Not all religions are black and white and neither is any constitution. If there are real people with this concern about war, that's one thing. But I have a feeling that many people would just use it as an excuse, and I don't support that. And you can't force anyone to do anything. But my feeling still is that if you want to live in "the land of the free" then you have to be willing to give something back. There are other ways to support a war than just fight. But I'm sure that some would still feel that they are helping in the fight. If a religion wants to expressly forbid supporting wars, that's fine. But there's a fine line with interpretation. This is the First Amendment: It does not explicitly say that the US cannot force you to do something. You are free to practice whatever religion you so desire. So, if your religion says you cannot support a war, the US can't make you. But I still believe everyone should have to give back to their country in some way. As far as abortion, I am very serious. I am a woman who is pro-choice. I believe that there are circumstances that abortion is very warranted. In the first trimester especially, it is not a life. If it cannot live and breathe on it's own, then it's not a life, IMO. I would rather not have to mandate abortions (and I don't think you can), but rather mandate multiple contraceptivess (although I know some people still think this violates the First). If you don't want to abort your baby, find a way not to have one, either with contraceptives or abstinance. I would not support it just for the hell of it, no. But if our country was in this situation, then something should be done. And I don't think limiting the number of children is unreasonable. I don't think abortions can be mandated, but limiting the number of children can. If they don't want to use contraceptives or have an abortion, then the kids can be adopted by a family that has no kids, or it can be sent to another country, like England. I don't think this scenario is going to happen anytime soon, but that's how I feel.
Grizzled: True, but there really is not much we can do to influence them. We do not control their presses - Saddam and the mullahs do. And frankly, if any of them show any sympathetic impulses towards us, they will disappear in the middle of the night and never be seen again. But according to their presses... we say this kind of s*it all the time. This is nothing new to them. That said, there is a significant portion of the population in both nations that quietly wants us to do it. Saddam is universally feared and despised by the people he rules (except for a select bunch that he pays off and drags out for the cameras every once in a while), and the mullahs are also largely despised by their subjects. When they are liberated they will thank us. Most people don't kill their liberators... I think you're overestimating your importance here. Please be precise: How could this later "rise up and bite us in the ass"? No offense, but there's nothing you can do. I wouldn't hold my breath hoping that Bush is going to change his views on this - he is not. He will elaborate at a later date, but he is not going to "modify his stance" on this. What? It is far more important that the targets of the address get the message than any bystanders do - and that is really what you are, bystanders. No offense... But I do not see how you could possibly believe that it is more important that you guys are content with a well-recieved message than it is that the Iraqi and Iranian govts get it. Again, I do not see how anyone except for the US or Iraq/Iran can "scuttle the mission". Be specific, please. Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi, etc can make it more difficult if they will not allow staging/basing/overflight rights, but even that would not "scuttle the mission". We really can do it alone if need be. Again, no offense, but you guys have absolutely no real influence on the outcome of this battle. Actually, the only way you could possibly influence it would be if you were to assist us - but there is nothing that you can do to "scuttle the mission". I agree that in the long term, either that changes or nothing will. But let me ask you this: How would you go about changing those opinions, without putting in danger our national interests in the process? What I mean is, don't tell me anything like "stop supporting Israel", or "change our foreign policy" or any of that blah-blah. Tell me something that we can realistically do to change their attitudes. Since their main beef with us appears to be our support for undemocratic regimes there, I cannot possibly think of a better start to make then giving some of them democracy. In fact, unless Iraq and Iran are democratized and moderated, I cannot think of any other effort that will work in the long run. Walk softly and carry a big stick. But if wants to kill you, then you'd damn well better use that stick, and not be too concerned about how much noise you make... Sometimes intervention is actually necessary - it is not always enough to just maintain a potential threat. You're close enough. If we have to get taken over by anybody, Canada is definitely first on my list... boy: Scott Ritter is a joke. Don't you think it's a bit odd that he's the only former weapons inspector to believe that Iraq has no WMD? Don't you think it's a bit odd that he's one of the only so-called "experts" on the planet who believes this? And isn't it a bit odd that he happens to be the same man who played such a large role in destroying UNSCOM's mission? Why is it that you and glynch repeatedly post Ritter articles when trying to convince us that Saddam doesn't have any WMD? Don't tell me he's the only source you can find? Would you like to know what his former boss thinks? I can find an article on that, if you'd like... In the meantime, read this: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/ptr20010110.pdf If you can read that and still come away thinking that Iraq has no WMD, then you truly do live in a fairy-tale world.
