| Author |
Message |
    
Carol Flamm Reingold
Citizen
Username: Clflamm
Post Number: 1
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 9:53 pm: |     |
And That’s Leadeship for Ya’
It’s been an enlightening week here in New York, listening to that convention, hasn’t it? A lot of questions answered, strength shown, action supported, philosophy elucidated. Well, to be honest, I’m still pretty confused, so I’m going to have an imaginary conversion with YOU, the reader. Ok, I’m going to have an imaginary conversation with myself, but maybe you can help me afterwards.
Help me with understanding that Zell Miller. He said "For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest." So he’s saying that big, strong soldiers keep countries free, right?
But wait, didn’t Hitler have a big, strong army? And what about Mussolini? In fact weren’t those armies bigger than ours? And they didn’t keep their people free. I mean, gosh, we fought them because they got too big didn’t we? No, you say, we fought them because they invaded other countries that hadn’t done anything to their country. Oh, that clears that up. So Miller was saying that big strong armies, that don’t invade other countries unless those countries threaten them, keep us free.
Oops, but wait! Didn’t we just invade another country that didn’t attack or invade us? That was different, you say? We thought they had weapons of mass destruction and were going to invade us? Hmm, and also that Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s leader, was helping out followers of Osama bin Laden, the crazy guy who masterminded 9/11? And even worse, that Hussein personally had something to do with 9/11. Oh, right. I mean, Dick Cheney said at the convention "In Iraq, we dealt with a gathering threat, and removed the regime of Saddam Hussein." And he should be up on the lastest info.
But wait again, didn’t the Iraq Survey Group just put out a report last October saying that there were no weapons and there was no threat? Even Bush said "Even though we did not find the stockpiles that we thought we would find, we did the right thing" He didn’t say why though, so maybe Miller is trying to help out, explaining how those soldiers are giving us our freedoms. No, that can’t be it, because there were no WMD’s, Osama and Hussein weren’t in bed together, Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and Saddam wasn’t threatening our freedoms. Confused again.
Ok, let’s try to do a little mind reading, and figure why we’re really in this war in Iraq, since Bush never has said why he would have gone in anyway, and Miller’s army thing doesn’t explain it and Cheney’s been disputed by the Iraq Survey Group’s report. Think, think, there must be another reason. Maybe another quote from Miller’s speech can help –"I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny."
Yes, that clears it up, Saddam was an evil dictator, who was hurting his people. It’s kinda like having a neighbor who is beating up his wife, right? We’re definitely going in there and beating that guy up, especially after we’ve done our bench presses. What? You say you wouldn’t? You would call the police? And that would be like our strong soldiers keeping us free by protecting his wife. I mean that’s the way the law works isn’t it?
Ah, so Saddam Hussein broke one of our laws! The one that says "You shall not kill and oppress your own people?" I get it. We’re the liberators! Oh, but then why aren’t we going into the Sudan where the of African Christians are being slaughtered. And you say there is a dictator in North Korea? Hey, and what about Libya, there’s a dictator there and it’s in the Middle East too. And China invaded Tibet and is acting like a dictatorship there? I guess we’ll be going into those places too then, huh? We’re not, you say? We treat them all individually? Like some wife beaters are not as bad as others?.
Ok, so we’re the "liberators who choose", not in the "big armies that invade" jeopardy category, and better damn well not get those two confused. As Miller says, "And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators." He must be right because in my guts I know we’re different from Hitler and Mussolini the occupiers, but how?
They were taking over other people against their will, you say? But no, that’s the same thing we did in Iraq. OK, they invaded because they wanted power and the other countries’ resources; our reasons were different, I guess. Damn, if only I know what our reasons really were.
Hmm, how did those guys get into power anyway? Hitler was voted in, right? And then he changed the laws. Of course you’re right, that wouldn’t happen here, because we have a constitution. Ah hah, that’s the difference. In fact, that’s what different in Iraq! We want them to have a constitution and be free like us! So why aren’t we doing that in North Korea, China and all those other places? Oh, we’re the selective liberators, right. We go in when our constitution, our way of life in threatened. Confused again, I mean Iraq never threatened our constitution.
