Mrs JB: Actually Princess and I have a mutual friend, that's all. And I would never - never - even attempt to steal another man's girlfriend. I'm actually a Golden Rule type of person... Except when it comes to war, of course.
People, people!! This has devolved into a pissing match, and it doesn't look good on any of you. We are discussing an important and sensitive issue here. There are strong feelings on both sides, so BACK OFF! Everybody! You're not going to change anybody's mind by insulting them. You may not change your opponent's mind anyway, but there are many other people reading this tread and I don't think all this b****ing casts a favourable light on your positions. This has actually been a very interesting discussion. If you strip away all the "your mama wears army boots" crap I think there is something to be learned here, for both sides. Treeman and company, apart from the somewhat-less-than-dignified venting, you've heard people from NZ, AUS and CDN, express concerns and frustrations about how the US handles its foreign affairs. There is a fairly universal sense that you behave in a somewhat insular manner that causes us grief, (to sum it up very briefly and admittedly quite inadequately). The rest of us, if we're listening, can hear that the US feels it's been left holding the bag at times when everybody else has headed out the back door. And which ones of us can truly say that our countries have never done that? As much as we don't trust their decisions, they don't trust us to be part of the solution. Never mind the reasons or their validity at this point. If you don't understand how another person views a problem or understands a situation, you have no hope of coming to any kind of understanding with them. This is about listening, discussing and learning people. If you don't like what someone says to you, tough. Respond in a civilised manner or keep your mouth shut! If you piss the other side off, they won't speak openly with you anymore, and the opportunity for understanding, and any hope of agreement, however limited it might be, ends. So smarten up! Everybody!
Just to put in a word or two... haven: Personally, I think it is about the best example available; there are many parallels between Hitler and Saddam... If Chamberlain knew that peaceful means would not work, then why did he engage in a "peace at any cost" strategy?How was he setting up a tripwire? The "tripwire" should have gone off when he annexed the Sudetenland. Why did it not? The only answer is that there was no "tripwire" - it took a full-blown invasion of Poland to set the allies to war. Should we wait until Saddam actually tries to fulfill his lifelong dream of a pan-Arabic dictatorship? I think it would be prudent to act before he gets there. Yes, it did. And yes, it does (which should tell everyone something). But there is no denying that appeasement did not contribute to Hitler's decision to opt for war. In his mind, it showed a fundamental weakness within the allied democracies - he was quoted numerous times as stating his belief in such weaknesses, and commenting on how that perception influenced his decision to go to war. He felt that in their weakness, they gave him a "green light". Saddam feels the same way. He has always seen our reluctance to "go the distance" as a sign of weakness. This is why he is constantly probing the limits of out deterrance strategy. Unless more forceful action is taken, he will eventually feel that he has found a gap. This is true (WWI begat WWII), but it is not true that "peace did not fail". Clearly, peace did fail. WWI would obviously not have been possible without a failure in the peace process. See above. Since Saddam has considered himself at war with us for 11 years (as he has repeatedly and publicly stated), I think it's fair to say that the "peace process" concerning Iraq has failed. More accurately, it has never existed. This is true, although it was the unfair reparations mandated at Versailles that really broke Germany's economy. But you're pretty much right - Hitler would not have come to power had the allies not destroyed Germany's economy. Saddam has the option of getting sanctions lifted at any time. Why does he not do so? Two reasons: he wants to keep his WMD, and it is easier to rule a poor, powerless populace than it is a successful and influential one. He loves the sanctions. I believe that you are incorrect here. You are assuming that Hitler was not a madman who had no delusions of invincibility. Were he a rational man, he would not have executed/fired those generals who advised him A) not to provoke America, and B) not to invade the USSR. Saddam has exactly the same problem. He has a track record of murdering any general who gives him sensible advice. He has been told not to provoke America, and he was told not to invade Kuwait. The sensible generals who told him such things are all dead right now - hence, his propensity for miscalculation. I agree with this entirely. And... don't you see the parallels with Iraq's situation? I believe they are fairly self-explanatory, as I'm assuming you know a bit about the regional history and political dynamics. I don't think that Princess meant (or said) "peace simply doesn't work" as a general statement. If it was intended to describe specifically the situation with Saddam, then it is an accurate statement... I would say that peace only works when both sides want it to work - I don't think you can seriously argue that... Hitler clearly did not want peace. Saddam clearly does not want peace. It was not that bad of a comparison.
