's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Game over. Let the missles fly.(45 posts)

Game over. Let the missles fly.OldEdScott
Mar 5, 2003 8:36 AM
From the NY Times:

Diplomatic Lines Harden Before Crucial U.N. Meeting on Friday

PARIS, March 5 — In a serious challenge to the Bush administration, the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Russia said in a joint declaration today that they would not permit passage of a Security Council resolution authorizing the use of armed force against Iraq.
re: Game over. Let the missles fly.Alpedhuez55
Mar 5, 2003 8:54 AM
Guess we will have to act based on the resolution they already approved last year!!! They can try to find another tyrant to buy their oil from.

Mike Y.
We screwed up by ever asking for permission.DougSloan
Mar 5, 2003 8:56 AM
GWI screwed us by making it appear in preparation for GWI that permission from the UN was necessary before we take military action. It set bad precedent. I don't recall it happening before that, but could be wrong. Problem with asking for "permission" is that it makes it appear that approval is necessary, when it never was. While building consensus and a coalition is helpful, it was never required.

We are a powerful sovereign country, perfectly capable of waging war, policing, or giving humanitarian aid all by ourselves. Certainly, that power should not be abused, but it is not subject to the approval of other countries.

Yup. It's a fait accompli. The human shields better be moving on...

Jeez, what a D1ck. nmRimfired
Mar 5, 2003 9:28 AM
We sought approval because this war is different...PdxMark
Mar 5, 2003 9:36 AM
This is not a war of self defense in response to an attack or an imminent attack on us, or an ally, or anyone else. Self defense does not require any approval by or notice to the UN.

This war is being launched by us to preempt Iraq's WMD from being used against us. Weapons he has had for 20 years with no indication of intent to use against us. We are the aggressors, and we are putting the American stamp of approval on preemptive attacks and war. This is a war reflecting our post-9/11 fears, not any actual Iraqi aggression, or threat of aggression, against us. Colin Powell understood this, once, but much of the Bush Admin never did.

To obscure the shocking reality of why this war is coming, we also hear about how evil SH is (he is), about his murdering Iraqi civilians (he did), attacking neighbors (he did), etc., but that's all just rationalization, not the reason for the war. Ask yourself, would GWB send 300,000 Americans to avenge Iraqi Kurds and Shi'ites murdered by SH? No. Are Iraq's neighbors asking us to protect them? No.

This war is not about them. Nor is this war about UN sanctions. The US is concerned about Iraq, not the sanctity of UN sanctions.

We are now giving American approval to the rationalization of every country and terrorist group in the world who decides to attack us because of the potential "threat" we pose to them. That's the new standard for a supposedly just war being set by GWB. The start of the war will be a dark stain on the history of the US.
same thing said in cold warDougSloan
Mar 5, 2003 9:43 AM
Liberals are nearly always against any conflict at the time, yet jump on the band wagon after people are liberated and become free.

Check this book out:

Since when, no matter what the subjective intent, is ridding the planet of an absolutely evil, murdering, dishonest, dictator a bad thing?

My prediction -- 5 years from now all the protestors will happily tell everyone there are glad Saddam is gone and that the Iraqi people are free (how about those Afghan women now?), but they'll never acknowledge, much less thank, Bush or America for making it happen.

Just for the sake of at least in-the-ballpark accuracy ...OldEdScott
Mar 5, 2003 9:50 AM
Liberals supported the war in Afghanistan, and (specifically BECAUSE of the treatment-of-women issue) had been among the earliest advocates of some type of intervention against the Taliban.

It's fair to say liberals are generally less bellicose than conservatives. Unfair to say we reflexively oppose all wars. I daresay the Serbian war was a 'liberal' war, as were others.
Mar 5, 2003 10:10 AM
I do recall hordes of protesters on the news, and passed a bunch daily on the way to and from work here. I admit, though, that I do not know specifically that they were card carrying Liberals, and no doubt many Liberals did approve of that war. It's just that there are appear to be more after-the-fact supporters than before or during. I even recall some nasty discussions here about whether we should invade.

I agree it would be unfair to say Liberals reflexively oppose all wars. It's probably more accurate to say that Liberals are more inclined to support a successful war after the fact than before, or that they are more tolerant of murdering, oppressive, dictators and regimes than are Conservatives. Also, much of this is highly affected by which party happens to have the Oval Office at the time, I'll admit.