Ok, ok, forget about the Iraq thing. Cheney, Bush, and Miller all seem to be saying different things about it, and I’ve tried a million different explanations to figure out why they say it was Ok to go in. I mean 9/11 was really scary and we have to do something.TAKE ACTION – that’s a pretty clear message I heard.
And if that action is based on wrong information, well, so be it. We are safer, right? I mean Arnold said "It's about making decisions you think are right and then standing behind those decisions. That's why America is safer with George W. Bush as president." Ok, yes, he’s a little mixed up about his childhood, since the Brits occupied Austria after the war, not the Ruskies. And Austria’s government, up until 1970, was entirely conservative, not socialist, but he’ll be the first to tell you, he’s a dreamer. Anyway, he knows about strength.
Oh no, you say that Saddam’s repressive regime actually prevented terrorists from building a power base and that we’ve opened up the area for many terrorists to meet, train and plan? As well as gotten a whole bunch more people mad at us and wanting to be terrorists. Oy.
Well, at least at home we fight them better with the Patriot Act, the one that has suspended some of our constitutional rights? Wait, I thought we were fighting to protect our constitution.
Well, damn it, we are strong and it’s war, and anyone who questions this has got to be un-american. Maybe we didn’t have good reasons to go into Iraq, but we are still fighting those people who did injure us and who would bomb us. As Guiliani and Cheney said, we’ve cleaned out Afghanistan and wiped out the Taliban. What? The Taliban has been making a comeback? They just killed seven people in Kabul? Nevermind. At least we routed Osama bin Laden, and he was the big cheese. Oh, Bush said what about that on March 13, 2002? "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I don't really care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." I guess he was right about it not being important, since no one at the convention mentioned Bin Laden either.
Well we’re at war against somebody, and we have to support our president, even if he’s not fighting exactly the right guy. As Giuliani reminds us, Bush said "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." At least he’s definite about it.
And he’s not uncompassionate either. According to his wife Laura, he really thought hard about going to war. Like his father did before him, like all those great presidents she listed. What, she didn’t list George H? Gosh, I’m sure she meant to! And George W. probably thought really hard about how to make sure we did it with enough troops to make it quick and had a good plan for getting us out of there too.
Oh man, you’re telling me I’m wrong again? He didn’t go with Powell’s advice and have a lot of troops? He didn’t have an exit plan? Hard to believe. So he’s the kind of guy who doesn’t plan so much, takes action without thinking too much, but really sits up worrying at night before he does? Isn’t that a little sensitive? I’m mixed up again. And Cheney made fun of Kerry wanting a more sensitive war on terrorism. But Kerry said he would have an exit plan and would have had more troups. We don’t want that do we? That’s too sensible, uh, I mean sensitive
And speaking of great presidents, what about Eisenhower, who decided not to go to Vietnam? I’m sure he thought hard too. Maybe being a Four Star General isn’t a very good background for deciding to go to war. It should be easier for Kerry, since he was only a Lieutenant, and gosh, even easier for George W. and Cheney, who went out of their way to avoid service.
Ok, so back to that opening paragraph, questions answered, strength shown and philosophy elucidated. This little dialogue makes it clear that it boils down to this – Action über alles, thought unter alles. (For those of you that don’t understand fractured German – action over all other possible responses, thought the last possible response). Like a cyclops attacked, we come out swinging.
Oh, and if you’re namby-pamby enough to be concerned about medicare, health care, schools – How about that medicare bill that less than 20% of eligible seniors have taken advantage of, no plan for health plans, except to stop law suits against doctors, and grossly inadequate funding leaving the "no child left behind act" behind.
And the deficit? That’s for girly-men like Alan Greenspan, head of the federal reserve, who has been warning congress that it’s a danger. So, maybe George W. and his gang just change their minds and take action in a different direction, keeping themselves men of action and strength. I mean you don’t want to actually show you’ve changed your mind when you hear new facts. And maybe vote differently, like Kerry did. At least Cheney and Guiliani think that’s wussy. Better just to say they’re going to do one thing and do another without explaining, or ignore advice from people like Powell and Greenspan. And that’s Leadership for ya.