It's certainly not easy, but there are things that could be done. (Things a bit more creative than dropping envelopes with $100 dollar bills and pictures of Bush too. ) And perhaps there are things being done. If there is something going on at the ground level, we wouldn't know about it at this point. At a higher level, I wouldn't use language that could insult and alienate the people. I understand the need for sending a strong message, but I think Major's approach is just as tough, while being less offensive less ambiguous. Oppressed people don't always understand liberation the way liberators think they should. Lenin was trying to liberate the Russian people, but they didn't get it, even when he tried to "give the revolution a push." The end result was that he inadvertently set up conditions that allowed perhaps the most brutal dictator in the history of the world to hijack his cause and take over. The people were supposed to treat the Americans as liberators in Vietnam, IIRC, and the Americans were very surprised when many didn't. The debate in the other thread between HayStreet and tacoma park legend is another example. HS says, "but we gave you democracy," and TPL says, "but you caused the death of 200,000 people." Different sides see things differently. In this case, the way the people see this will have s significant impact on the long term success, I believe, so we need to take great pains to try to understand and address that dynamic as much as possible. Well, the response you're getting from the allies now is to a significant extent a result of your not paying attention to the effect that the "axis of evil" comment would cause. It can't be a total surprise, because you've seen it before when Reagan used the word "evil," but it would seem someone didn't pay enough attention to this detail, and now you're getting nipped in the ass because of it. The international response to the word "crusade" should have been further warning. Bush seemed to understand that, so how did he miss this? (An alternative point of view might be that the real objective was to alienate the allies to justify unilateral action, but I can't really see that being the case). By "other parties" I was including, and thinking primarily about, the people of Iraq and Iran. These are the people who will ultimately control the long term fate of their countries, so they should be considered primary stakeholders. The mission is really to bring lasting positive change to the area. As we've discussed, if we simply replace Saddam with one of his henchmen, and Mullah A with Mullah B in Iran, we've done nothing, and perhaps even gone backward. Popular support of the future governments by the people will play a significant factor in determining the success of that government, be it democratic or not. If we piss off the people and whip them into an anti-American frenzy with our rhetoric, then there will be much more support for the radicals. If we take a firm but considerate approach, and be clear about what we want to do and what we don't want to do (allay some fears, like that of US imperialism), etc. then I think we will defuse anger and fear and lay a better foundation for the success of a future progressive government. Failure to address this issue properly could scuttle the mission, IMO. Influence from the neighbouring countries will also play a significant role. Iran could attack Iraq if excessively weakened. Any one of a number of countries could try to intervene to set up an Islamic theocracy of some sort. If we enrol them in this mission in advance, and get them to agree to a course of action, they are then committed after the fact, (and if they break that commitment we have grounds for complaint and perhaps action). If we don't enrol them, they are free to continue to take whatever stance suits their political objectives of the day, continue to vilify the US and to meddle to suit their own objectives. Identifying key stakeholders and getting them to agree to and state their key objectives, explicitly, at the beginning of a project, goes a long way toward forestalling later meddling and complaining. You are making them "partners to the crime," so to speak. Failure to by attention to this possible threat could also scuttle the mission. It starts with a shift in attitude, yeah I know this sounds airy fairy, but bear with me. In the business world people are understanding more and more that the best deals/projects are devised and structured to be win/win. If A is identified as being very important to you but will take me a little extra effort or expense to make happen, and B is very important to me but will take you a little more effort and expense to make happen, if we agree that I will do A and you will make B happen, then we have increased each other's gain with minimal additional expenditure. If we simply say that "A doesn't do anything for me so why should I go out of my way to do it for you?," you are denying yourself a chance at making a deal that will benefit you more. I'm not talking about the basics of the deal. I'm talking about added value, increasing the size of the pie. This requires a change from the traditional attitude. These situations are often not obvious, you have to be looking for them, and this stems from a mindset of looking for these positive sum gains. How does this relate to this situation? We know what we want. We know what our bottom line is. Now we have to think of what they want (the people) and how we can give it to them, to make this deal work over the long haul. It is in our best interests to so. It means that we can't just go in and bump off Saddam and consider the job finished, and expect the people of Iraq to be happy. That is one part of the mission, but only one of possibly several critical objectives that must all be achieved to be successful. Long term success relies on them being "happy with the deal." So what would make them happy? I think some research could be done on this. Education? Trade? Technology? A show of respect? The key is to understand what is really important to them, not just what we think is important to them. We need to try to look at this situation through their eyes. (Underneath all this are the principles of respect and trust but I think I've fed you enough project management theory for one post. ) I would say use it, but do be concerned about how much noise you make, because the more unnecessary noise you make the more secondary problems you'll create that you'll have to deal with later. Good! Now that we're in agreement I can let you know that the job has already started. http://www.standonguard.com/
Hey Grizzled, some of what they want doesn't sound so bad! All hail Canada! But in all seriousness, are some of us agreed that attacking Iraq and the Axis of Evil is not the bad part, but how we do it and what we do after it is more important? I'm saying this because it seems like we all want Saddam gone (correct me if I'm wrong). Some will do it at any cost. Some only want to do it with Allied support. And then there's those who don't want to do it at all and wait for them to take us over (j/k). What we don't want is to leave the countries in bad shape or worse off than before we came in, but again, we don't all agree how to do that. Some say it will be done by us after we overthrow Saddam and some say they will work with us if we go in with more support (so it wouldn't seem like we were forcing anything on them). Is this an accurate assessment? I'm sure at least some of it is wrong, especially since it's so simplified.
