| Author |
Message |
ross koller (Ross)
Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 813
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 5:04 am: | |
art, thx. no i have not been to war because the draft that netted you was before my time; i did go to a military high school and had appointments to the service academies - but that is irrelevant.
i guess our difference of opinion on this war (simply put) is that you don't think we have to go and i think we do. as i said in my post below, times have changed and the old rules of not striking first are no longer valid in the post 9/11 world where we are the first target on everybody's list.
parallels to vietnam are not applicable in this argument. |
ross koller (Ross)
Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 812
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 5:02 am: | |
art, thx. no i have not been to war because the draft that netted you was before my time; i did go to a military high school and had appointments to the service academies - but that is irrelevant.
i guess our difference of opinion on this war (simply put) is that you don't think we have to go and i think we do. as i said in my post below, times have changed and the old rules of not striking first are no longer valid in the post 9/11 world where we are the first target on everybody's list.
parallels to vietnam are not applicable in this argument. |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1066
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 3:05 pm: | |
Ross:
Of course I'm glad to be an American, I even served in the Army during time of war, how about you? As to your coment about WWII minutia, those facts related directly to the issues you raised. One of the things I learned in the 60s when I was in the Army is that you don't go to war, unless you have to. That isn't the case here.
It's interesting to note that others who served during Viet Nam are starting to come out and their feelings are the same as mine. Take a look at the other threat long these lines, and you can see some of the posts.
Regards,
Art- |
ross koller (Ross)
Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 811
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 11:59 am: | |
blairs situation changed. he is no longer in such a precarious position within his own party, so bush can move the agenda forward without bothering with the un. |
Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member
Username: Vwalfa4re
Post Number: 771
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 8:41 am: | |
From what I saw on the news this morning Bush's balls appear to be growing back. |
ross koller (Ross)
Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 803
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 4:35 am: | |
art, thanks for elucidating on the minutiae of ww2. so when are you going to get around to owning up to being fortunate to be born american so i can stop prodding you about it.
JON, i think logical arguments are always the best place to start thinking about solving these problems. however, i also don't think that the same solution can be applied in all situations. despite the many similarities between the issues in iraq and nkorea, (to state the obvious) they are vastly different in terms of personality conflicts, alliances, geographic and historical baggage, endless details... which is why i have come to different conclusions as to what imho would be the best solutions; and most probably why our government is treating the 2 differently.
history is a useful well to draw from but every situation has new variables which alter the outcome; blind following of previous solutions for similar problems will not always yield similar results.
i think we should engage in war whenever we feel that the country in question has harmed us, or intends to do so. the litmus test of striking only once we have felt the pain, is no longer valid. we used to espouse that, in no small part because the worst of the pain was usually felt by somebody other than ourselves. post 9/11, we can no longer take the same approach. bush is responsible for our welfare, and if we had a repeat of 9/11, everyone would say that he should have prevented it and would be crucified for not having done anything. so he is driven to preemptive action by the necessity to preserve our way of life from perceived dangers. evidently his (and the pentagon/cia/fbi/nsa) opinion is that iraq poses a threat to us, whatever form that takes. whether or not our allies from previous times see things in the same way is irrelevant, because the reality of the situation has changed - they are not the ones who will feel the pain the next time, we are. so the decision to attack is also ours. if they understand this and agree, then so much the better. but currently their opinion is clouded by their own interests (economic and political), so they obfuscate and delay. too bad. |
wm hart (Whart)
Member
Username: Whart
Post Number: 799
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 9:57 pm: | |
BobD: Thanks for the link to that article. While in some ways, it offers insights into what should, to all of us, be obvious stating it in a congent way is sometimes genius.
For the benefit of those unwilling to read it, its thesis is that our problems with terror, WMD, etc. have less to do with an East v. West, Islam v. J-Christian, industrial v. nonindustrial clash, than with the "disconnectedness" of certain spots in the world from the larger glue that holds most nations to a common set of rules. Although the author is careful not to characterize "globalization" as a bad thing, he points to the fact that the hot spots in the world are ones which have little economic, cultural, or other connection to the rest of the world (eg China is not our enemy in this regard, even if fundamentally different in its culture and economics, cause it still is forced to participate in a world of generally accepted rules). Makes for a thoughtful read. Thanks again. |
Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member
Username: Nebulaclass
Post Number: 289
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 4:52 pm: | |
First, Jon, let me agree that this has been a great debate! Thanks for the civility!
I think I need to clarify my stance a little bit. I don't think Bush has chosen to invade Iraq because he feels for the people of the country. I'm pretty positive that there are hundred of ulterior motives fueling his war decisions.
But I don't mind. What I care about is the end result. If we go there for oil, for curry, or for camels, I could care less, because I'm failry positive that by removing Saddam, we'll increase the QOL for Iraqi citizens.
As for N. Korea, I think Kim should be shot and and his regime destryoed. Period.
But Bush has to do the whole "diplomatic" thing that all the rallying anti-war people want for Iraq. The US has been diplomatic with Iraq for 12 years....N. Korea has been in open violation for leass than a year now. While I'd love to see N. Korea invaded by US troops and given back to S. Korea, I understand that the US first has to make some effort to get him to fold before war breaks out. I don't like it at all, and I think actions needs to be taken sooner. But in the "diplomatic" world, I think the situation is being held correctly.
And finally, on what I think is the most important aspect of your response: the Iraqi citizen's will to fight for freedom.
I agree 100%; freedom should be given to those willing to fight for it. Why should the US go in and give them what they have not fought for? I agree....Iraqi people need to attempt their own revolt. But I don't see that happening anytime soon, for various reasons.
I feel that the only way for freedom to truly grow is for the people of whatever nation to evolve mentally into the mindset that would make liberty possible. I think if we step in, kill Saddam, and hand the country over to Machmud The Politician, we'll see another despotic regime in no time flat.