You live in California, where even Liberals can be nuts.OldEdScott
Mar 5, 2003 10:32 AM
I have to chuckle at your rhetorical style, where you commonly 'admit' or 'agree' to something right before you proceed to bash liberals with even more egregious generalizations. Very lawyerly!

For the record: I'm a liberal, my friends are liberals, and I actually know what liberals say, think and do. (I don't just see 'hordes' of them on the news, or 'pass a bunch' on the way to and from somewhere). I have never known any liberal, not even one, to support a war after the fact, just because it was successful. That's ridiculous, and I'm not even sure what your point is anyway. And I consider it borderline politically libelous to say that we 'are more tolerant of murdering, oppressive, dictators and regimes than are Conservatives.' You have your bad regimes (Nixon/China) and we have ours (Cuba, maybe) but no one in America, left or right, sits around saying 'He's a murderous tyrant, but we like him.'

C'mon, Doug, you can argue better than that!
Ed, you're my new cycling superhero.Silverback
Mar 5, 2003 10:48 AM
But--and I say this with all due respect for his views and his freedom to express them--you'll never win a debate with Doug because he's completely untroubled by uncertainty. I don't even bother to respond anymore unless it's necessary to keep me from breaking out screaming and cursing, so the boss comes in to see what I'm doing.
We, he DOES have a 1980 Bianchi with DT shiftersOldEdScott
Mar 5, 2003 10:50 AM
So he can't be all bad.
Wouldn't want to get you firedDougSloan
Mar 5, 2003 11:01 AM
Ok, I'll try to be more troubled by uncertainty. Wouldn't want to get you fired.

Ed is the most fun to debate, though. He's about the only one who maintains perspective and will concede a point, even if it means temporarily abandoning his ideology or party. Lot's more fun than most. Hey, he needs a "straight man" (i.e., provoker), though. :-)

I always tell my clients that humor will much more likelyOldEdScott
Mar 5, 2003 11:12 AM
get them elected than hot-eyed ideological purity. I also tell them that people appreciate it if you admit you don't know every answer to every question. I further tell them that people will shower you with love & forgiveness if you admit it when you're wrong.

I also tell them that Republicans, while wrong about everything, are patriots too and should be treated that way.

Those are four messages hard to beat into candidates' heads in the current poison atmosphere.
You are a good, even if misguided, man. nmDougSloan
Mar 5, 2003 11:17 AM
Wow. A compliment fromOldEdScott
Mar 5, 2003 11:29 AM
Conservative scum! ;-)
Do I have to keep telling you...DougSloan
Mar 5, 2003 11:36 AM
...Libertarian. Problem is, you gotta stand on one sideline or the other if you want to play, and the C's are much closer to Libertarian ideology than the Liberals (at least right now).

I realize that should make me an isolationist for the most part. I would be, too, if the world would leave us alone.

All RIGHTOldEdScott
Mar 5, 2003 11:43 AM
Libertarian scum, then. :-)

But I've always said, if it walks like a conservative, and quacks like a conservative, and vilifies liberals and Bill Clinton like a conservative ...
Mar 5, 2003 12:24 PM
Surely as a liberian you can be either conservative or liberal depending on the nature of the books you keep?
old thread re war in Afghanistan - Guardian againstDougSloan
Mar 6, 2003 10:43 AM
So, what do we think in hindsight?
and this...DJB
Mar 8, 2003 5:07 AM

From an article about the recent world-wide "peace" marches:

"The organizers say the February rallies were first agreed upon at a small strategy session in Florence in November. But their roots go back to the days just after Sept. 11, 2001, when activists say they began meeting to map out opposition to what they anticipated would be the U.S. military response to the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon.
In Britain, according to organizer John Rees, several hundred activists first got together the weekend after Sept. 11. Most were from the hard core of the British left -- the Socialist Workers Party, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the anti-capitalist organization Globalized Resistance, along with Labor Party legislators Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway. Within weeks, they had combined with representatives from two more important elements -- Britain's growing Muslim community and its militant trade unions. By October they had a name: the Stop the War Coalition.
More than 50,000 demonstrators came out in London for an October 2001 peace rally; the same numbers protested in November against the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan."

