New weapons in Iraq... Tic.. Toc.. Tic.. Toc....

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

Calling a statement ignorant is not calling the person ignorant...

He didn't say you called the person ignorant. You called the idea ignorant. Since the statement usually reflects the idea, that would be the same thing.

People are not the same as their ideas.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

certainly you don't think we have not had certain individuals "taken out" in the past? .

Allende in Chile comes to mind...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Allende in Chile comes to mind...

does, doesn't it? glad you said it!

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[bodypilot90 0]

you left out group #4

those who feel the un has failed and it is past time to protect both the US and time to liberate the people of Iraq and the world from this threat.

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

This is a very scary thing to read. It really is. Because it seems to imply that if you're strong enough, whatever you think is right is right, and you should enforce it.

On the contrary it implies nothing of the sort! What it does say, however, is akin to the following:

If you see someone about to murder an innocent person in a back alley somewhere and you have the means to stop it then you better do so if you have the power to do it! In other words, if you know what the right thing to do is and are able to do it and do not do it--you are in error! That is what I said.

I never said might makes right. That is why I referenced the classic and famous Athens/Miletus debate in an above post. Athens told the Milesians that 'the gods favor those with power' basically in their debate about ethics and the gods. The Milesians did not give in by principle because they were morally justified not to bend to the Athenians' will. The men were slaughtered and the women and children taken as slaves as far as I remember. This is real history and Athens clearly was morally wrong.

Please read more carefully next time.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

In other words, if you know what the right thing to do is and are able to do it and do not do it--you are in error!

According to some, the morally right thing to do is blow up abortion clinics. So, if someone is opposed to abortion and doesn't blow up clinics, they are in error? How about those that belive the morally right thing to do is stone a woman who was raped because she commited adultery. You're wrong if you don't participate in the stoning?

The right thing to do is completely subjective.

[billvon 3,009]

>If you see someone about to murder an innocent person in a back
>alley somewhere and you have the means to stop it then you better
> do so if you have the power to do it!

I agree there. But if your only weapon is a shotgun, and your only choice is to do nothing or kill the criminal, the victim and two bystanders, is it still the right thing to do?

[wmw999 2,461]

I misunderstood some of what you were saying (the might makes right part), but I do think that GWB doesn't define what is right. He might think something is right, and he might be wrong.

My right as an American and a human being is to disagree, both with his judgement (I think it's too early for all-out war) and with his right to unilaterally take such violent action.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

According to some, the morally right thing to do is blow up abortion clinics. So, if someone is opposed to abortion and doesn't blow up clinics, they are in error? How about those that belive the morally right thing to do is stone a woman who was raped because she commited adultery. You're wrong if you don't participate in the stoning?

It depends on the philosopher you ask.
Others would say that men are liable for their ignorance so if they blow up an abortion clinic, even though they think it is right, they are still objectively wrong according to some outside source of moral standards.

I haven't addressed those issues yet, but in any case, not doing what you think is right is pretty messed up you gotta admit no matter which case 'rightness' falls under.

Maybe Bush is objectively externally wrong about his stance. Maybe not. But he seems convinced internally (or he is maliciously being deceptive) and so he must act accordingly. That is what I mean.

[PhillyKev 0]

I'll agree that he seems to have a strong moral conviction. The problem is, I don't think his morals reflect mine. I certainly hope he thinks he's doing the right thing and not intentionally doing what he knows to be wrong. I don't think he's evil, just misguided and obtuse.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

I don't think he's evil, just misguided and obtuse.

why, what an ugly thing to say! obtuse, now there's a word i don't see utilized every day, but i like it! bad thing is, it fits.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

obtuse, now there's a word i don't see utilized every day

Yeah, I saw Shawshank redemption again the other day. Andy called the warden that

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

I agree there. But if your only weapon is a shotgun, and your only choice is to do nothing or kill the criminal, the victim and two bystanders, is it still the right thing to do?

Good response.
The answer definately impacts the issue. But I will assume that you mean forseen and unintended since that would be the most obvious and logical case to present. In that case, for your answer, I would agree that it would be wrong to act in that manner for that scenario.

Whether or not Iraq maps to that is another question though. For example, if you mean whether or not we should attack because terrorists might kill innocent Americans if we attack Iraq then I disagree because not acting is probably worse and also encourages exploitation since it seems like the UN isn't doing anything. If I was an "evil dictator" I wouldn't give a rat's tail about any demands if I thought I could get away with it. (like Saddam is doing)

It's sad, but it seems like only force will solve the problem.

[billvon 3,009]

>Was killing the victim and two bystanders an unforseen unintended
>consequence? Or just unintended? Or forseen or intended? etc.

It was likely. In the case of the US, we're going to drop 300 bombs all at once on a city of 5 million. Imagine dropping 300 1000-lb bombs on Dallas in a suprise attack; how many would you kill? Of course you'd stick to "military targets" in Dallas like police stations, power stations, communications centers (like phone company buildings) logistics centers (like refineries and chemical plants) and transportation (like trains and airports.) Now how many would die?

In other words, we'll be firing into a crowd to try to kill Hussein; we probably won't even get him. He's not dumb enough to stay where the bombs are coming when he has his people to do that for him.

>If I was an "evil dictator" I wouldn't give a rat's tail about any
>demands if I thought I could get away with it. (like Saddam is doing)

I think that's key. He only does the minimum he can get away with, and at the last minute, to avoid an invasion. If we spell it out for him and give him a date, he might just do it to avoid that invasion - as long as he knows the deadline. Of course, he probably won't do it, but at least we gave him every chance, and will have the rest of the world behind us.

It will still be firing into a crowd to kill Hussein, and that's a really bad thing to do. That's why I think it should be the absolute _last_ thing we try.