Grizzled: I am trying not to devote too much energy towards responding to the infantile remarks getting thrown my way, but it is difficult. If you notice, I'm actually still trying to address the issues at hand... If the pissing match continues (in fact, one more post is all it will take), then I'll just have an ignore list again, and someone will end up pissing in the wind. Unlike some people, I am not here to engage in a childish insult match. As far as what the Canucks, Aussies, NZs, Brits, Frenchies, etc think about our behavior - why does no one listen to our opinions on their behavior? We feel rejected by your refusal to back us up in wartime. Are our feelings on the matter irrelevant? How would you feel if you were threatened, and told you "Look, I know we're good friends, but you're on your own"? I still do not understand why everyone is so reluctant to follow our lead. We are not talking about starting WWIII here; we are talking about dealing with a couple of rogue states that mean to harm us, are massive terrorism sponsors, and are developing really nasty weapons to use against us. Do you believe that we will fail to topple Saddam? Do you feel that we will fail to help the democratic opposition in Iran topple the mullahs? If your concerns are humanitarian, then your stance makes absolutely no sense. Is it more humanitarian to leave the Iraqi people starving and subject to Saddam's wrath? Or is it more humanitarian to give them democracy and remove their oppressors (and the sanctions)? The same for Iran's people - is it more humanitarian to liberate them (more accurately, help them to liberate themselves), or leave them to the whim of the mullahs? Or are your concerns more along the lines of the Islamic world exploding if we invade Iraq? I would just point to Afghanistan - they were supposed to explode after we attacked there. Funny how quiet they got so quickly? They will do the same once they realize that we are liberating the Iraqi people, not enslaving and slaughtering them. I truly do not understand what your real concerns are here - for some odd reason, no one has actually told us specifically why they are so concerned; we have just heard vague insinuations along the lines of "You are making a very big mistake", and "very bad things will happen"... What exactly are your concerns? Be specific, and I can explain why they are unfounded.
Treeman As my original point said, when the hell did we ever give any indication of backing out of anything? If moronic right wing extremists want to go too far...then fark yeah, we'd back away. As would the rest of the world with any brains. As would 90% of Americans I'd guess. (Those with the intelligence to see beyond Bush's extreme rhetoric) That would leave fanatics like yourself...who are no better than the muslim fanatics you are so obsessed with. Anyway...I'm bored with this. Enjoy playing with your toy soldiers in the bath tub little man and lighten up a bit.
Treeman: I'm willing to lay money on you not having a *clue* what ANZUS was until I mentioned it. And that's just one example. Saying that I haven't contributed anything relevant to this discussion is profoundly disingenuous on your part. We feel rejected by your refusal to back us up in wartime. Once again: both Australia *and* New Zealand (among others, of course) *have* backed you up! With official forces! During every war since WWII! What exactly are you feeling 'rejected' for? Your logic is *hugely* faulty. This thread began with us arguing about unilateral rhetoric or actions - you said that you didn't care *what* the rest of the world thought - and now you've made a complete about-face, arguing that the US has had its *feelings hurt* because the whole world won't fall in line behind it! You can't have this both ways. What, precisely, is your point? Look, JAG and glynch and haven and Grizzled and others have addressed what I want to say much more adequately than I could have. And, as I've said before, I think arguing with you point-by-point would be completely ridiculous, because you're not capable of conceding a ******* thing. I think I lost HayesStreet somewhere back there though. Sorry, you deserved more of a debate. But I got tired and now I can't find your post without intensive searching. Grizzled: Respond in a civilised manner or keep your mouth shut! All due respect, but I don't really agree with telling people how to conduct their debates. If this becomes an irredeemable pissing match there's not a bloody thing in the world you can do to stop it. No one ever listens to the voice of reason!