The notion that the hard-core left supported the war in Afghanistan is just wishful thinking. I'm sure that Ed and many, many others on the left DID support military action, at least out of a sense of self-defense due to 9/11, but the heart of today's "peace" movement is reflexively anti-American.
It's a bad thing if...PdxMark
Mar 5, 2003 10:09 AM
We start the fight. If we invade a country that's not at war with, or threatening imminent war, on someone else.

I don't pretend to speak for Liberals. I supported GW1 and the war in Afgahnistan. I'm speaking for myself and my understanding of the basis of THIS war.

What wars did we start during the Cold War? Well, Gulf of Tonkin was pretty thin, but that war was already going and Gulf of Tonkin was what justified our stepping in directly. Who in history have we preemtpively launched war against? Let's see.... the Spanish-American War, maybe. That was a high point in American foreign policy. We at least thought they blew up an American warship (though it may have done itself in).

Give me some examples of a country that has justly attacked another preemptively. I'm willing to agree Israel's preemtpive attack in the 1973(?) war was jsutified by the imminent threat posed by massing Arab armies. How about a preemptive war that did not have such an imminent threat? Help me reconcile the Bush Doctrine with the behavior of civilized countries.
the Cold War was, well, coldDougSloan
Mar 5, 2003 10:17 AM
The Cold War wasn't "started" or fought in the conventional sense; thus, its name. It was fought through military superiority, tough talk, and the stated willingness to stop aggression or retaliate. We did fight the cold war, and all along the way Liberals were largely against what we were doing, that is, military spending, arguing the money was better spent on social programs, etc. If not for Reagan and our "fighting" the cold war, the Soviet Union probably would still exist in all its glory, oppression, and threat.

So the one example of a preemptive war...PdxMark
Mar 5, 2003 10:24 AM
is a war without shooting? And how does that support a hot war in Iraq?

Also, if possible, let's try to discuss this war on its merits. Attacking Liberals at each step of the discussion is probably fun, and is a seemingly necessary step in any policy discussion by Conservative radio talkingheads, but I don't understand how that supports justification for GW2.
Hell, Liberals STARTED the Cold War! nmOldEdScott
Mar 5, 2003 10:34 AM
yes (if you mean Kennedy?), but who finished? nmDougSloan
Mar 5, 2003 10:46 AM
Gorbachov, if I recall rightly. nmOldEdScott
Mar 5, 2003 10:49 AM
Good one. :-) nmDougSloan
Mar 5, 2003 10:49 AM
Gorbachov, if I recall rightly. nmOldEdScott
Mar 5, 2003 10:54 AM
Truman/Eisenhower nmBrooks
Mar 5, 2003 10:58 AM
Meant as Cold War started earlier than Kennnedy. nmBrooks
Mar 5, 2003 11:00 AM
So the one example of a preemptive war...PdxMark
Mar 5, 2003 10:34 AM
is a war without shooting? And how does that support a hot war in Iraq?

Also, if possible, let's try to discuss this war on its merits. Attacking Liberals at each step of the discussion is probably fun, and is a seemingly necessary step in any policy discussion by Conservative radio talkingheads, but I don't understand how that supports justification for GW2.
Classic SloaneBagle
Mar 5, 2003 10:29 AM
Quick! Stick a bunch of labels on people, then attack the meaning of the label. Mix it up with a bunch of general stereotyping and self-rightousness, and hey presto! The usual ranting devoid of an ounce of original thought, illumination, reasoned argument or rationality.

Please, let's have some SN69 and the others with a brain and the power of self-expression to go with it - just listening to Sloane droning on again and again is about as tedious as it can get.
you guys take these discussions far too seriouslyDougSloan
Mar 5, 2003 10:45 AM
Come on. Sometimes I think Old Ed is the only one who maintains any sense of humor or balance here. We even traded positions for a day, and had lots of fun doing it. It was funny watching the fallout, too.

We all engage in a little hyperbole and extremism now and then to make some points. Isn't the Liberal/Conservative/Liberarian ongoing feud pretty obvious? Besides, I'm not sticking the labels on. Some people wear them proudly!

