|
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 |
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 4:58 pm Post subject: Arrogance of the Former First Lady on War in Iraq |
 |
|
"I watch none. He (former President Bush) sits and listens and I read books, because I know perfectly well that, don't take offense, that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness about that. But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer."
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/barbara.asp |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Remind me again- what boy did she raise?
But in all fairness:
"Her comment was not meant as a dismissal of actual deaths or suffering (troops had not yet been engaged at the time of her remark), but of news coverage that amounted to one expert after another making predictions about what they saw as likely to occur."
Last edited by Bulsajo on Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Read within the context of the full interview, it is a tiny bit more clear that Mrs. Bush's "beautiful mind" statement referred to her desire to not become mesmerized by the pre-war media speculation of what such an invasion would mean, what sorts of weaponry and embedded defenses U.S. troops might well be walking into, which troops would be committed and when they'd be deployed, how long the war would last, and how high the body count might be. Prior to the commencement of hostilities, such matters were the subject of endless supposition by various news pundits. While maybe not "90 percent" of what was filling the air waves was guesswork rather than hard news, Mrs. Bush's point that news of that moment was much more about what could or might happen rather than what was happening was valid. Her comment was not meant as a dismissal of actual deaths or suffering (troops had not yet been engaged at the time of her remark), but of news coverage that amounted to one expert after another making predictions about what they saw as likely to occur. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Remind me again- what boy did she raise?
But in all fairness:
"Her comment was not meant as a dismissal of actual deaths or suffering (troops had not yet been engaged at the time of her remark), but of news coverage that amounted to one expert after another making predictions about what they saw as likely to occur." |
That is Snopes' interpretation of Barbara Bush's state of mind when she made her remarks.
But the fact is that those things did indeed come to pass. Perhaps they would not have had more people of influence actually cared in advance about needless deaths and suffering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Good rebuttal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Remind me again- what boy did she raise?
But in all fairness:
"Her comment was not meant as a dismissal of actual deaths or suffering (troops had not yet been engaged at the time of her remark), but of news coverage that amounted to one expert after another making predictions about what they saw as likely to occur." |
That is Snopes' interpretation of Barbara Bush's state of mind when she made her remarks.
But the fact is that those things did indeed come to pass. Perhaps they would not have had more people of influence actually cared in advance about needless deaths and suffering. |
Possibly true on the other hand you don't know that they dont' car about American lives.
Furthermore those in power and/or in influence decided that taking Iraq was going to be their strategy for dealing with terror. It is possible that they felt/ believed that the US was going to be attacked over and over again unless there were changes in the mideast or at least changes in behavior by mideast regimes.
You obviously feel that those in power didn't think that invading Iraq had anything to do with fighting terror or keeping the US secure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Possibly true on the other hand you don't know that they dont' car about American lives. |
Their actions show that they do not. One doesn't have to be Cindy Sheehan to see that.
Of course, with the Bush administration doing everything in its power NOT to show body bags, etc. I suppose one could have the opposite impression.
I do wonder if more people will turn against this war when it becomes common to see 20-something amputees in the local Winn-Dixie.
| JRGR wrote: |
| Furthermore those in power and/or in influence decided that taking Iraq was going to be their strategy for dealing with terror. It is possible that they felt/ believed that the US was going to be attacked over and over again unless there were changes in the mideast or at least changes in behavior by mideast regimes. |
That is possible. The jury is still out on that one.
But, considering that those in power have not also overthrown the governments of Syria, Iran, Yemen, the Sudan, Libya, Algeria, and Turkmenistan (did I leave any out?), I, as a thinking person, doubt that very much.
Oh yeah, Saudi Arabia too.
I find it more plausible that Baby Bush's motive for deposing Saddam Hussein was revenge ("y'all tried to kill my pappy!"). Stopping terrorism as a motive? After all, the current president's father willfully left Saddam Hussein in power a decade ago. Is it your claim that there was no terrorist threat to the U.S. then?
I also find it more plausible that the desire to control Iraq has to do with control of its large and easily exploited petroleum reserves.
