1. Despite there only being one way that GW Bush ever mentioned for Saddam to avoid war, others still claim that we fought it for more than just WMD's. I don't agree with that, but it does bring to mind a question. If we pretend that revisionists who claim that WMD wasn't the main or only reason we were told we were going into Iraq are correct, and that it was just one of three reasons, does it make a difference? If the reasons really were to bring democracy to Iraq, to help combat terrorism, and to rid Saddam of his WMD's shouldn't all three still have to present to justify the invasion? If ever there was a time where 3 out of 3 was required it would be a pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation. Saying that it doesn't really matter about one of the reasons, because the other two were met, so the war is still justified seems to be taking war a little lightly. So for the sake of this particular argument, if we pretend there were other reasons beside WMD equally important for the invasion but the WMD reason still turned out to be false shouldn't the war still be wrong? It was a three legged stool that became a two legged one, and that doesn't stand. 2. Question number 2 has to do with negotiating with terrorists. Some say, and I've always felt that you never negotiate with terrorists. Some, say it and then sell arms to Iran(Reagan), and some honestly say it and believe it. I believed it too, until I started thinking about it. I believe that it should depend on the case. The IRA in Great Britain was a threat, and bombings and attacks continued for years and years, until both sides actually met and NEGOTIATED. That has been the biggest step for peace in that conflict and helped reduce terrorism greatly. I'm not saying that negotiating should always be used with terrorists, because in many cases(Al Qaeda) they aren't after anything real or negotiable. So the question is should there be a blanket statement that we never negotiate with terrorism?
Question one - No, that stool doesn't stand even if the other 2 reasons are as strong as WMDs. Question two - certainly there are some circumstances where it becomes necessary to negotiate with people that one side sees as "terrorists" (who are seen by the other side as "freedom fighters") in order to reduce or eliminate future violence.
Negotiation is never an option with those who hate you utterly and will not rest until you are destroyed. You can't reason with them. You must obliterate them without remorse. Reminds me of Sean Connery's speech from the Untouchables:
Question #1 reminds me of the excuse Germany tried to use to invade Belgium at the beginning of WWI, which could be summed up with, "Well, hey! She was in the way!", thus insuring Britain's decision to fight and leading to Germany's ultimate downfall. One can only hope that, at the unknown conclusion of the Invasion of Iraq, that people will decide that at least it led to Bush's downfall. Let's hope that that's not the best we can expect from his misadventure.
That's a great quote bama, btw. Connery was terrific. The guy just chews up the screen and spits it out when he's at his best. It fits getting the bastards responsible for 9/11. We were doing just that, and I applauded it, when we went into Afghanistan. But invading Iraq would be like Ness going after the Chicago Mob by trying to take out, well, Saddam. It would make no sense. It would use Ness's courage, resources and prestige against the wrong "enemy" while taking those very things away from the assault on where he knew his adversary lurked... hidden and plotting against him.
In hindsight, it's most definitely true that attacking Iraq was incredibly unnecessary in our war against terrorism. But was it the case back a year ago? I certainly thought that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were linked, based on things I've read. So far, they've been proved to be faulty intelligience. Although I'm not sure how one can trully prove that there's no connection, but that's besides the point. I think what matters most was how much blame should Bush get for going to war on Iraq. I really don't believe he lied about WMDs, because surely he's not stupid enough to think he can get away with once we actually find no WMDs in Iraq. But is he to be blamed for faulty intelligience or overzealousness of attacking a phantom target in Iraq? Or did he do what looked right, but ended up terribly wrong, like with Vietnam. I hope the 9/11 commission can help make light of this.
Negotiation is never an option with those who hate you utterly and will not rest until you are destroyed. You can't reason with them. You must obliterate them without remorse. Doesn't Kadaffi fall into that classification?
Hate comes and goes... Human beings are never the enemy. Sean Connery is an overrated, one-dimensional actor.
Here's a Sean Connery joke, when you read it you have to do it out loud in your best Sean Connery impression: Sean: What do you say to a woman with two black eyes? You : Uh , I don't know, what do you say to a woman with two black eyes? Sean: You better not have to say anything, I've already told her twice!
my concern is that you legitimize terrorism if you go to the table to negotiate with terrorists. you tell others across the world that this is a way to seek an audience with the United States (or any other nation, for that matter) to resolve your concerns. i'm not sure that's a good message to be sending. hate comes and goes??? seriously, meowgi....no need to be cryptic. what in the world does this mean? because as best I can tell, hate has been with us, as human beings, for quite some time...like roughly forever.
That was why I asked it as a question instead of just stating an opinion. I agree you don't want to set an example that negotiating with terrorists will get them what they want, but as is the case with Northern Ireland and the IRA it can work. I don't know what to say or if it should be judged on a case by case basis. Maybe if you look at what the other side is fighting for, is there a comprimise possible, etc. Check that out and then decide based on what there is to gain or lose. I'm leaning toward using it as a case to case situation, but I'm curious.
Sorry for the "cryptic" post. When I am at work, I have to post hastily. (I almost got caught today) Yeah, hate has been with us forever. Hatred is produced from a discriminating mind. When I said hatred comes and goes. I was again saying that all emotions and thoughts are impermenant. We should not cling to the false ideas. Hatred is based off ignorance. There is our real enemy.
Unlike many critics of this Admin. I don't believe they lied but what I do believe is that they got so caught up in paranoia after 9/11 and old animosity about Iraq that they refused to look at the intelligence critically but instead viewed it through the filter of their own assumptions. Its one thing to hold the Admin to blame for faulty intelligence but what was widely known even before the invasion was that intelligence about Iraqi WMD, connections to Al Qaeda was murky at best with widely differing interpretations. We also knew that Saddam was effectively contained by no-fly zones and inspections were ongoing. There was no immediate or obvious threat from Iraq. Sending American soldiers into battle is serious business, occupying and rebuilding a hostile distrustful country is serious business and doing so without the full support of all of our allies is even more serious. So maybe its unfair to hold GW Bush responsible for faulty intelligence but it certainly is fair to hold him responsible for going to war without considering the reasons more carefully.
have you read Ecclesiasties in the Old Testament??? reading your signature reminds me of it...read it before?? if not, i would highly recommend it to you...you would love it.