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 86
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 10:13 pm: | |
I think you have cracked the code on the RNC and on the maneuvers performed by the current administration during the past three years. Don't say it too loudly though. You could be in defiance of the Patriotic Act, which is making patsies rather than patriots out of all of us. |
Face
Real Name
Username: Face
Post Number: 358
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 10:22 pm: | |
Freedom isn't really free.
I genuinely feel sad for people who continue to focus upon all that is wrong and negative. I suspect that as they go through life they miss the chance to see all that is positive and benificial.
Too bad for them. Their glass is not only half full, the water itself is dirty has chemicals in it and it tastes bad. Besides it costs too much!
Those thirsty enough for freedom? |
Ed May
Citizen
Username: Edmay
Post Number: 2151
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 11:37 pm: | |
Carol
Welcome to Maplewood Online. Your post makes me feel like I am back at the convention again. Keep posting. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 126
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 11:46 pm: | |
Face,
Sounds like the same things Democrats were saying while Clinton was President, and the entire GOP was committed to doing whatever it took to get him out of office.
Politics is all about complaining about those in power. Strike that. Politics is all about throwing mud. The winner is typically the one with better mudslinging capabilities. |
Carol Flamm Reingold
Citizen
Username: Clflamm
Post Number: 2
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 8:29 am: | |
Wow, I started a discussion! How cool! I know I had a definite tone and point of view in my essay, but I was primarily interested in pointing out what was actually said and what was true and false and whether they matched up or not. Thus, far I've heard only emotional stuff about my point of view- how about the issues?
If you have positive stuff that was said (Face) and can match it up to the facts as they have been told to us, I'd love to hear it. Thanks.
Ed, If you enjoyed being told things that didn't make sense, I guess my point of view on the convention is for you. Keep listening, I'm sure you'll hear more.
While I do wish to persuade, even more I want to understand. What do you feel AND why do you feel what you feel? |
Face
Real Name
Username: Face
Post Number: 359
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
I wonder if John Kerry will share with us sometime this week just how you fight a "more sensitive" war on Islamic goons who will shoot children in the back.
I wonder also if the news media in this country will finally start identifying the enemy for what it is ... Islamic radicals, not "hostage takers;" Islamic terrorists, not "radicals;" Islamic murderers, not "gunmen."
We're are war, folks. We need to act like it.
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 3734
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 9:46 am: | |
Is that why you won't rise to Carol's challenge? |
Guy
Citizen
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 58
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 9:56 am: | |
Carol welcome to MOL , even though I disagree with almost everything you said. I will hit one point for now and come back for more later.
The Iraqi survey group never said that Iraq was not a threat. They stated that Iraq had the capabilities to produce chem and bio agents " on demand" or " just in time " and that they were planning on reconstituting full programs once the heat died down. This is just as dangerous as having stockpiles. Sounds like a threat to me.
The Iraqi Survey Group is set to realease a full report this month. |
Duncan
Real Name
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 2809
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 10:24 am: | |
quote:I wonder if John Kerry will share with us sometime this week just how you fight a "more sensitive" war on Islamic goons who will shoot children in the back
The first image that came to mind was Kent State. Dont think they are comparable but it goes along way to say that this is not as Black and White as some see it. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1617
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 10:27 am: | |
Face, kindly repair to the 'Russian Jets' thread, where I have been posting manically.