ScreamingRocketJet: Well, if 88% of the American public are "moronic right wing extremists" and "fanatics" like myself, then I guess you're right. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that most Americans do not agree with Bush (or me) - you could not be more incorrect. I don't know where you've gotten your information, but someone is pulling your chain. If you ever feel like actually getting the facts straight, and not just working off of comfortable assumptions like "Americans can't possibly agree with this lunatic, they must be sensible enough to agree with me", then give me a call. In the meantime, go * yourself and enjoy my ignore list.
dimwitsie: I'm willing to bet that I probably knew what ANZUS was before you did. I've actually been studying this crap for years... I have never denied that Australia and NZ have backed us up in the past (in fact I mentioned it in an earlier post (can't you read? ). But your denial that we *saved your asses in WWII* is ridiculous; where the hell to you think the Japanese were heading before our fleet stopped them? Do you think that the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was supposed to stop at Australia's doorstep? I am, however, more concerned about you backing us now, not with what has happened in the past. We have helped each other in the past - that's great. But your refusal to back us up now... It is inexcusable. It is your actions now that make us feel rejected. That is not that difficult a concept. No that is not faulty logic. Since you haven't been paying attention, I will lay it out now as simply as I can: We would much prefer to do this within a multilateral framework, but we will act unilaterally if we are left with no choice. We will not be constrained by a coalition if that coalition will not allow us to defend our vital national interests. I would prefer that you backed us up, but if you do not, I will not shed a tear. I feel this way because we are very capable of doing this alone; your assistance would just make it easier, and it would show your solidarity with us in a cause where both of our nations' national interests are at stake. My (our) feelings are mildly hurt by your refusal to back us up in this instance, but I am not going to dwell on it. I, and the rest of the nation, will simply move on and keep the eye on the prize. This is not faulty logic, and it is not that difficult to understand. Stop reacting to it on an emotional level and you might get it. I will debate with JAG, haven, Grizzled, and yes - even glynch - in a civilized manner because they are actually intelligent individuals who are here to debate the issues, and not solely to launch personal attacks because they don't like what I'm saying. Granted, I am a bit hard on glynch sometimes, but that is usually because he has a tendency to misrepresent facts at times, but he is still intelligent enough that I feel that honest debate is worthwile. If you actually present a logical, thought-provoking point, I will at least consider it. If the logic is irrefutable, then I will change my tune. Decling a "ridiculous point-by-point" debate with me is a cop-out. You haven't even tried. Your first post here seemed like an attempt to actually discuss the issues, but when I corrected you on some details you flew off the hook and started hurling personal insults. This indicates to me that you have no intention of calling off the pissing match and actually discussing the issues in a reasonable manner, so from now on you're pissing in the wind. Your man, too, since I've never seen him contribute anything other than childish insults. Have fun talking to yourself.
I would say that underlying this is a sense of questionable trust in your decisions. I'll add that we have never been in the position you have been in, so it's easier for us to be armchair quarterbacks and be critical of your decisions, but some have been quite concerning. For me the incidents that spring to mind are Reagan's "evil empire" statement (that frightened me, and honestly had me questioning his sanity), and the Iran Contra affair (a seemingly completely needless and illegal intrusion into the internal affairs of a third world country). One could also point to a number of other incidents (including Americas former support of Sadam Hussein), but at least I can understand the rational for most of them even if I disagree with it. I see these as being bad to vary bad decisions that made situations worse in the long run instead of better. So the question in the back of my mind is, given the importance of this time in history and this decision in particular, is this another poorly thought out decision? Bush's "axis of evil" speech amplified that concern greatly. I just finished reading the article in your other thread, (great article btw), and I think it gives a pretty good indication of why this is a very major decision. 200,000 to 300,000 troupe on the ground, in a relatively hostile part of the world, against an enemy with more troupes and quite likely chemical weapons. That is a MAJOR decision. My concern is about the strategy. Having said that, I don't have a clear idea of what a good strategy in this situation would be. I have some concern about the Muslim world possibly exploding, and I'm not sure that they would support the west no matter what we did there, but I do think that this is the key to our success there. Project management research has shown that the most important success parameter in any project is stakeholder satisfaction. Well duh, you might say, but many people don't clearly understand this. Being on time, on budget and up to specification is secondary. What matters is whether the client feels you have taken care of his interests. (This is true, incidently, even on billion dollar petrochemical projects.) If things go wrong on the project, but the client honestly believes you did the best you could and the problems weren't your fault, he will be happy with you. If the project is on budget, on time and up to spec. but the client wasn't kept informed or consulted on issues he wanted to be consulted on, or generally doesn't feel respected, he likely will not be happy with you, even though he got what he wanted. What this really means I that the most important part of this project is managing the attitudes of the stakeholders. If we get the surrounding nations of buy into whatever action is to be taken, they are much more likely to be supportive during and after. If we don't, we can be successful and they will still find ways to blame us. In fact I see this as an almost certainty. The trick in any project is to get the key stakeholders to expressly agree to specific success criteria in advance. They buy into the project this way and take responsibility for the strategy, and therefore can't, with credibility, snipe at these results later. To a lessor but very real extent, this is also necessary with significant allies. I fully realise that in this situation, getting public, uncoerced support from the surrounding states will difficult to say the least, but without it the project stands a high probability of political failure (and all the long term consequences that that brings), no matter what the physical end result is. … my 2 cents.