But, if we remove Saddam, and install a UN government, with elected Iraqi officials, and "control" the gov policies for a few years while Iraqis learn what true freedom is, then I think we might succeed. In essence, we'd have to baby-sit while the people of Iraq grow into total freedoms.
I don't know....maybe I'm being too idealistic. But in the immortal words of Spider-Man, "With great power comes great responsibility." If the US isn't willing to step into situations that are obviously morally bankrupt, then we need to relinquish our position as the world leader. |
Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member
Username: 95f355c
Post Number: 499
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 4:32 pm: | |
I'm of the school of thought that says "Let's look at out failures in the past and do differently in the future."
What failures are you referring to? My line of thinking is that we handled WWI and WWII perfectly. We didn't enter either war until we were threatened. I hardly see our policy in either of the two wars as a failures but rousing successes.
I guess we disagree on what were failures and what were successes.
Again getting back to your moral justification for helping the oppressed. Why is it that you and the Bush administration think we don't need to help the North Koreans? Do you think diplomacy is going to help those poor people? It hasn't worked up until now and it hasn't worked anywhere else (Cuba for example).
Why is it you feel we need to liberate the Iraqi people by war but find it perfectly acceptable to use diplomacy with the exact same situation in North Korea. Under your line of thinking it seem to me we should also be going to war with North Korean but unless I understood you wrong you don't feel the need to go to war with N.Korea.
Isn't this contradictory?
My desire is to see tyrants killed and democracies created. Plain and simple. I think it is horrendous for any ruler to subject his people to a dominating regime simply because he likes the power. In ANY instance where this is happened, we have a MORAL OBLIGATION to do something.
Nebula, I am in total agreement with your first statement about removing tyrants and creating democracies. But you know what, the folks who live under those regimes also have a moral right to do something as well and choose not to. How do you think this country was created? We fought back, we resisted and we overthrew those in power. We were a bunch of farmers with rifles and pitchforks going up against what was at the time the greatest military power in the world. Granted we had some help but David kicked Goliath's ass in that war because we felt strongly about our right to freedom and democracy.
Those oppressed peoples have a choice, fight for you freedom or die in chains. The argument that the strong must free the weak isn't a good one. If you are not willing to die or fight for your freedom and need someone else to do so then that freedom won't last long. There are plenty of countries that had democracies in place only to be overthrown by dictators again. Look at Pakistan. Great democracy for a few years but then Musharif took over. Granted he is not you typical dictator, but the bottom line is that the people were weak and democracy crumbled there.
Democracy and freedom isn't something you can take out of a textbook and sell to some country like a formula or cookbook recipe. The people have to believe in freedom enough to die for it.
One reason I absolutely despise most anti-war demonstrators is that they hide behind the strong and enjoy the benefits of freedom and democracy but they don't have the balls to fight or die for their country. They are nothing more than "freeloaders" who enjoy the benefits of our country but never want to admit the costs or bear them.
You're idea that we can just go in and liberate oppressed societies by removing the dictators and instituting democracy hasn't always worked well. Look at Haiti, Panama, and a dozen other countries that tried democracy and failed.
Bottom line is that we have the military might to remove any dictator in the world we want but it's a hell of lot harder to keep democracy in place for folks who have no stomach to fight for what they believe in.
Freedom and Democracy takes courage, determination, sacrifice and above all else a strong desire to fight and die for what you believe in.
Quite the opposite of your assessment of my belief, I do in fact think we have gotten it right for the past 250 years and are now making failures of our military might. We didn't attack other nations until they threatened our people, our shores or our interests.
This was the case in WWI, WWII. The Korean and Vietnam wars are a whole 'nother can of worms that could be debated. But lets get real, we didn't go remove the Taliban because we gave one •••• about their people, who were some of the most oppressed in the world. We removed them from power because they supported someone who attacked us.
Bush doesn't give a •••• about the Iraqi people either as well he shouldn't. While I don't agree with Bush's assessment of the current threat from Iraq I do at times believe that he does feel a threat from Iraq and has considered this one of the reason's for going to war. I can guarantee you the plight of the Iraqi people don�t figure into his agenda.
All the talk by his administration about the plight of those people is a smoke screen to be politically correct and win support from the anti war folks and liberals.
My belief is that people need to be willing to help themsleves first and if not that's their choice. Not to be getting off on a religious tangent but God helps those who help themselves.
Your idea that the US knows best and can defend the rights of the oppressed everywhere in the world sounds like some liberal elitist stuff that the Socialists and Communists preached for decades. We know better than you.
This has been an interesting debate and I note that you want to help the oppresses and have not problem with that. Hopefully I have not pissed you off with my opinion. I noticed you and some other F-chatters getting a bit verbal and that is far from my intention.
Just trying to keep a good healthy debate going.
Continue to fire back! well maybe a poor choice of words contuinue to debate my points!!
Regards,
Jon
|
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1054
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 4:20 pm: | |
As long as those attacks are against those who had something to do with 9/11, or the current attacks against our troops, yes. Anything else would be stupid, and probablly illegal. I would hope that we aren't doing that.
Art |
Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member
Username: Vwalfa4re
Post Number: 752
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 4:10 pm: | |
Arthur, based on the nature of your posts I am assuming you fully and completely support our attacking various places in Afghanistan. Am I incorrect? |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1053
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 3:08 pm: | |
Just ran across this little tidbit:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=736&e=6&u=/ap/20030314/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_forgery
Looks like our government is making up documents to justify their position. Maybe they learned this from Lyndon Johnson.
Art |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 2:48 pm: | |
Ross:
Again youre factually incorrect. Before we went after Germany, they declared war, and indeed took hostile acts against the US, by attempting (succesfully in some instances) to sink our ships, destroy our airplanes, kill our troops. Jon has it right: we have no business being a policeman unless we are directly threatened. In this instance, we haven't been, and while we may win the war in Iraq quickly, I think that long term this is going to be a disaster.