It does not appear that al Qaeda was very much involved in the Russian school siege. They may have financed the operation, but it was evidently planned and run by a well known Chechen warlord and some Ingushetians who have it out for N. Ossetians. The initial claims that there were Arabs among the dead hostages are not supported by former captives, who have said they saw no Arabs, and all of the leadership was either Chechen or Ingushetian. Yes, these people are Muslims, but this attack likely had nothing to do with Islamism per se.
|
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 11:18 am: | |
Carol,
You have to learn that facts and common sense mean very little to those who disagree with your point of view. I sometimes feel we are living in an altered reality when the two war Hawks that are occupying the President and Vice President positions attack their challenger, even though he volunteered for active duty, while these two war mongering cowards, did everything to avoid getting their hands dirty. Oh yea and then there's that morality and family values angle, they got that covered with their lies, DUI's, vehicular manslaughter and drug and alcohol ridden progenies, real "Father Knows Best" material this crew is. I'm also real proud that the POTUS announces that he's, "Not too good with the English Language", what a role model.
Yes these are dangerous times and we need someone with intelligence, leadership ability and military experience. Can't wait to see James Carville, help kick Rove's sleeze machine right outta the White House.
2 MORE MONTHS!!!!!. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 772
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 12:38 pm: | |
Carol,
Look,
Circular logic may work with like minded dems, but your post doesn't hold water.
HEre we go:
But wait, didn’t Hitler have a big, strong army? And what about Mussolini? In fact weren’t those armies bigger than ours? And they didn’t keep their people free. I mean, gosh, we fought them because they got too big didn’t we? No, you say, we fought them because they invaded other countries that hadn’t done anything to their country. Oh, that clears that up. So Miller was saying that big strong armies, that don’t invade other countries unless those countries threaten them, keep us free.
Oops, but wait! Didn’t we just invade another country that didn’t attack or invade us? That was different, you say? We thought they had weapons of mass destruction and were going to invade us? Hmm, and also that Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s leader, was helping out followers of Osama bin Laden, the crazy guy who masterminded 9/11? And even worse, that Hussein personally had something to do with 9/11. Oh, right. I mean, Dick Cheney said at the convention "In Iraq, we dealt with a gathering threat, and removed the regime of Saddam Hussein." And he should be up on the lastest info.
It is the soldier that keeps us all free, OUR soldiers! There will always be leaders with big armies that don't believe as we do that freedom and liberty are the most basic of human rights. Miller was saying that big strong armies that believe in freedom and liberty, invading cuntries has very little to do with it. There will always be tyrannical leaders with big armies (of fanatics) that endeavor to attack our way of life. It is our soldiers that keep them from succeeding.
As for invading Iraq, there were and are many many reasons for the invasion. WMD was one of them, and the reports have been inconclusive so far, they haven't found "stockpiles" but have found traces, and have found an infrastructure that could be used in short order. But that was only one reason, others include:
Saddam signed a cease fire in 1991 WITH US (not the UN mind you), that required he allow inspectors unfettered access, agree to no fly zones, and elimnate missiles and other weapons AND PROVE HE DID SO. He violated almost EVERY condition of the cease fire.
Iraq had ties to terrorist organizations including Al Quaeda (there are ties, not to 9/11, but to AQ), Hamas, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Islamic Jihad, and Jemaaya al Islamiyaa (sic).
Add in all the humanitarian issues that Saddam inflicted, and that Iraq is now a strategic bulkhead for the US in the Middle East and you have great justification for the war.
Ok, so we’re the "liberators who choose", not in the "big armies that invade" jeopardy category, and better damn well not get those two confused. As Miller says, "And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators." He must be right because in my guts I know we’re different from Hitler and Mussolini the occupiers, but how?
That statement is so disgusting that I won't even dignify it with a response except SHAME ON YOU.
We are building a democracy in Iraq, it is hard work, and will be tough to do. But the Iraqui constitution is the most important document ever produced in the Middle East.
Hmm, how did those guys get into power anyway? Hitler was voted in, right? And then he changed the laws. Of course you’re right, that wouldn’t happen here, because we have a constitution. Ah hah, that’s the difference. In fact, that’s what different in Iraq! We want them to have a constitution and be free like us! So why aren’t we doing that in North Korea, China and all those other places? Oh, we’re the selective liberators, right. We go in when our constitution, our way of life in threatened. Confused again, I mean Iraq never threatened our constitution.