You're right. I should have worded that as an opinion not a demand. I guess all your heated exchanges got me going a bit too. You see, bad vibes are infectious. Breed love, brothers and sisters! … I suggest.
Grizzled: Is this a wise decision... That is a legitemate concern, as we have made a few bad decisions... Iran Contra was obviously one of them, and in hindsight giving Saddam even limited support was a mistake. I would say that Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech was not a mistake, however. Yes, it was frightening (as is this "Axis of Evil" crap), but in the end it scared the Soviets into A) looking inward, and beginning actual reform - which eventually led to the end of the Cold War, and B) making real arms reductions at a time when they were sorely needed to reduce tensions. In hindsight, that one was definitely not a bad decision. Risky and frightening, yes - but the right decision in the end. This "Axis of Evil" s*it is really very similar to Reagan's challenge: it is an ultimatum that says "change your ways, or we will force you to change". That was essentially Reagan's message, and it worked. Reagan was actually prepared to go the distance, too - which is why it actually worked. Bush is prepared to go the distance as well... Only this time, I do not melieve that either Saddam or the mullahs will respond positively. They are just too far gone. Luckily, we are not facing the USSR here; we can deal with Iraq and Iran. Do not doubt that we can; I am even more confident of this than I was that we could deal with Afghanistan fairly easily (which if you will remember, was not a popular idea 4 months ago - but I was right). I know what our military capabilities are, and I know what theirs are. Let me just say that there is a huge mismatch... Do not doubt that we will be successful militarily in Iraq, and that we have the capability to enable regime change in Iran. Let me say that there is no doubt in my mind that there will be a tremendous outcry from the muslim world when we go into Iraq. It will last until the fighting stops - which should take no longer than a couple of weeks (maybe even a couple of days, if we do it right). Once the muslim world actually sees Iraqis dancing in the streets at their liberation, they will quickly quiet down. No one can know the future, but I am extremely confident that this will be the case. After all, how can they be angry when the so-called "victims" of Western oppression are so happy (this would be the stakeholder satisfaction element)? This is exactly the dynamic that worked in Afghanistan, it will work in Iraq as well. This is one aspect of the Afghan experience that will actually transfer over to Iraq. The surrounding nations who are not on board (only Turkey, Kuwait, and Bahrain - and Oman - are really on board) all have good reasons not to be. Behind the scenes, everyone in the region - everyone - wants to see Saddam gone. After all, this ******* is continually threatening them with invasion, subversion, SCUDS, WMD, etc - and occasionally actually makes good on his threats. Everyone there fears him immensely, as his primary goal in life is to rule the Arab world (and incidentally, kill all of the current rulers). But publicly, they can not be seen as to be supportive of any Western attack upon an Arab brother. To do so might spark internal revolutions in their own countries - most of them are very near such a point as it is. They must make the appearance of opposition in order to placate their own populations, but you can bet that behind the scenes they are telling our diplomats "please do it, just do it as quickly and as painlessly as possible"... They have very good reason to remain neutral or even proclaim opposition publicly (although no one will actually do an ything to oppose it, since they all really want us to succeed); their motivation (self-preservation) is perfectly understandable. I can understand these concerns, and they are legitemate concerns, but personally I think you're wringing their hands over nothing. The real question is: "Will we succeed?" If there was serious doubt that we would succeed, then your concerns would carry a significantly higher weight. But there is no doubt that if we are committed, we will succeed. Our diplomats are probably telling your diplomats something along these lines right now. However, public opinion in your nation(s) is already against us, so your governments - even if they agree with us privately - will probably at best proclaim neutrality and "protest" our actions. That is regrettable, but understandable. In the long term it will not matter. Despite the pissing match, I still regard the Aussies, Canucks, and Brits as our best allies on the planet. Our alliance will survive this, even if it puts an ugly dent in our public relations in the short term.