As to the comments re: Bush. Doesn't make an difference, he'll be out at the end of his term. The economy will take care of that. Voodoo economics were discredited with Reagan, who stole it from Kennedy (riught neither of them called it that, Bush's father did).
Art |
Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member
Username: Nebulaclass
Post Number: 288
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 1:47 pm: | |
Oh - and BTW - we didn't declare war after the Lusitania. Germany apologized profusely and agreed to never shoot a torpedo at any US ship or British ship carrying US passengers again.
It was the Zimmerman Telegram that brought us into the war.
And it is intersting that you quote all those specific times in the past:
Our involvement in WWI: The arms races that lead to WWI were "dismantled" after the War. We learned from that mistake.
Jews in WWII: We ignored thier plight, then saw the atrocities. Since then, the US gov has been VERY simpatheitc towards the Jewish world population.
Native Americans: We treated them like SH*T, and now they are in ruins. As a result, many programs are now in place to help them.
We are a product of our times. While we may have felt justified in killing thousands of indians 150 years ago, nowhere does that thinking exist today. We learn from our mistakes.
I'm of the school of thought that says "Let's look at out failures in the past and do differently in the future."
You are of the school of thought that says "Let's look at our failures in the past and vow to never put ourselves in a position where we might fail again."
|
Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member
Username: Nebulaclass
Post Number: 287
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 1:38 pm: | |
So Jon, what you are saying is that, based on our failures in the past, we should just give up any future endeavors to help others? C'mon, that's a crap out.
You are quite correct - there is no legal basis for using our military as a police force. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that our military should be used to help others in need.
At the same time, though, there is nothing that I have agreed to saying that I MUST help other people in need, a la the Good Samaritan Law. Does that mean I am morally justified in sitting by and watching a crime take place?
I guess if you want to sit on the sidelines and say "We didn't do a good job in the past, so were not going to try in the future", or if you wanna say "There is nothing that says we should do this, so we won't," then fine.
My desire is to see tyrants killed and democracies created. Plain and simple. I think it is horrendous for any ruler to subject his people to a dominating regime simply because he likes the power. In ANY instance where this is happened, we have a MORAL OBLIGATION to do something.
Go ahead and side with legal all the time. I'll side with moral. |
BobD (Bobd)
Intermediate Member
Username: Bobd
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 1:33 pm: | |
A friend sent the link to this article which puts the entire US effort into perspective. It's quite long, I printed it out and took my time reading it but it's very clear. Excellent reading and it clearly explains WHY we're going after Iraq and other hot spots throughout the world. Read this and it will all make sense.
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm
|
Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member
Username: 95f355c
Post Number: 498
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 1:15 pm: | |
By the way I think the native Indians would find your "moral obligation and right" to help the opressed a total failure. |
Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member
Username: 95f355c
Post Number: 497
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 1:10 pm: | |
Nebula,
we have an obligation as the most powerful military on Earth to step into situations where innocent people are robbed, injured, raped, killed, etc by their tyrannical government
You seem to have confused the role of the military with that of the police. The military's role is to protects the US (borders, people and national security interests). They are not a police force, peace force, nor a court system that solves the inequities or injustices of other nations.
Where is your "right" or "moral" obligation to help other peoples of other nations being robbed or murdered mentioned, not the US Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, nor our Decleration of Independance, Magna Carta or any other document that govers our Country.
Your willingness to help everyone in need is indeed noble but totally unrealistic. We didn't give a crap about the atrocities that went on in Europe at the onset of WWII. We turned away many jews trying to get to the US and only entered the war after Pearl Harbor. Same with WWI we only entered after the Germans sunk the Lusitania and killed a hunded or so Americans.
Under your theory, how do we choose to defend the rights of the oppressed in some areas and choose not to in other's. No possible way to go to every oppressed nation and help out. We would be left with a defenseless country and no military on our shores.
There is nothing in International Law or US law that permits us to attack a sovereign nation REGARDLESS of what is going on there unless it threatens our citizens, our shores of our vital interests.
While you can state "moral" obligations for your reasons these are irrelevant. What is moral to you and I may not be to others.
Cases can be made for war with a number of nations (Iraq or N. Korea) though I am not sure they are presently strong enough (lack of evidence). However there is absolutely no right whatsoever for us to be some of the places were currently reside or have resided.
We have had our hands in other people's cookie jars for way too long and it's starting to have it's consequences.
Jon
|
Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member
Username: Nebulaclass
Post Number: 285
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 12:38 pm: | |
Nearly every US state (might be all, I don't know) has a "Good Samaritan Law," making it illegal for one party to watch as another is robbed, injured, raped, killed, etc etc without lifting a finger to help.
Regardless of the "back-room deals", the shady operations, the lies, whatever.....we have an obligation as the most powerful military on Earth to step into situations where innocent people are robbed, injured, raped, killed, etc by their tyrannical government.
What are the real reasons why the gov is choosing this war? Honestly, I don't care. All I care about is the fact that the end (a free Iraq) justifies the means (whatever conspiracy theory is being touted this week.)
And I find it a damn shame that we didn't step in when Rwanda needed help, or when N. Korea started to brutalize its citizens, or when X dictator started killing Y citizens.
Just because we didn't help in those situations doesn't mean we should sit idly by and do nothing with this.
|
Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member
Username: 95f355c
Post Number: 495
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 12:17 pm: | |
Ross,
Three months ago I would have said you assessment of North Korea was spot on, but in recent weeks (past month) or so I have begun to wonder what N.Korea is trying to achieve. I am starting to wonder if they really only want more concessions or if something else is brewing. Some of their language has been quite different than in the past. It could be that this is their perfect opportunity to be the aggressor since they think we are occupied with Iraq. The proof will be their behavior after Iraq. If the resort back to their original approach with the Clinton admin. and the Bush admin. up until this fall then clearly this was all a result of Iraq's distraction. However if they continue the approach of the last months or so then we need to worry.