We are doing it in North Korea and China and all of those others, its all part and parcel of the vision and strategy that our president has for bringing liberty and justice to all.
NK is engaged, China is pressuring them to back down, and eventually we will either break them down economically (probably our best shot, they simply can't afford to build Nukes) or have to invade. But invasion is a long shot there since, unlike Iraq, they are strategically useless. As for China, they are opening up more and more each day. Capitalism is creeping in, and its just a matter of time before their communism turns into socialism and then to democracy. A generation, 2 at most. They also aren't a threat to us. They are a partner in trade, and they don't want to lose us more than we need them.
Iraq DID threaten our constitution, the shamelessly ignored teir obligaions under the 1991 cease fire, various UN resolutions (for whatever they are worth), and continually fired on our planes in the no fly zone that Saddam agreed to. Letting this go on emboldened each and every dictatorship and terrorist. It had to be stopped.
Oh no, you say that Saddam’s repressive regime actually prevented terrorists from building a power base and that we’ve opened up the area for many terrorists to meet, train and plan? As well as gotten a whole bunch more people mad at us and wanting to be terrorists. Oy.
BS! First the only real terrorist power base was Afganistan, then Iraq took some of the outflow after we invaded Afganistan. Terrorists don't use or need a "power base", but having them concentrate on Iraq and fight our troops is far better than them fighting on our soil. We aren't making more people want to be terrorists, that is a red herring akin to the red herring about us supporting Israel creates terrorists. Ther hate our way of life. They don't believe in freedom or liberty. They don't need any reasons, and our invading Iraq did nothing to create more terrorists, they would grow anyway, but we are killing them as they sprout up.
Oh man, you’re telling me I’m wrong again? He didn’t go with Powell’s advice and have a lot of troops? He didn’t have an exit plan? Hard to believe. So he’s the kind of guy who doesn’t plan so much, takes action without thinking too much, but really sits up worrying at night before he does? Isn’t that a little sensitive? I’m mixed up again. And Cheney made fun of Kerry wanting a more sensitive war on terrorism. But Kerry said he would have an exit plan and would have had more troups. We don’t want that do we? That’s too sensible, uh, I mean sensitive
We took over Iraq in record time. Shock and Awe. It worked. Its just silly to think that this war isn't being fought well. 18 months, 200,000 deployed, and less than 1000 dead! Thats unbelievable! We took over a goddamn country people!
The exit plan is and has always been, A constitution, elections, and a free government capable of supporting itself. Once that happens insurgencies will fade away. And its on schedule.
Did they underestimate terrorist insurgency? Maybe, but its militarily insignificant. The country is developing. Most Iraquis are happier now than under Saddam. They want the US out, and they will get what they want, when they are ready.
As for sensitivity, no, that is the last thing we need when it comes to dealing with threats. GWB is compassionatte when it comes to going to war, compassionatte with regards to sacrifice that we as a country will have to make. Kerry is sensitive to any and all criticism. That is no way to run an organization, let alone a country.
Oh, and if you’re namby-pamby enough to be concerned about medicare, health care, schools – How about that medicare bill that less than 20% of eligible seniors have taken advantage of, no plan for health plans, except to stop law suits against doctors, and grossly inadequate funding leaving the "no child left behind act" behind.
20% is pretty good since it doesn't even kick in fully until 2006!
Last year when NJ had a doctors strike because of outrageous insurance premiums, did you care then? Its law suits that drive up the cost of medical care and insurance. If it were cheaper, more companies could afford to give it as benefits. Fix whats broken, don't break it more, as socialized medicine would do.
As for grossly inadequate funding of NCLB, that is a bunch of hooey. It is nothing but spin that adding accountability to schools costs so much more than the 30% increase that education got from NCLB. Teachers unions are afraid of losing their monopoly and bad teachers are afraid of being fired. NCLB is a mandate for accountability, and didn't need half the funding it got.
And the deficit, I don't like it either, but it is a tiny fraction of GDP, and the war on terror along with the ned for economic stimulus created the need to run one. Its not a big deal... yet.