[rhino 0]

Quote

you left out group #4

those who feel the un has failed and it is past time to protect both the US and time to liberate the people of Iraq and the world from this threat.
The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."

Amen brother!!

[jfields 0]

Quote

you left out group #4

those who feel the un has failed and it is past time to protect both the US and time to liberate the people of Iraq and the world from this threat.

Please refer to group #3.

[Sinkster 0]

I almost totally agree.

The only thing I am unsure of is whether or not we already have given Saddam enough time, or if it is even possible to insure that Saddam is complying without getting rid of him and his regime.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

The problem is what's going to be the straw that brakes the camels back. How much loger are France, Russia and Germany going to dither before they see the light???

All they want is money
see this
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=200892003

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

Quote

The problem is what's going to be the straw that brakes the camels back. How much loger are France, Russia and Germany going to dither before they see the light???

All they want is money
see this
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=200892003

"The business of America is business", President Calvin Coolidge

I see today that the Feds have got around to indicting some of the Enron crooks - but not GWB's buddy, the top man at Enron. How much did that company take the people of the USA for?

I also observe that Halliburton, Cheney's old company, got the contract to fix the Iraqi oilfields after the war.

One might be excused for wondering if GWB's position is totally altruistic.

.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Michele 1]

Kallend, with all due respect, I really see that whole issue as a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of thing.

If we really didn't plan out how to handle the problems that will occur should we go to war, then we would be accused of cavalier destruction, and wanton disregard for the Iraqi people.

When we do look to the future and realize that there is something we a)need to do and b)can be done, and take steps to do it, we are lambasted and ridiculed.

As for it being an "American only" club, there is far more technology here in the US which can be moved/used there, less expensively, more productively, and with massive experience than, say, France...or Germany. Furthermore, it looks more and more like it will be perceived as a unilateral action, why shouldn't it be a unilateral "clean-up", as well?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[rhino 0]

She has spoken..

Well done..

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

I think that's key. He only does the minimum he can get away with, and at the last minute, to avoid an invasion. If we spell it out for him and give him a date, he might just do it to avoid that invasion - as long as he knows the deadline. Of course, he probably won't do it, but at least we gave him every chance, and will have the rest of the world behind us.

The problem we're going to run into is that we don't know every WMD that Hussein has. If/when we lay out everything he must do to avoid war he will do exactly that and only that. He will only destroy the things that we know about. This will allow his buddies (France and Germany) a platform to start relieving the pressure on his country. He will still be in power and any WMDs we don't know about will still exist.

Hussein was linked to an attempted assassination of Bush Sr in 1992. The Kuwaitis caught the guys and the explosives were later traced back to Iraq. He openly supports terrorism in Israel. The links to Al Qaida are tenuous and probably don't exist anymore. But, he is linked to terrorists.

The belief that attacks on Iraq will increase terrorism is coming from the same people who spouted the same rhetoric before we entered Afghanistan. We didn't experience a significant increase after Afghanistan and there is really no reason to believe it will hold true after Iraq. It sounds good but history doesn't support it. There will be some small scale acts. This is just being used as a scare tactic (by those opposed) or as a CYA (by those for).

It would be best if we got another UN resolution. But, in the long run, the US is going to suffer the most if Hussein stays in power. I don't believe that France and Germany give a crap about our security. We have to hold out the right to defend our country without UN approval. Not the best option but we don't have a choice. Hussein has us in his crosshairs and will be a threat to the US as long as he is in power. He has a picture of Bush Sr on the floor of his palace entry way just to show disrespect to him. This isn't a passing phase he is going through. We pissed him off before the Gulf War and he is holding a grudge.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[kallend 2,032]

The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter
of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.
Mr. Kiesling is a diplomat who has served in United
States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan. He answers your question better than I can.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign
Service of the United States and from my position as
Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7.
I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing
included a felt obligation to give something back to my
country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job.
I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures,
to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists,
and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs
fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its
values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State
Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical
about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that
sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is,
and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human
nature. But until this Administration it had been possible
to believe that by upholding the policies of my president
I was also upholding the interests of the American people
and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible
not only with American values but also with American interests.
Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander
the international legitimacy that has been Americas most potent
weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow
Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective
web of international relationships the world has ever known.
Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and
to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly
not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such
systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic
manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam.
The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying
around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the
first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism.
But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them,
this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic
political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al
Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror
and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated
problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive,
is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to
the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American
citizens from the heavy hand of government.
September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American
society as we seem determined to do to ourselves. Is the Russia of
the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire
thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the
world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two
years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow
and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our
partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency
is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies
wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in
whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is
blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories,
to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer
to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles
in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks
with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our
friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built
up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that
war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S.
to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal.
Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous
approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering,
including among its most senior officials. Has oderint dum metuant
really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to Americas friends around the world.
Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism,
we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader
can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American
arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous
place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S.
and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us
rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid.
Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it
was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and
ability. You have preserved more international credibility for
us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive
from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving
Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too
far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system
we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties,
organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes
far more effectively than it ever constrained Americas ability
to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile
my conscience with my ability to represent the current
U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic
process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a
small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies
that better serve the security and prosperity of the
American people and the world we share.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

He answers your question better than I can.

That answer would be "I quit because I don't agree with the current administration". Very eloquent but hardly answers any questions. Instead of staying in and fighting for what he believes in he just quit.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[Michele 1]

Hi, Kallend...

Agreeing with Kmcguffee in toto, and adding my own thought...

Quote

The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country

From someone in the Foreign service, I would not expect this sort of commentary...the phrase "baggage" denotes, in pop-psych, something you don't want to have, carry around with you, and wish yourself rid of.

It would seem he did just that...
Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~