You are correct about China's worries about N. Korea. Some other F-chatters have stated that China is behind all this but that's not what the State Department thinks nor do I. China is getting worried and trying to show that they can be a valuable influence on the world stage in solving conflicts (as well as creating them). In this case China has been putting pressure on N.Korea in the last few weeks.
Correction: yes it's 36,000 US troops (150,000 total with S.Korea near the DMZ). My mistake.
As for Kosovo, that should have been Europe's problem. Part of the problem is that they expect us to clean up the mess. They know damn well from looking back at history the ramifications of letting things get out of control for too long especially in the region of Serbia where WW1 I started.
The bottom line is that we attacked a sovereign nation unprovoked. This sets a bad precedent and allows others to do the same. It's no different than Hitler attacking Poland, Russia going into Afghanistan, and so on and son on.
The Pre-Emptive doctrine allows others to do the same. First, it would be profoundly destabilizing, because other countries would surely follow America's lead. In India's eyes, neighboring Pakistan poses a graver and more immediate threat than Iraq does to us. And suppose China chooses to interpret some future U.S. arms sale to Taiwan as an "imminent threat" to its security? It's naive to think other countries will cede America an exclusive right to pre-empt.
Everyone will start using this excuse to attack whomever they choose.
|
ross koller (Ross)
Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 800
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 10:43 am: | |
we should get involved in conflicts that will eventually have an impact on us, and not in those that don't.
this is a very subjective criteria for engagement i will admit. so i will say this imho: we needed to be involved in kosovo because of what the ramifications might have been for the european continent and economy if we had not done so; we probably did not need to get involved in rawanda, despite their plight, because it would be difficult to connect it to our welfare.
we need to take out saddam because he is a threat to our future (whether or not he was involved in threats in our past). besides that he is a monster, and his abominations are well documented. we need to be the ones who do it because nobody else will have the courage of their convictions and be able to follow through on them.
i am not so worried about nkorea. (btw, the usa forces in the dmz number 36,000 according to the last newspaper article i read.)
the reasons i am not so worried about them are, i believe MAD will keep them from nuking anybody; i think china has some role in this game and they also won't allow the game to get too out of control since any nuclear fallout will be in their backyard; nkorea is essentially testing us to see if we can react to 2 conflicts at once, and they want some blackmail money.
besides all that, i think it is also a good opportunity for the usa to make the world sweat a little.
nkorea presents us with a similar scenario as iraq (in a broad sense). in the iraqi case you have the world decrying our unilateral approach. in the nkorean case, everybody is saying its a usa problem and we can deal with it on our own. whats wrong with this picture?
if you look at the situation in the coldest way, you could say that nkorea only really threatens skorea (again because i don't think they nuke anybody, the only thing they will possibly do is use conventional forces so their only target can be skorea). should we be worried about that? well YES since they are our ally; but NO because currently the skoreans don't want us protecting them anymore, have embraced the sunshine policy, and from a purely economic standpoint they probably need us more than we need them.
so we actually don't stand to lose that much (i know this is simplistic but....).
it is a problem that we will have to address, but i would not be in any rush, and certainly not while everybody is walking away from dealing with it.
once iraq is taken care of, i think we will be able to get china to either call the dogs off, or sit down at the negotiating table (and play charades). and once that happens, nkorea will cave again. |
BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member
Username: Bretm
Post Number: 3294
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 10:27 am: | |
One thing I don't understand is why we still wait for the U.N. Since its inception it has stood idly by watching millions be slaughter, in particular what comes to mind is the 2 million killed in the Sudan. All these aholes that ••••• and moan about not having the U.N. behind us need to learn to read and actually think for themselves, look at the history of the organization. |
Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member
Username: 95f355c
Post Number: 494
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 10:07 am: | |
Ross,
I am not sure how you can say we were needed in Kosovo or Africa. In going to Kosovo we attacked a sovereign nation that was 1) No threat to us AND 2) had not provoked us, attacked us or declared war on us.
What went wrong in Kosovo was no doubt horrible and sick but it's not our problem and we had no business being there. Before you attack me for being unconcerned with the plight of my fellow man consider the following:
1) 800,000 Rwandan�s were massacred in 1994
2) Mozambique's civil war saw the massacre of another 800,000 refugees doing its civil war, which ended in 1992
3) Pohl Plot and his awful Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia is reported to have executed nearly 1.8 million people in a four year span between 76-79
4) Congolese Civil War has claimed the lives 1.7 million refugees in the past 20 years with no end in sight
5) Sudanese war claimed 1,900,000 refugees many executed military style or burned to death
6) Ethiopian civil war one of the most brutal claimed 1.4 million people before it ended in 1992
7) In 1971 1.2 million people were massacred in East Pakistan
The list goes on and on. In fact I have just listed about half of the atrocities that have claimed many millions of lives in the past 20 years. If you add up the millions of massacred peoples on the 20th century you would be sickened at the number. By some estimates Mao killed 40 million people, Hitler 34 million, and Stalin 20 million. Hell Stalin was on our side at the end of WWII.
Go to: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm and you ca see some terrible numbers.
What is my point in all this? Simply put we cannot and should not be the cleaning lady for all the worlds� problems. It's impossible, plain and simple. Our military was not designed to provide aid to countries undergoing civil wars, revolts, or other problems that don't affect us.
A civil war in Canada or Mexico might be a cause for national security in our own back yard but not in Europe especially when all the other NATO allies sit on their asses and wait for us to clean up the mess.