Very good! A new Recruit. No, I think you've got it basically right. Some others might say that containment is the right strategy but I don't think anybody is saying that there isn't a problem there, and I think the clear majority thinks he should be removed somehow.
Grizzled: Didn't you hear about the OSI? Other thread... We'll get Major's message (elaboration, is what it really is). I've already said that a couple of times. We've just gotten something extra - something that reassures the American public that we're serious, and scares the crap out of Saddam and the mullahs. The two main recipients, I remind you... I would counter that 99.9% of the time, they do. Hell, even the Russians were dancing in the streets when the Germans liberated them. Liberated peoples have a strong tendency to be very thankful towards their liberators. Wow. That sure is a revisionist version of the Russian Revolution. You almost made me think that Lenin was a nice guy for a second there... Lenin may have thought he was liberating the Russian people, but I really don't think that you should seriously try to argue that he did liberate the Russian people. Horrible example. Another bad example, since we're not going to kill 200,000 Iraqis. And frankly, it is entirely Saddam's fault that the sanctions haven't been removed yet. Yes, there is animosity towards us for the sanctions, but once they are lifted and the rebuilding begins, we can begin to move past that. Incidentally, it is the only possible way to move past that. Since this did not answer my question, I'll ask again: Please be precise: How could this later "rise up and bite us in the ass"? Your previous answer was neither specific, nor even relevant to the question. Again, no offense, but there's nothing you can do about it. I can't help but feel I've already answered this one... No, really? I thought we were just going to blow some s*it up and call it a day? Please explain to me how anything will ever change in a positive way if Saddam and the mullahs are in chage? Neither is willing to negotiate in good faith. Neither will ever willingly give up power. Neither are going to curb their WMD or terrorism support infrastructures. Neither are likely to start treating their own people better. Neither are likely to leave their neighbors along in the future. How do you expect positive change considering these factors? We are at an impasse, and the only possibility for positive change in the region is regime replacement in both cases. And as 9/11 showed, positive change in the area is an absolute necessity. You're assuming that Bush has not sent different messages to the governments and people of these countries respectively? He has - repeatedly. Your news just isn't reporting it when he says something like "We have no argument with the peaceful people of Iraq. Our only argument is with its leader, a man who has brutally repressed his own people. If anything, we sympathize greatly with the people of Iraq for all that they have suffered under this brutal dictatorship"... All you're hearing about is the "Axis of Evil" crap because your news services absolutely love to blow anything they can slant as anti-US out of proportion... Of course, the Iraqis aren't going to hear anything else... Unless the new OSI has a say about it. Uuuuh... Not if there are 200,000 troops on the ground there, an armada in the Gulf, and legions of warbirds prowling the skies... I wouldn't worry about anything except from nuisance attacks from the Iranians (although I would expect some of those, since they'd know that their chances of survival are significantly reduced with American armies everywhere they look). I think there's something you're missing here: If a nation doesn't join our coalition in this one, then it has no say in the aftermath unless we allow it to. There will be interaction with Iraq and its neighbors, but they will not be allowed to exert any more control than we want them to. The Iraqis don't want them to anyway - and since this time they will decide on their own form ov government... If you don't join the coalition, then you have zero input in the aftermath unless we want you to. That is one of the consequences of refusal - like it or not. Again, see the OSI thread... What, "Beat the sh*t outta the guy, just don't wake up the neighbors"??? Please. The simple fact of the matter is that 1) there is nothing you can do to stop us, 2) we are going to do it, 3) there are consequences for refusing to back us, 4) there are no negative consequences to backing us, and 5) (just to repeat it) there is nothing you can do about it. You have nothing to lose by backing us (I have yet to hear a solid reason for not backing us), but there will be costs for not backing us. Your choice. !
Are you drunk, Grizzled? Do you want to do that one over again (later, maybe?)? Your previous posts... Were of significantly higher quality, and very well worth replying to. You can try again if you need to...
