likely would not have lead to so much turmoil and death, and the responsibility falls entirely on the great Neo-con experiment),
but to unilaterally withdraw immediately (which is the goal you seek, as I understand it) only compounds previous mistakes with yet another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