I'll say it again; the US military is not an international pizza delivery service for every starving third world country or banana republic. Our military exists for one sole purpose to kill and destroy anything or one who threatens out security and freedom. The Serbs didn't meet that criteria and neither did any of the African nations we assisted (and ultimately got many US military personnel killed).
I know how simple it is to use the "North Korean" arguement to protest this war. But look at the facts:
1) We KNOW they have nuclear missles, we KNOW where and how many they are building
2) We have seen them fire them into the Sea of Japan
3) We have 150,000 US troops in DIRECT harm's way in the DMZ zone within eye sight of enemy forces
4) We KNOW the North Korean people are starving to death, many living off boiled grass and dirt
5) We have a very good idea that the current nut case's father masacred over 1 million North Korean over the past 25 years
6) AND they are engaging our reconnisance planes in international waters with MIG fighters and putting missle lock on US planes
7) We also know that North Korea has no valuable commodity (no oil or any other valuable natural resources) to sell on world markets except MILITARY weapons, specifically weapons of mass destruction.
8) We know they have one of the largest militaries in the world and spend 10 times what we do in terms of GDP on military spending.
Yeah, Iraq is a threat but looking at the facts I am a HELL of lot more concerned about the North Koreans.
Feel free to fire back!
Regards,
Jon
|
Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member
Username: Vwalfa4re
Post Number: 739
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 9:21 am: | |
That's a very good point, Ross. Would these same people have bitched if they were around when we went after Germany?
WITHOUT the benefit of hindsight, what is the real difference between our view of Hitler in early 1942 and our view of Saddam in early 2003?
Good point. |
ross koller (Ross)
Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 798
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 6:20 am: | |
art, i specifically mentioned germany because they did not strike us first, they did declare war, but so has iraq in more ways than one. and i am saying we were right to get involved in kosovo and africa. you either believe that we should stand up for what is right, or you don't.
as for your pro-bono work, great, glad to hear it. you are truly a friend of the downtrodden. but what i am trying to get you to recognize is that you are able to defend these people and get remunerated for it, only because you are doing so in america. no other country has the legal structure that you benefit from.
btw, california's problems can to a large degree be placed at gov.davis' doorstep, but i imagine you voted for him too. |
Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Junior Member
Username: Jaguarxj6
Post Number: 141
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 12:57 am: | |
As for California and the tech market, for it "being bad for quite a few people here", I have to seriously disagree unless your going to revise your statement to focus on a specific industry or a specific company.
I work in the tech industry, I've followed the tech industry for the last 15 years, and started honing my own computer skills before I was a teenager because I felt more then I realized what was coming. I'm 26 now. I had the vision but I lacked the maturity, the capital, and the necessary encouragement to make something of it.
Unless you were a dot-com'er who was laid off after having an over-inflated salary, or you capitalized on that so called bright spot in the tech industry to secure a fine salary and now you have no where to go, thats far from the majority.
People whine its so hard to get a nice tech job now, especially compared to the dot-com period, but what they don't tell you is, how many people who literally try to walk in off the street to compete for these jobs creates that illusion. And don't recognize that how many tech jobs exist now, even after the dot-com collapse. All the "bandwagoneers" who went back to school, obtained certifications, and are trying to crack the market without the talent or aptitude.
Those who were on top who aren't now, or those who just can't seem to land a tech job, my heart bleeds for you. Really.
Those in the tech industry who have what it takes, the knowledge, the talent, and/or the experience, have no trouble finding work. Period.
I have a High School education. I had to attend 2 summer classes after my graduating year just to graduate. With a high D average at that.
I switch jobs every couple of years because of one reason or another, and when I do, I command a 15-20% hike in base salary everytime as my experience grows. And while I'm working somewhere, 5-8% raises and bonuses each year with great benefits are par for the course.
I can find and switch jobs each month if I so desired. Though these would be lateral moves, its not difficult. I'm not certified, I don't have a piece of paper saying I'm educated. I've only been working in the industry professionally for the last 7 years and for fun 7 years before that.
You either have it, or you don't, and far more people then not competing in the in the tech industry don't. Those who do, earn well, set the pace, never fear recession or ever need to fear being unemployed.
On to the political bulls**t.
WHart is right, Clinton tried to please everybody and then his time in the oral.. I mean oval office was done. He put his •••• and his military where they didn't belong. If but for those two reasons alone, Bush is a far cry better. Clinton is one of the bigger reasons I left the service. I was offered a CS or EE degree all expenses paid and to become an officer afterwards to get me to remain, but I still declined.
Before you bash what a horrible job Bush is doing, rather then pointing the finger and assigning blame, why not try making a difference. Or fight to put someone you approve of in office. Otherwise, quit your bitching.
Sunny |
Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member
Username: Vwalfa4re
Post Number: 732
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 10:36 pm: | |
Hopefully, "for". Otherwise California may one day "tort" themselves out of various medical sub-specialities much like Navada and West Virginia. Nobody wants that. |
Horsefly (Arlie)
Member
Username: Arlie
Post Number: 856
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 9:07 pm: | |
But Art, if those people were riding the big money wave of the high tech industry, they should have earned enough money to last them through the bad times. Unless of course, they spent all their big earnings by living too high on the hog; like maybe buying Ferraris and overly expensive houses and such.
I think there is too much talk about people always loosing their shirt when they try to INVEST money in an attempt to make alot of profit without doing any actual WORK. Maybe if those "investors" had simply paid off their modest home, put some money in the bank, and been satisfied with their current status, then maybe they wouldn't have lost their shirt and ended up hiding in their bedroom as the bank foreclosure people knock at the front door! Some call it "investing in the market". It looks more like "trying to get rich without doing any actual work."
|
Craig (Beachbum)
Junior Member
Username: Beachbum
Post Number: 72
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 8:57 pm: | |
Art, can i ask a question, are you for or against tort reform |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1051
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 8:49 pm: | |
Arlie:
You live in an area, lucky you, that didn't have a dependance upon high tech. California did. You folks didn't get the rush of money, and as a consequence you didn't get the almost depression that came when the interest rates were raised, and people started taking money out of the market, and then it collapsed.