I also find it more plausible that like Clinton and others before him, both Republican and Democrat, Baby Bush sees military action as desirable because it potentially (1) stimulates the economy; (2) unites behind him in the cause of patriotism people who would otherwise oppose him; (3) removes the media's focus from undesirable issues; (4) allows him to avoid trying to deal with thornier perennial domestic issues.
| JRGR wrote: |
| You obviously feel that those in power didn't think that invading Iraq had anything to do with keeping the US secure. |
You obviously fail to consider the possibility that there were other, more cynical, motives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
You obviously feel that those in power didn't think that invading Iraq had anything to do with fighting terror or keeping the US secure. |
That was always a possible explanation for events; In hindsight it seems more likely than ever.
If we can't recognize mistakes, we can't correct them. If we can't correct mistakes, then the terrorists will inevitably win. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
That is possible. The jury is still out on that one.
But, considering that those in power have not also overthrown the governments of Syria, Iran, Yemen, the Sudan, Libya, Algeria, and Turkmenistan (did I leave any out?), I, as a thinking person, doubt that very much.
Oh yeah, Saudi Arabia too. |
Perhaps Iraq was chose because the US was already in some kind of war with Iraq, that Saddam was weaker than he had been , that other nations were more difficult and that Iraq was the most strategically located .
This link below describes the choice better than than I could.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/
| Quote: |
| I find it more plausible that Baby Bush's motive for deposing Saddam Hussein was revenge ("y'all tried to kill my pappy!"). Stopping terrorism as a motive? After all, the current president's father willfully left Saddam Hussein in power a decade ago. Is it your claim that there was no terrorist threat to the U.S. then? |
The situation had changed , Iraq was viewed as place for the US to project from power from. More than Iraq was a terrorist threat itself. Though Saddam did have links to terror groups.
Saudi Arabia was being evasive about cracking down on or cooperating destroy Al Qaida. Then they supposedly talked about asking US forces to leave if the US didn't stop pressuring them on Al Qaida.
So the US invaded Iraq because from Iraq the US could apply a great deal of strategic pressure on Saudi Arabia , Iran and Syria from Iraq.
The other main reason was the US wanted to make an example of someone in the mideast.
This explains the such a theory:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1110567/posts
| Quote: |
| I also find it more plausible that the desire to control Iraq has to do with control of its large and easily exploited petroleum reserves. |
The US could have cut a deal w/ Saddam to profit from Iraq's oil .
I agree a war to take control of Iraq's oil wouldn't be justified. But I don't think such is the case.
| Quote: |
I also find it more plausible that like Clinton and others before him, both Republican and Democrat, Baby Bush sees military action as desirable because it potentially (1) stimulates the economy; (2) unites behind him in the cause of patriotism people who would otherwise oppose him; (3) removes the media's focus from undesirable issues; (4) allows him to avoid trying to deal with thornier perennial domestic issues. |
Bush had an approval rating of 70-80% before invading Iraq. Iraq was a risk to him , when he was more than relatively popular.
And war isn't good for the economy cause it increases debt. Obviously you think him to be a lot more sinister and out of his mind than I do.
| Quote: |
| You obviously fail to consider the possibility that there were other, more cynical, motives. |
It is probably true to say that I don't really consider the possibilty that there were other more cynical motives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peony
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| not wanting to quote the entire post and take up half a page, just want to say great post to dogbert and i agree with it all |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogbert wrote: |
JRGR wrote:
Furthermore those in power and/or in influence decided that taking Iraq was going to be their strategy for dealing with terror. It is possible that they felt/ believed that the US was going to be attacked over and over again unless there were changes in the mideast or at least changes in behavior by mideast regimes.
That is possible. The jury is still out on that one.
But, considering that those in power have not also overthrown the governments of Syria, Iran, Yemen, the Sudan, Libya, Algeria, and Turkmenistan (did I leave any out?), I, as a thinking person, doubt that very much.
Oh yeah, Saudi Arabia too.
I find it more plausible that Baby Bush's motive for deposing Saddam Hussein was revenge ("y'all tried to kill my pappy!"). Stopping terrorism as a motive? After all, the current president's father willfully left Saddam Hussein in power a decade ago. Is it your claim that there was no terrorist threat to the U.S. then?