If you prefer, maybe we could change the forum policy so that only people who agree with YOU have any rights to post, or rights of free speech, for that matter, so that you won't have to feel you are suffering through any tedious droning on... Come on, tolerance of everyone's right to state their beliefs, no matter how much they disagree with your own world view, should be universally supported. We do need some balance, too, don't we?

Don't take this so seriously. We are not solving any world problems here. We are having fun. You Liberals need to lighten up a bit and not be such party poopers. :-)

Libel! We Liberals LOVE to party! We're the Party of Parties!OldEdScott
Mar 5, 2003 10:47 AM
It's 60 degrees and sunny. I'm going riding! :-) nmDougSloan
Mar 5, 2003 12:00 PM
Classic Sloane128
Mar 5, 2003 12:55 PM
Well stated. But you missed the classic Sloanian finish once taken to task: The predictable backpeddle into "Hey, c'mon guys! Huh? Lighten up." The extreme right agenda comes across as vitriolic as I presume he intends it.

Politically, Mr. Sloan does not appear to be a heavy-thinking man. And insists on getting his ass regularly whooped by OldEd et seq! But alas, takes all kinds. One of which each we are.

Stopped listening too closely long ago once it went into reruns, but man, I think you (Doug) needed this check and balance (not that my opinion matters, but while we're on the topic, you know?). Cool the agenda.
And for the record: The 1st A right is not 100% guaranteed and you are not a libertarian just 'cause you maybe once voted that way.

Hope you had a nice hard ride and are totally stoned out of your narrow little mind. Yes, I'm jealous, (of the ride).

Carry on soldier.
oh, myDougSloan
Mar 5, 2003 2:41 PM
You might want to question your lofty superiority if you feel it necessary to wage personal attacks. Anyone who disagrees with you must be intellectually inferior and moral corrupt, right?

What do we need to do to be consistent, and so that anyone is not surprised by a "lighten up" plea? Put a footnote disclaimer in every post? What is interesting to me is that the left end of the spectrum, the ones who are supposedly enlightened, tolerant, and morally pure, are usually the first ones to attack, demean, and attempt to silence any opposition. It's certainly not all of them, lest I be condemned for generalizing, but there are a notable many.

You can do better than to personally attack; I know you can. That's a cheap, lazy alternative to real discussion.

Really, lighten up. This is a silly bike forum, not the floor of the UN.

More classic Sloan.czardonic
Mar 5, 2003 3:20 PM
Smearing the opposition for failing to meet high standards he supposes they hold themselves too. Naturally, he doesn't make "generalizations", he simply refers to the "notable many". And of course, he is too classy to name names. I'm sure it is a coincidence that in clouding his accusations in vaguery precludes any direct challenge to their veracity. (If it is cheap and lazy to attack someone personally, what is it to attack them by oblique insinuation?)

Or maybe this is one of his "toungue-in-cheek" posts.
same thing said in cold warMe Dot Org
Mar 5, 2003 11:46 AM
Concerning the Cold War and bandwagons: Although I was only 11 years old at the time, I certainly did not jump on the bandwagon after the Bay of Pigs.

But we are speaking of the Middle East. The cold war also brought the U.S. backed ouster of the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran. I don't think a lot of people were saying that "people are liberated and become free" when we helped bring the Shah to power.

For the record, now: If SH is overthrown and the people of Iraq are liberated in a relatively short period of time, I will be glad for them. Saddam Hussein is an evil, sadistic fascist, just as he was when we were supporting him. I'm pretty sure that, in strict military terms, the United States will defeat Saddam's forces quickly and decisvely. The question I ask is this: Is the United States made more or less secure after an invasion of Iraq?

I would be the first to admit that the answer to that question is unknown. I simply believe that the risks and unintended consequences of war are not worth what we gain. Are we really stopping the greatest terrorist threat to the U.S.? Bin Laden's Wahabi fundamentalism and Saddam's Ba'athist fascism are pretty far apart ideologically (the founder of the Ba'thist movement was a Christian Syrian).

After the Protestant Schism is Europe, the continent tore itself apart in the bloody Thirty Years War. The conclusion of that war, The Peace of Westphalia, was the beginning of the fall of religion as a source of temporal power in Europe and the rise of the nation state.