California is generally an economic leader, and when this gets to your area, you'll notice the difference. It has been pretty bad for quite a few people here, especially those with various computer skills.
Art |
Horsefly (Arlie)
Member
Username: Arlie
Post Number: 855
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 5:21 pm: | |
"the benifits you point out, 0% on cars, 3-4% on property financing won't matter much when folks in all income ranges get laid off. A great interest rate on your property doesn't mean much when you can't make the payment and your stuck owning a house that is worth LESS than you OWE on the mortgage."
Funny how with all the talk about bad economy, I don't know one person who has lost their job due to the "bad" economy. A friend of mine told me that his local title company was processing about 100 house sales each week. Their business is great. Funny how the "big guys" always manage to twist the facts and figures to logically show the little guy how things work. When the economy is good, the rich guy gets richer, and the little guy gets by. When the economy is bad, the rich guy still lives well, and the little guy manages to live better due to lower interest rates on his major purchases. What next, a big helping of Trickle Down Reganomics where the little guy is supposed to believe that his only way to success is to make sure the rich guys stay rich so that the little guy can get some of the used gravy that falls off the chin of the rich fat cats? No thanks.
|
Crusing (Crusing)
New member
Username: Crusing
Post Number: 46
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 3:50 pm: | |
Well said Study. I think there will be a two front war, no UN approval, a dead Iraqi dictator and a captured terrorist leader in less than a month, and the US out of the UN.
On a seperate note I also believe that 355 prices will be below $70K in the next month.
Then again, I may just be a dreamer. |
Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member
Username: 95f355c
Post Number: 493
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 3:50 pm: | |
Arlie,
You raise a valid point about who is getting hurt in this economic slow down (not a recession yet!). Clearly the folks at the upper range of the income ladder benefited the most from the dot.com hoopla and the years of 4-6% growth and the booming stockmarket. The folks at the bottom end didn't see any change or benefit from this growth and as a result are not being hurt by the downdraft either. However that being said I think the middle class (whomever you want to include in this group) is getting hurt as well especially the baby boomers who are about to retire. And sooner or later the lower income groups will be hurt by job layoffs as well.
While it may seem great to be able to finance property at 3-4% remember that those same low interest rates have created a huge price boom that can't last. It's not just NYC, LA and the big cities. I have a firend who owns some acreage in WV. He called the other day jumping for joy as it just appraised for 150K up from 90K three years ago (he bought it 20 years ago for 25K). He's thinking of selling it. Pitty the poor sucker who pays 150K for it with 4% financing only to find out it's worth 90K when interest rates go back up in a year or two.
We are creating another bubble in the housing market just like the stock market. I don't care if you live on Rodeo drive or main street WV prices are being inflated by low interest rates and people's willingness to shift money out of stock and bonds into real estate is compounding the issue.
In the case of cars, 0% financing is eating into already thin profit margins at the big three automakers and now with $2/gal gas SUV sales which are the big margin items are plummeting. Won't be long before thousands of autoworkers get laid off.
Same problem at all companies. People are worried about their jobs and it's not just the wealthy Ferrari folks, it everyone down the food chain. Companies are having to give their stuff away for free and as you correctly pointed out that benefits you, but at some point jobs will be lost. Cost cutting can only go so far until you run out of people to fire.
If you tally up the possible jobs that could be lost in just three small areas 1) Airline industry 2) auto industry 3) housing industry you could easily see the unemployment rate double.
In Japan they give money away. You can finance stuff at 1-2% percent, government bonds actually offer negative interrest when you factor in their less than 1% rates and the nominal rate of interst. Yet you would be hard pressed to find any Japanese people (of any income range) heralding the economy there.
Low interest rates are always a result of deteriorating economic conditons while higher interest rates are usually (not always) a sign of economic growth.
I think part of the problem is that folks think we have been in a recession the last three years and think wow things are not that bad. In truth we haven't been in what is technically defined as a recession (two negative quarters of growth). However, if we do go into a recession, unemployment will double and it will be the folks at the middle to lower income end that will get hurt the most as those jobs are cheapest to get rid of.
the benifits you point out, 0% on cars, 3-4% on property financing won't matter much when folks in all income ranges get laid off. A great interest rate on your property doesn't mean much when you can't make the payment and your stuck owning a house that is worth LESS than you OWE on the mortgage.
Not saying we are going to end up in this situation but it sure looks like we are closer to a recession than another growth spurt at this stage.
Jon
|
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 3:48 pm: | |
Arlie:
My morning commute is now about 30 minutes. PreBush it was about 1 hour. Traffic on BART (BayAReaRapidTransit) is down. At least in California, employment is way down. I'm told that this situation is common over much of the US. What I am referring to in my comment is that the economy is in the toilet, and it looks like it intends to stay there for a while.
While the interest rates are great, and the purchase opportunities are great, they are there for a reason: the economy is in trouble. I know that the government numbers don't show that to be the case. I think ther're mistaken, and that in fact we are in a recession or worse.
However, when the economy is poor, lawyers do very very well. When times are good, people let things slide that they won't tolerate when times are bad. I'm complaining because I think Bush is a disaster for the country, and although I am personally doing quite well, I think that without Bush, we'd all be doing better.
