9/11, The War on Terror, and How Our Nation Has Healed

[Penn]

Re: MG...

Originally posted by Larry Gude

All this inconsistency because we have a regular, steady, peaceful turnover of power in our country. We not only survive this but we prosper with this because, while it ain't perfect, it is by far the best political system going.

Our current situation has been criticized as going way to fast...or dragging until the election or this or that. Iraq has simply been an issue to this President since the campaign.


The point I'm trying to get around to is that I just don't understand the reluctance on your part to support, enthusiastically, either neutering Hussein or getting rid of him.

Your buddy dems4 thinks that the war will keep W in power forever and it is giving him hives. Well, facts are never part of his worries so, reminding him what happened the last time a Bush was riding high after a war is a waste of time; He lost his ### to some nobody from Arkansas, if anybody cares.

Hell, that alone should get y'all to throw in your support!

Colin Powell is a great leader. He makes sure we crept along in 1991 as well as now before launching any war. He exhausts all prudent avenues of diplomacy and reason, all the while allowing time for the building of force, in '91 and now, in order to, if it comes to that, put our boys and girls in a position to not fight but to WIN. The case can be made that he is the biggest hawk of them all because if you end up with him wanting to take action against you, well, he’s bringing the WHOLE can. With my boy in Korea, I love this guy.

Our current Prez is doing a good job because he does not have to do what his Sec State says. W is doing well because he is leading, IE, actually making the best possible choices based on what his people are giving him. You guys object to tone apparently because y'all finish every sentence with "BUT I do support the war on terror and Iraq if..."

If what?

Some in here claim the UN is all that and a bag of Fritos but then decry Bush for doing the very thing you want. We simply are working with the UN and the world while retaining our right to independent action if WE (US) deem it necessary. None of your side argues against that, only that somehow Bushing is up to no good WHILE doing what you want. It comes off to me just like it sounds.

Are you all gonna be disappointed if there is no actual fighting? Can you not see Iraqis, in droves, choosing their own life and welfare of their families over Hussein? They are being given plenty of time to think about it and every day we grow stronger the outcome more certain, they weaker as we assemble.

You guys constantly come off as seeming to think that Hussein, with his record, is somehow a reasonable person who we could deal with peaceably if not for OUR leadership, all the while, savaging that leadership and being as unreasonable as possible.

Maybe it's just me?

Larry, I am catching on to the fact that MGKrebs, while steeped in sheepdip, is hopelessly liberal; but that, in itself
dosen't disqualify him. I'm learning he is thoughtful and will listen to reason if a case is made. He's got my respect, whether or not that means anything.
Advice to Demsformd: Prick up your ears and listen to what this guy has to say. I don't know if you're similar in age, but he wouldn't be a bad mentor to take heed from


penn

 

[Tonio]

Re: Re: MG...

Originally posted by penncam
Larry, I am catching on to the fact that MGKrebs, while steeped in sheepdip, is hopelessly liberal; but that, in itself
dosen't disqualify him. I'm learning he is thoughtful and will listen to reason if a case is made. He's got my respect, whether or not that means anything.
Advice to Demsformd: Prick up your ears and listen to what this guy has to say. I don't know if you're similar in age, but he wouldn't be a bad mentor to take heed from


penn

I second that, penncam! Sometimes Demsformd comes across like a stealth conservative trying to make liberals look bad. MGKrebs doesn't just parrot the latest party propaganda (which, I've said before, is a disease that afflicts both sides).

When I read newspapers, I quickly ignore any columnist whose argument is little more than "bad, bad conservatives" or "bad, bad liberals." Switching topics for a second, that's why I think it's hilarious when people claim that liberals are being too hard on Trent Lott. Some of the columnists on the right are being even harder on the guy.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah!

What he said!

Thanks, Penn but this stuff, as you know, ain't that hard to understand. I suspect a great deal of the friction in here is simply frustration, but I don't understand that either. There's another election here in two years. People in Iraq don't have that luxury.

Also,

MG:

If Blix and the UN decide that the deception leaves us with enough uncertainty that we have to blast Iraq into a pile of rubble to be safe, I'm cool with that. I JUST DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO ALONE.

Somebody said this already I think, but Blix is simply to inspect what the Iraqis show him. he has no power or mandate to do detective work, though THAT is what we should be trying to do.

 

[MGKrebs]

We've been through all this, but...

let me try it this way.

Japan attacks us, we get to attack back.
Al Qaida attacks us, we get to go after them.
Kuwait was a UN deal.
Serbia was a UN deal.
Iraq screws around cheating on UN sanctions, WE get to attack them?

I am not convinced that a war in Iraq is the best response to whatever problems we have with them. It may make us feel better to eliminate that problem, but I think it is likely to create more. Intelligence, sanctions, embargoes, deterrence, expanded no-fly zones, ICC indictments, seize assets, outlaw/destroy ANY weapons, all are available tools.

As I said, I am satisfied with our actions to date. We seem to be saying one thing and doing another. There may be a strategy to this, I don't know. In the end, we are doing the right thing so far.

I will make one caveat to the US rhetoric- by calling out enemies, ("Axis of Evil") it seems we bring things to a head. This could be good or bad, but is certainly risky. Reagan did it with the USSR and won. I would prefer that we take a more diplomatic approach, I just think it has a better chance of success, as opposed to publically threatening and backing opponents into a corner from which they will try to save some face by lashing out.
But I'm no geo-political strategy expert, so maybe this tactic works.

I will definitely NOt be disappointed if there is not fighting.

Sort of another subject- can you save me the trouble of looking this up? Are the Iraqi no-fly zones a UN mandate, or is that a US coalition gig?