Good post though it is all based on logical fallacy. Keep it up, but stop using the red herrings, straw men, and circular logic to make your points.
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 3768
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 6:41 pm: | |
Michael,
Thanks so much for your post. I read it with interest and it made me think more fully about what I was trying to say. These things take me time to formulate as well, so I'm not a quick responder.
Let me explain a few things. Miller's statement was "For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest."
I take a lot of exception with the word 'given' there. To me it is our constitution that gives us our freedoms. It is that that we need to protect, and part of the protection is our soldiers, but not all. What was stated was that soldiers "give" us freedom, and to me it is dangerous thinking to forget about our constitution.
I chose to get to this point circularly in order to make other points along the way. It was an artistic choice. This is the logic it was based on - it's' there, it's just not linear. This is not the same thing as circular reasoning.
As for invading Iraq, there were and are many many reasons for the invasion. WMD was one of them, and the reports have been inconclusive so far, they haven't found "stockpiles" but have found traces, and have found an infrastructure that could be used in short order.
Actually that's not so, here is an article - one of many that can elucidate http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/08/iraq/main592164.shtml
Iraq had ties to terrorist organizations including Al Quaeda (there are ties, not to 9/11, but to AQ), Hamas, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Islamic Jihad, and Jemaaya al Islamiyaa (sic).
I would like to see where Al Quaeda's ties are confirmed, I have not seen that. In fact, Bush himself admitted that there were no ties. Do you have a link to some articles which dispute him? I know he was supporting the other groups in different ways. However, that was never mentioned as a reason for war by Bush. There was a lot we could have done, and I wished we had, diplomatically to change that.
Add in all the humanitarian issues that Saddam inflicted, and that Iraq is now a strategic bulkhead for the US in the Middle East and you have great justification for the war.
For you, that may be justification, and as I said in my post, For me it begs the question as to why aren't we going into other places where there is as bad or worse humanitarian issues? And if that is Bush's reason for going in, why hasn't he said that?
As for a strategic bulkhead, I don't think going into a sovereign nation to get that, without having more reason given,is justified by that reason alone. And Bush hasn't given that as a reason for our invasion.
Ok, so we're the "liberators who choose", not in the "big armies that invade" jeopardy category, and better damn well not get those two confused. As Miller says, "And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators." He must be right because in my guts I know we�re different from Hitler and Mussolini the occupiers, but how?
That statement is so disgusting that I won't even dignify it with a response except SHAME ON YOU.
Sorry! Do you think I was saying we are like Hitler and Mussolini? I wasn't. Not sure why you think it was shameful. Wasn't trying to hit below the belt. I was saying our intention is different, but that we are occupiers none the less. ( and yes, being dramatic about it)
We are building a democracy in Iraq, it is hard work, and will be tough to do. But the Iraqi constitution is the most important document ever produced in the Middle East.
Yes that is what I followed up with. And once again, what gives us the right to do that there and not elsewhere?
We are doing it in North Korea and China and all of those others, its all part and parcel of the vision and strategy that our president has for bringing liberty and justice to all.
NK is engaged, China is pressuring them to back down, and eventually we will either break them down economically (probably our best shot, they simply can't afford to build Nukes) or have to invade. But invasion is a long shot there since, unlike Iraq, they are strategically useless. As for China, they are opening up more and more each day. Capitalism is creeping in, and its just a matter of time before their communism turns into socialism and then to democracy. A generation, 2 at most. They also aren't a threat to us. They are a partner in trade, and they don't want to lose us more than we need them.
You make some important points, and I agree, trade is one of the most valuable ways of getting communication to happen amongst countries. I have no idea if it will end in Democracy, no one does, but I have no doubt that it will open people to new ideas and from this comes growth in whatever direction it may take those people.
Iraq DID threaten our constitution, the shamelessly ignored teir obligaions - It had to be stopped.