There has never been a corollary experience in the Islamic world. Politics and Islam are intertwined in the Middle East. Believing that democracy is a seed that only needs to be tended in order to flower presupposes that the soil it falls upon will support it. As we are discovering in Afghanistan, that soil is a little rocky. Even Turkey, the most "western" of Islamic countries, has voted against our use of their land, even with a multi-billion dollar carrot dangling in front of their depressed economy.

The Islamic world is not unlike the Jews, in this respect: They may quarrel amongst themselves, but nothing unites them like a perceived outside threat. Rightly or wrongly, the U.S. is perceived by a lot of Arabs as a threat. Administration officials are saying that a Democratic Iraq will make peace between Israel and Palestinians more likely. I think (and again, the future is cloudy) that the emnity that the United States will engender in the Middle East after an invasion of Iraq will make peace less likely. And as far as Islamic Terrorism goes, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the key, and I don't think the type of government in Iraq is as important as the mindset of the Israeli and Palestinian leaders. I doubt if the Sharon/Arafat generation of Leaders are going to be the ones to make the peace. The United States should be cultivating its relationship with the next generation of Israeli/Palestinian leadership.

As far as the link to the book: this is a bunch of bullet points to promote and titillate, not to advance an argument. The book "claims" a lot of things, but claims are not proof.

And as for liberals and the cold war, I would remind you that when Colin Powell was making his argument before the U.N., it was hoped that he would rise to the level of Adlai Stevenson.
Well argued, well said. nmOldEdScott
Mar 5, 2003 11:52 AM
Mar 5, 2003 9:11 AM
The only reason Sadam is destroying a few of his minor missles is the threat of 300,000 US soldiers ready to go.
He had 10 years and it takes this threat to get him to do anything. He needs to be blasted..
Whats Iraq good for anyways? I mean what have they invented? kids sandboxes?
Cradle of CivilizationBrooks
Mar 5, 2003 9:55 AM
according to some. Remember the Tigris and Euphrates rivers flow through what is now Iraq and Baghdad is thousands of years older than the US. With targeting missiles, hopefully the collateral damge to the beautiful, ancient buildings will be minimal. I would hate to see a repeat of the bombing of Dresden in WWII. Frankly, I would rather see Special Forces just target Saddam, if they can find him, than laying waste to the entire country.

Longfellow68- I hope you are not as geocentric and ignorant of world history and geography as you come across in your last line.
I hope you're just being glib, cuz otherwise you're scarey nmPdxMark
Mar 5, 2003 10:14 AM
I hope you're just being glib, cuz otherwise you're scarey nmlongfellow68
Mar 6, 2003 4:15 AM
I'm not being glib. I'm sick of this crap. hes never going away...And his sons will take over for another 50 years. Sick of the useless politics involved. the only thing this guy understands is a bullet in his head.
Why don't you go over there and try to reason with the man?
You'll probably be be-headed.
Mar 5, 2003 11:52 AM
the reason he is destroying a few missles is to continue the slow-walking so that the Germans and French can say the inspectors are creating positive results. French and Germany are saying that slow walking is acceptable... and for that, they are pansies.

Working in IT, I have coworkers that span the globe, and so it is good to see a wide range of views and what it comes down to is pathetic. Greed and political power, aid and finances or we veto "your" war... even though every single leader will agree that Saddam is an ass and a corrupt, pathetic leader that will starve his people... yet build huge palaces in every city...

Crazy thing is... GW should just back out and say... since we dont have UN consensus... we wont attack.. pull the boys out, cut off all financial assistance to France an Germany, slap nice tarriffs on all products, pull military out of Germany put it in Bulgaria.

Create a whole new policy that says stay out and let these countries bury themselves when they get attacked or there is regional instability. Heck... why the heck did we help anyone against the Germans in WWII... sheeshe, strong economy... sure, we'd all be living like kings if we didnt spend so much freaking money on other people... Let South Korea, China, and Japan worry about North Korea... let Milo go, let Hitler go...let Saddam overtake Kuwait, let all the people in Africa die of AIDs, sheeshe... this world is pathetic and blatently fickle. They cant see the forest for the freaking trees. Im rambling here... sorry. It all just shows the UN is worthless and corrupt. Lets get the heck out.