Art |
Horsefly (Arlie)
Member
Username: Arlie
Post Number: 853
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 3:08 pm: | |
Art, just one quick point. You mention that in a few years we will be back to "normal". I assume that you are refering to the economy. By "normal", do you mean back to 12 percent interest on auto loans and 8 or 10 percent interest on home loans? When everybody refers to the "bad" economy, it only seems to be "bad" for the rich folks who have gotten use to raking in money by the bagfull on a daily basis. Now we are at a time when the little guy can buy a new car for ZERO percent interest and can buy a new home for 6 percent interest or less. How is that "bad"??? I myself was looking at buying a piece of property with the interest rates at a 35 year low, but the deal fell through for reasons other than finances. A friend of mine just refinanced 3 pieces of his property and saved tens of thousands of dollars. My cousin is a loan officer, and he reports doing numerous refinance loans, and the real estate surveyors, appraisers, and inspectors are all doing a brisk business at this time. So why would we want to get back to "normal"? Who would want to pay MORE money for major purchases in life? I think the only people who want to get back to "normal" are the big shots who can't stand being unable to make huge profits and therefore they have to live more moderately like the rest of us "real" human beings!
|
wm hart (Whart)
Member
Username: Whart
Post Number: 792
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 2:40 pm: | |
We would not have the luxury of civil rights without protecting our nation. If civil rights means extending constitutional protections to the people bent on killing us, or destroying our system of government, i think we are bending over so far to protect the principle that we lose sight of what it is that we are protecting; namely, the right of each of us to pursue our chosen course without impingment by the government or others.
As to Bush ••••••• up, once he made the decision to go the UN route (which was probably correct, even if it cost time and military inertia), he was stuck with it. I think he needs the "majority" vote for PR purposes, whether or not France or Russia veto. My biggest concern is that the time window seems to be closing, the weather and sandstorms are already atocious and wreaking havoc with personnel and equipment, and the longer we wait, the worse it would get.
I can just see the reaction if Bush had ignored the UN altogether. As to going back to "normal," with somebody else after Bush, i don't see it. Say what you will about Bush's heavy-handedness, it would not have prevented 9/11 or much of the aftermath. Yeah, perhaps we wouldn't being going into Iraq, but the same issues would be there. Clinton tried to please everybody, and in the process, nothing concrete happened. |
Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member
Username: Nebulaclass
Post Number: 282
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 2:38 pm: | |
Art on politics: "Blah, blah, blah, blah, B!TCH and MOAN."
I'm sorry, Art. What was that? I can't hear you over the roar of your F355 and your airplane. Funny that you b!tch and moan the most about our oil policies, but with those two "toys" ALONE, you probably consume more oil than 30 americans. Thanks for the dependency, Artie!
Civil rights MY ASS. It's called a big fat paycheck for you. Enjoy it! |
James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Member
Username: Napolis
Post Number: 798
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 2:37 pm: | |
Art
Stocks are up.
Bonds are down.
The B2's are on route.
The missle carriers are going through the canal.
Oil is down.
Best
Jim |
Mark (Study)
Member
Username: Study
Post Number: 436
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 2:36 pm: | |
All the fuss in the UN is just a stall. Bush is not waiting for the UN he is waiting for Turkey to seat its new cabnet this weekend and give the second front one more chance.
A war with two fronts might take 3 weeks off the total time of the war, and or save American soliders lifes. This is why we have let it drag for the last few days. |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 2:29 pm: | |
Ross:
Let's take your arguments one by one:
1. If you recall, Japan attacked us on 12/7/41. Shortly thereafter, in accordance with their mutual defense treaty, Hilter declared war against me, and commenced hostilities against us. We kept out of that war until attacked. We did provide equipment to the Brits and others, but were not a combatant until we were attacked, and Germany declared war against us. You should study your history to make sure that what you are saying is accurate. I do agree that we should not have gotten involved in either Kosovo or in Africa without expicit UN approval.
2. I do quite a bit of pro bono work, but since most of the cases that I handle have provisions for attorney's fees, why in the world would I provide the miscreants (the defendants) with free legal services, when by law they are legally obligated to pay the plaintiff's fees if we win? I've always been a capitalist, and feel that water seeks its own level on economics. There is nothing wrong with doing something you like, and even making money at it.
What I gotten, I've earned and am proud of both the earnings, and what I've done.
Art |
ross koller (Ross)
Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 797
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 2:13 pm: | |
art, go ahead and voice your dissent as is your right, and one i prize highly. it will nevertheless carry little weight with me because it does not come from a position i can respect.
to explain:
you say that we should never attack any country that doesn't attack us first. by that logic we would never have fought the nazis, gotten involved in kosovo, rawanda etc. (it is an old argument but still valid). go ahead and tell me about all the conflicts we entered where the outcome was not great for us, but it will not negate my statement above.
you say that you put your money where your mouth is by being a civil liberties lawyer. this is indeed noble and what makes america great. but don't try to tell us that you do this out of the goodness of your heart. because if you did, then you would take all the cases pro-bono or give all your proceeds to charity. don't get me wrong, i am the biggest capitalist out there and never begrudge anybody making money. so a more correct statement would be that companies and individuals that you have sued on behalf of others, put their money where your mouth is. so just be honest about it; and don't forget that your job description and remuneration only exist in america |
TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member
Username: Tifosi
Post Number: 2982
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 1:45 pm: | |
"I seriously think that those who object to people expressing a different view than their own are a clear and present danger to the rights which we have."
Art, well said - this is why we must be agressive in getting rid of regimes that promote this and also carry WMD and threaten the world |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 1:33 pm: | |
Ross:
I'm not against my country: I'm against those who would pervert it. My country stands for freedom of expression. Those currently in power do not. My country stands for doing things the right way, with the aid and assistance of the other nations in this world. The people currently in power do not. My country stands for only attacking people who have attacked us. Those currently in power (and those who just left power) are not.
Perhaps the reason that I have accumulated a little wealth is that I put my effort where my mouth is: I am a civil rights lawyer. I represent those that need assistance when they are dealt with improperly by whose in power. It's a great position to be in: doing something that you love, and in addition you get compensated for doing same.