Elvis, dimsie, Mrs. JB and anyone else who thinks they know me, My thoughts in this thread have NOTHING to do with the fact that my boyfriend is in the army. I have nothing but pride and respect for him and treeman (and anyone else in the military), but that's where it ends when it comes to my opinions. You don't have to understand why, but you'll find out in the next few weeks why Lynus' being in the army has no impact on this thread for me. Second, there is a huge difference between friendship and love (not that I would expect you to know). Treeman and I have something in common and we share a few similar views. He has helped me with this a lot, but I could have done it without him. It's nice to have a friend who understands. I could not have done this however, if it had not been for Lynus. He is the one I love. He is the one who has supported me and the one who I support. And I have been fillin Lynus in on some of these threads and I know he takes the same stance treeman and I do. Does that mean treeman and Lynus are in love too? I think not. So making the connection between being supportive and friendly and "in love" doesn't really work. It doesn't really matter what you think. It's really none of your business either way though. I think you're running out of things to say and just want to stir up trouble like little first graders or something (which was my original assesment of dimsie before). I can't keep you from saying what you want, but when you challenge my personal life and my integrity, you've sunk to an all time low. You can call me stupid, ignorant, dumb, unintelligent...whatever you want. But you do NOT know me and you do NOT know Lynus or treeman or anything about any of our lives. This subject does not pertain to the thread at all. ********* Back to this thread. RM95-That's not really the same. I have great respect for our founding fathers. But they disagreed with a government that was breaking their own laws. They simply did not just not like the government. They thought it was denying its citizen's rights given to them by that very same government. If our government infringed upon our rights, I would be against it. But if I lived in a country under different laws and rights, I would obey and respect that government. Dimsie, I don't know what to say to you. I said they tried to solve things peacefully with Hitler. They didn't and America saved the world. Anything else you might read into that is your own fault. I know the circumstances are difference and so is a lot of other things. But at the same time, everyone else is comparing the situation to any war that they see fit. My comparison works just as well as any. I wasn't using any information you gave me. Just because I left out some steps in my historical account doesn't make it incorrect. You said I implied that the Allies weren't really fighting until America came in, but I didn't. I didn't even mention the Allies fighting or not. I just said Hitler had been dealt with peacefully and it didn't work. (Allies fight here) Then America helped and eventually the war was won. Read that again so you can get it all right. Like I said, you're either taking what I say and inferring something that was not even implied for the sake of arguement. Or you're pretending that I don't know what I'm talking about. You're getting way too pissed off over nothing. And I think it's hilarious! JAG, I did read your questions and have answers for them, although they might not be complete. My statement simplified things a lot. Drawing a direct comparison between any two things is really a waste of time. What you said is true, but it doesn't make what I said completely wrong. Like I said, I simplified things. All in all, I think we either attack Iraq, some of our troops die and peace CAN happen or we can sit and do nothing and wait for him to attack our country. We're not aiming to kill Iraqi citizens. We're aiming to kill Saddam. He' not aiming to kill Bush. He's aiming to kill everyone. Saddam wants to take over and rule the world essentially. America want to replace the government in Iraq and make it better. There's a big difference. America is not the war monger you all make it out to be. After WW2 when Britain was dividing up the Middle East, they wanted to control the whole territory. It was America who stepped in a said they should rule how they want to be rule (self determination). The British agreed, but said they would stay in the area to "help." What they really did was rule over the people. If America was really only about imperialism and spreading it's influence to countries that don't want it, we would have stayed in the Middle East. Instead, we wanted to let them be on their own. ~~~~Just because I brought this up does not mean I am saying the two situations are exactly the same (dimsie, this means you). I'm sure you will all have other arguements that say America was really trying to hurt the Middle East when they did that. And that's fine. But if that's the case, then anything the US ever does, you'll probably see as wrong or that it has some hidden agenda. That's fine. Think whatever you want. There are probably hidden agendas in everything. But the ultimate goal here is to get rid of Saddam. Whatever else that brings, fine. But the man is evil and he has to go. If other countries want to help, great. We'd love it. If they don't, that's fine too. But something has to be done and we have the power to do it. treeman-I know we're right on this. I don't think they'll be happy though until we acknowledge every single detail in the history of the world. I told Lynus about this thread some and he agrees with us. Thanks for sticking up for me and thanks for the advice! It's great having such good friends. I'll report any more news I get on the current situation! I do think the cause behind most wars is peace in one way or another. You can say whatever you want, but for America, I think the **ultimate** goal is peace.