I don't disagree, and we were inspecting, Saddam was making constant concessions before we went in, our Afghanistani invasion definitely had an effect on his thinking. I disagree by the means to stop him.
re: Irag being a new terrorist base and inspiring new terrorists -First the only real terrorist power base was Afganistan, then Iraq took some of the outflow after we invaded Afganistan. Terrorists don't use or need a "power base", but having them concentrate on Iraq and fight our troops is far better than them fighting on our soil. We aren't making more people want to be terrorists, that is a red herring akin to the red herring about us supporting Israel creates terrorists. Ther hate our way of life. They don't believe in freedom or liberty. They don't need any reasons, and our invading Iraq did nothing to create more terrorists, they would grow anyway, but we are killing them as they sprout up.
Well, for me, I see that people have reasons for what they think and feel. You say they may not need them, but, believe me they have them. I may not like or agree with their reasons, but they have them. It does us no good to not know what those reasons are. I postulate that an invasion, done without a clear justification, is a reason to make some people hate us and that that hate is part of what makes people terrorists. You may disagree, you may even think that they don't have reasons for things. If you do that, you are in danger of dehumanizing them, as they do us.
As far as power base, I don't think Tommy Franks agrees with you. http://www.yobserver.com/news/printer_1952.html
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040905_1448.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131516,00.html
We took over Iraq in record time. Shock and Awe. It worked. Its just silly to think that this war isn't being fought well. 18 months, 200,000 deployed, and less than 1000 dead! Thats unbelievable! We took over a goddamn country people!
1000 people is not the end of it, unfortunately. Bush thought we were through when about 200 had been killed and said so.
The exit plan is and has always been, A constitution, elections, and a free government capable of supporting itself. Once that happens insurgencies will fade away. And its on schedule.
Perhaps we have different definitions of exit plan. For me, it is a plan to get the above mentioned items in place. I haven't seen a schedule, I am not aware of one. Have you seen one? Please send a link.
Did they underestimate terrorist insurgency? Maybe, but its militarily insignificant. The country is developing. Most Iraquis are happier now than under Saddam. They want the US out, and they will get what they want, when they are ready.
Not sure of your definition of militarily insignificant. For me, it's quite significant to date, and seem to be getting more so. As far as people there being happy - we can only go by reports from people who have been there. I recently heard a report from a soldier who was a part of the invasion and felt the people he met were, in general, less happy.
As for sensitivity, no, that is the last thing we need when it comes to dealing with threats. GWB is compassionatte when it comes to going to war, compassionatte with regards to sacrifice that we as a country will have to make. Kerry is sensitive to any and all criticism. That is no way to run an organization, let alone a country.
Please provide examples of Kerry being sensitive to criticism, I have not seen that at all. I think he's saying he would have a plan as to how to spend our vast, but limited resources more efficiently in this war, when he says a more sensitive war.
20% is pretty good since it doesn't even kick in fully until 2006!
Actually the number is around 12%, but I don't have it exact. Most congress officials were expecting many more to sign up by now for the cards, which are only good until 2006, as you say.
Last year when NJ had a doctors strike because of outrageous insurance premiums, did you care then? Its law suits that drive up the cost of medical care and insurance. If it were cheaper, more companies could afford to give it as benefits. Fix whats broken, don't break it more, as socialized medicine would do.
I haven't looked into this as much as I would like, but I think some reasonable limits are not bad. I just think we need more. I'm self-employed, insurance cost is almost prohibitive. I've had fights with almost every insurance company I've ever had when they refused to cover certain things. I've taken Blue Cross to court and won. I fought with another insurance company and got ruled against because their expert Doctor lied about what some papers said that only he had and that I later got. Something else is really wrong besides law suits, and I know I'm not the only one affected.
I'm interested in what you have to say. I think we all need to distinguish between what are our opinions, what are other's opinions, and what are the facts as we have been told. Opinions are neither straw dogs nor Red Herrings as far as I know. No one has "the answers", or the only right way, whether they be Bush, Cheney, Kerry or Bin Laden. |
Carol Flamm Reingold
Citizen
Username: Clflamm
Post Number: 3
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 10:50 pm: | |
from Carol Reingold, even if Tom'c Picture comes up. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page