I also find it more plausible that the desire to control Iraq has to do with control of its large and easily exploited petroleum reserves.
I also find it more plausible that like Clinton and others before him, both Republican and Democrat, Baby Bush sees military action as desirable because it potentially (1) stimulates the economy; (2) unites behind him in the cause of patriotism people who would otherwise oppose him; (3) removes the media's focus from undesirable issues; (4) allows him to avoid trying to deal with thornier perennial domestic issues.
JRGR wrote:
You obviously feel that those in power didn't think that invading Iraq had anything to do with keeping the US secure.
You obviously fail to consider the possibility that there were other, more cynical, motives. |
The motives should be less important than the tactics and actions themselves, especially considering that one can rarely rise above speculation on motive. Seems to me the critics of the war should be focusing on the negatives of continued occupation rather than attacking Bush for they suppose his reasons were for going to war. Especially when you consider that Bush should not be held accountable simply because of sinister motives, but that a President needs to answer even for mistakes and problems brought about whatever his underlying motives, even if they were noble and true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I attack Bush for the conduct of this "war" and for causing the mutilation and slaughter of thousands of my countrymen, as well as unknown numbers of the "enemy". I discuss motives only to refute Joo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| The motives should be less important than the tactics and actions themselves, especially considering that one can rarely rise above speculation on motive. Seems to me the critics of the war should be focusing on the negatives of continued occupation rather than attacking Bush for they suppose his reasons were for going to war. Especially when you consider that Bush should not be held accountable simply because of sinister motives, but that a President needs to answer even for mistakes and problems brought about whatever his underlying motives, even if they were noble and true. |
Excellent point.
But...
Perhaps it's not being debated because there's very little to debate? I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone- regardless of political affiliation- who'd say that the US is doing a real bang-up job right now.
You've got the Secretary of State practically denying that the US has anything to do with what's going on in Iraq, politically. Militarily? If you're a Bush supporter the best you can say is 'isn't it wonderful that Bush stays the course despite the rough seas, he's a man of vision and perserverance' and 'isn't his loyalty to his team inspiring when he has kept Rumsfeld on in spite of his offer to resign'.
So if there's no real disagreement that things are not going well then it DOES become a question of motivation; For the most part motivation is the reason why the US should stay the course in Iraq, or why the US should get out as soon as possible, depending on your perspective. If going in was the right thing to do, then staying to ensure the job gets finished properly remains the right thing to do, regardless of the cost. If it was the wrong thing to do, then every day another soldier dies for a worthless cause is a tragedy.
Where it gets murky is if your view lies between these two poles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| I attack Bush for the conduct of this "war" and for causing the mutilation and slaughter of thousands of my countrymen, as well as unknown numbers of the "enemy". I discuss motives only to refute Joo. |
You can make a arguement that the war was not in the strategic interests of the US - though you would be hard pressed to come up with a good alternative.
But why would you get upset about any of the "enemy" that the US killed?
To fight for Saddam's cause is to fight so Iraq can conquer the mideast and slaughter the Kurds , Shias , Kuwaitis and Israelis.
To fight for Bin Laden's cause is to fight for a return to a world wide medieval Caliphate where all others of other relgions would be persecuted or killed.
To fight for Saddam Hussein or his revolutionary cause is immoral.
To fight so the Sunnis can rule Iraq is probably immoral
To fight for Bin Laden or his cause is immoral
The vast majority of the "enemy" that the US has killed in Iraq are fighting for one or more of the above reasons.
Anyone that the US or its allies killed who fought for one of the above reasons deserved to be killed.
The US is certainly better off that they are gone, for the most part anyone who fought for Saddam or Bin Laden's agenda would probably be making trouble somewhere else if they were still in this world.
IF the US did anything wrong by invading Iraq for the most part it was to the US and the US alone.
One can make a strong argument that the US was wrong to invade Iraq on strategic grounds
However
IF you oppose the US actions on humanitarian grounds then your argument is very weak.
Saddam Hussein was one of the greatest killers of all time. US actions in Iraq probably saved the Kurds , the Shias and others from slaughter. The next 25 years of rule by him or his sons would have been like the first 25 years where 300,000 were killed and that doesn't include his war with Iran. |
|
| 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