Princess: I'm well aware of the fact that I don't know you. All I know is the "Princess" persona -- and what a persona it is! You came out of nowhere and absolutely littered the board with more than 400 posts in 5 weeks. You started incendiary threads about racism, picked fights with long-time posters and flew off the handle with anyone who dared to challenge your stance on any issue. To quote a Seinfeld line, "Wow! What an entrance!" After our little dust-up in the racism thread, I went out of my way to be decent toward you even though I find my views to be nearly diametrically opposed to yours on all issues. Unfortunately, I made a joke about pink combat fatigues and I'm accused of challenging your "integrity." Youch -- you may want to lighten up a bit. A lot of people on this board make jokes about other posters. Hell, I do it with my own husband. No big deal. But you seem determined to take everything personally. So maybe you should take a cue from treeman and add me to your ignore list. That way I can say what I like, you don't have to read it and we can both be happy.
Princess: Mrs. JB is cool, don't put her on your ignore list. No matter how much you disagree with either her or her man, they're good peoples... Don't take her advice. An ignore list is something to be used sparingly if you want to enjoy your posting experience... Only the truly deserving should be put there.
Kind words from treeman?!? Can't process properly......unable to comprehend.....must lie down... Um thanks, I think. Maybe you can convince Princess that we're not all out to get her. Hell, if we were to go after anyone it would be you! See, that was an example of a joke.
Well, I don't agree with tactics like this. I think they are inflammatory and risky. If the other party takes an equal an opposing stance then you have a game of chicken. I am more in favour of saying what you mean and meaning what you say. Skip the Hollywood theatrics. They just made us question what world he was really living in. If he really believed they were an "evil empire" then I'm scared all over again. This is just delusional, and the thought that the world's greatest power could have a questionably sane individual at its head is frightening to say the least. Russian was on the point of collapse in any event. Their system was no longer sustainable. But I will give credit to Reagan for entering talks with Gorbachev. Someone earlier today made that point in a thread that I didn't get a chance to get back to. I really don't think that threats like this work in the long run, with anybody. They ring of lunacy rather than legitimacy. You may get temporary compliance, but they will be scheming of ways to accomplish their goals behind our backs. "Evil" is a powerful word, and the people of these countries perceive that they are being called this. This just isn't helpful. The leaders don't care what you call them, I'm sure. I just don't see the use of this phrase as anything but very damaging to the overall effort. I agree, and this is a fact we can use. Get'm to stand up and say it. "We'll take him out, but you have to sanction it." If they don't do this, then they will just turn around and blame the US for whatever after the fact, for PR reasons in their own country, and the whole Al-Quaeda "hate the US" thing will be fuelled all the more. This could be the worst possible scenario. Many of those countries are looking for excuses to blame the US. If they are enlisted before, they can't with credibility, complain after. If they aren't enlisted beforehand, they will complain no matter what. They will demand that we install an Islamic fundamentalist government, for example, and then what position are we in? Out of the fat into the fire. We may have to act in this situation, but we should take great pains to think this through and take steps to mitigate potential problems before hand. I think Afghanistan was a very different situation in many ways as the article you posted pointed out. Let me ask you a question at this point. How do you define success? What would you say are the key success factors of this mission? Public opinion isn't against it that much. Chretien isn't threatened here. He has a large majority and the opposition is in disarray. He is saying what he believes. No matter what, Canada and the US will be friends. We are inextricably linked in so many ways that we have no choice but to be … except during the Olympic hockey final. (good game on tonight, btw)
Mrs. JB I almost didn't lump you into that group. And I wish I hadn't right now. I am never sure when to take you seriously or not. I have no problem with jokes. But you and I started off on the wrong foot. You said a lot of things (as did I) in the beginning that weren't jokes. So now I don't always know if we're back where we started or if it's all in fun. All in all, I like you even though I only know you from here. I think you're a good person. And I've really tried to be not only decent but nice to you. I don't always agree with Jeff, but I've met him once and he helped me with my paper and I think he's a great guy. So I know you can't be too bad! Elvis and dimsie really pissed me off. And when someone talks about my relationship, which is in a rough place right now, it does hurt me personally. treeman said it...y'all are good people. friends again?
Grizzled: I agree. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. That is really my whole philosophy on communication... What makes you think that Bush didn't mean what he says? If you can say anything for the man, it is that he has a track record of actually meaning what he says. As did Reagan. Both gave risky (and obviously inflammatory) speeches, and both meant what they said. It worked for Reagan. It will work for Bush in the end, although he will not have as easy a time of it. You should be scared. This is the problem I really see here: you do not see Iraq and Iran as a threat. You should. You simply haven't researched the threat enough (I don't mean that as a knock). Go to my "State Department-Hit List" thread, click on the link provided, read the second story, and then tell me that you are not afraid of these people... If you do not see the threat, then you never will. Bush is a sane, if simple, man. He is surrounded by very intelligent people, which helps to make up for his lack of sophistication/brute intelligence. But he is smart enough to understand the threat. This is inaccurate in the context of the talks that followed; the chinks in the Soviet armor did not show up until the late '80s. At the time, we were only approaching parity in terms of percieved military capabilities; the Soviets had just come off a decade-and-a-half high tide that made them the unquestioned military power in the world. The "cracks" are only apparent in hindsight; at the time, it was thought that the Russians held the upper hand. No one even dreamed that the Soviet system would collapse of it's own inadequacies at the time. Two points: 1) I agree that it will not work this time in the sense that it will not force a change in behavior of these regimes by threat along. As I said, IMHO Saddam and the mullahs are too far gone - they will not change their behavior, no matter what we say opr threaten. Or do, short of using force. This belief underlies me proposition that these are not rational people. If Saddam was a rational person, then he would realize that his only option for long-term survival and maintenance of power would be to allow inspectors in, give up his WMD, and get the sanctions lifted. He refuses to do so. The mullahs, were they rational people, would stop supporting the global Islamic radical fundamentalist movement, stop building WMD and missiles, and rejoin the community of nations. They refuse to do so. But the threat is grave enough that we cannot turn a blind eye to it. Personally, I think that this message was more to you guys than them; it was a warning of what is coming. If Saddam and the mullahs change their ways and start acting rationally, peacefully, and in good faith - then great! The message will have accomplished far more than was originally hoped, and there will be no war. But I think that Washington is realistic enough to understand that that is a slim hope, at best. The message was really for you. 2) Grizzled, I've just given you an example (Evil Empire) where it did work? This might look like lunacy, but there is a method to the madness. Now, as I just said, I don't think it will work (and the Bush team probably doesn't think it will either). But we must make a stand. We either accept that these states can go about their business, or we draw the line and say "the buck stops here". (Yes, I know, more American rhetorical jingoism ). But the situation is grave enough where we must at least draw the line and proclaim our willingness to defend both out lives and our values. That is the core of national security; we will not ignore it, and apparently Bush has no compunctions about telling everyone that he is willing to draw the line. Just as Reagan did. Actually, I have no problem with them railing against us publicly in this instance. They really have no choice. I know it probably seems like I don't care about PR or what anybody else thinks, but I actually do. They must be seen by their own populations as being opposed to us, otherwise they will be overthrown. This I can accept with no problem. It's all part of the Grand Game... You guys, on the other hand, are not obligated to oppose us publicly. I can live with it, but I don't have to like it... Feel free to jump on our bandwagon any time, though. Ahh... The best question anyone has asked me to date on the subject. (I wonder why noone's asked it before?) Democracy - or whatever form of government the Iraqi people want - is a must. A US puppet government is a recipe for failure. Obviously, Saddam and the Baathist elite must go. That's pretty straightforward. The new government must have friendly relations with its neighbors - including Iran in the long run (althoug that will be impossible until the mullahs are overthrown, but easy when they are). This should be a surprisingly easy result to achieve - Arab solidarity is already strong where the Iraqis are concerned. Iraq's economy must get back on track. I am 100% for a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild the place, and 100% for removing the sanctions as soon as possible. The WMD programs must be eliminated. This is pretty much a given if we achieve military success (which is pretty much a given, as well) That is the basic rundown of "success" in a post-Saddam Iraq. I'm probably leaving a few details out, but this post is getting long enough as it is... Feel free to as me to go into more detail in the next post. I agree 100%. In the long term, no matter what... You're the 51st State.