Ross: I seriously think that those who object to people expressing a different view than their own are a clear and present danger to the rights which we have. If we are to act as the Japanese do: inflexible in handling with dissent, then we can expect problems in maintaining our lifestyles, and standard of living. The current administration is proving that issue through its own incompetence in realizing that fundamental fact. We got this great by being diverse, and the better ideas pervailed. Countries that don't have that process generally haven't done as well. IMHO
Art |
TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member
Username: Tifosi
Post Number: 2980
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 12:45 pm: | |
Jon
it was not directed at you, it was at others who complain about the economy yet want to let this drag on forever. you and I are on the same page
regards |
Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member
Username: 95f355c
Post Number: 492
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 12:36 pm: | |
Tom,
I am not sure if your comment about the UN was directed at me or not. Despite my views on the war I have NEVER thought we need any UN approval. If you have read any of my posts over the past 4 weeks you will know that I think the UN is irrelevant and that we should have dropped out of NATO long ago.
The UN is about as relevant and beneficial to world affairs as the League of Nations was, which finally crumbled and led to WWII.
Trust me I have first hand information on the UN. My father worked for the original Security Council that applied the sanctions to Iraq. My father quit in disgust in late 1993 and wrote a book on the total joke that became of the security council and it's ineffective sanctions which starved millions of Iraqis, while Saddam had lobster and filet flown in for his Republican Guard.
I think the UN is an obstacle to peace not a purveyer (sp?) of peace.
A strong military promotes peace not a bunch of socialistic beucrats from third world countries and banana republics that chose to use their one measly vote to gain concessions from first world countries. That we need to be begging African nations the size of Rhode Island to support us is embarrassing.
The UN has had 12 years to sort out the mess in Iraq and it hasn't done anything positive.
Let me reiterate, if Iraq is a threat to our security (highly debatable) then it's not a UN mater. We don't need to ask for approval from any of the UN council members least of all Russia (Afghanistan and Chechnya), Syria or China.
If Bush was going to go to war no matter what the time was weeks ago after Blix's report in February. What the hell is a second resolution needed for? The first one has already come and gone with no positive result from Saddam.
The economy is already in bad shape. Look at consumer sentiment, manufacturing capacity, non-farm payrolls, unemployment reports and lastly oil prices. We were in decent shape in January heading into February now all that is down the drain and I can guarantee you that if he doesn't go to war this month (or concede he's not going to war) were in a recession by late May.
Every oil price boom over the last 60 years that resulted in sustained rise in prices more than 2-3 months has resulted in a recession.
Bush needs to drop the bombs this weekend or leave Iraq alone.
Regards,
Jon
|
Jerry W. (Tork1966)
Member
Username: Tork1966
Post Number: 536
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 12:13 pm: | |
Like I always say, if you don't like it here, either run for public office or get the F out! At least quit belly aching. |
ross koller (Ross)
Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 794
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 12:01 pm: | |
he isn't losing his courage, he was trying to help out blair from losing control of his government (and thereby his ability to help us). the perils of delay that you list are real though, and for that reason, and for the fact that waiting for this last roll call of the unwilling, is a waste of time, i agree that we should go in tomorrow.
art, you are very fortunate that you were born in the right country; no where else in the world could you be so vehemently opposed to everything your country and government stand for and yet still have amassed the wealth that allows you to own the cars and planes that you do and live your life as carefree as you do. complain and protest all you want, just know that coming from your mouth it sounds very hollow. |
Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Member
Username: Jim_schad
Post Number: 822
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 12:00 pm: | |
This war march is beating me down. Who cares anymore and what is the point? Why not just blast him away or get the F out of there and leave it alone. Let Sadaams' own people have a revolution and save themselves while we sell hamburgers and play video games.
Also, what is the point of having a vote for UN consensus if we don't care if they say no? I feel we have lost all competitive advantage other than sheer might of our forces/ability. |
TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member
Username: Tifosi
Post Number: 2978
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 11:47 am: | |
getting war over now will do the most for our economy - letting it drag on or letting the inspectors have another 6 months is the worse thing for the economy - the market hates uncertainty and the sooner it is done and over the better. Not sure how you can say we should not go to war without UN approval and then complain the time it takes to reach consensus is hurting the economy more |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 1040
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 11:43 am: | |
Jon:
He;s never been up to the job. I've always felt that he would be a disaster, and he has been. If he goes to war now, little will be accomplished, other than the destruction of our own economy.
You're absolutely right we've all been screwed over, not by intent, but by incompetence. Fortunately, this isn't the beginning of his term. He'll be gone in a couple of years, and we can attempt to get back to normal.
Art |
Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member
Username: 95f355c
Post Number: 490
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 10:08 am: | |
Read the story below as reported by Reuters and the other news outlets. Bush is now willing to wait another week for another useless resolution.
The worst possible outcome has been achieved by Saddam. He has been able to hold the process up long enough to create huge divisions and create doubt about the war and damage our economy.
Bush is stuck now trying to beg the rest of the world to see things his way. All that talk about "time running out" and "we will go it alone" seems pretty empty with all these extensions.
The cost of going to war two weeks or three weeks from now will be apparent soon. What little economic recovery was on the way in Januaury is now gone and were close to being headed to recession.
Bush played poker with Saddam and lost. I am sure we will still go to war and win but the costs to our economy will be huge and the benefits small. AND to top it off we still have the "REAL" threat to worry about the North Koreans.
Bush miscalculated his support and now faces a war alone without the help of the UK (which we really needed) and Blair is now history with the Labor party. Our one good friend is now gone.
It was time for Bush to "put up or shut up". This past week we have heard nothing from him, no speeches, no appearences, no press releases from him, Powell, or anyone else in his administration save Fleisher who seems to be losing his bullshitting touch with the press.
This is sad indeed. Whether you are for the war or against the war my view is that both sides of the debate have now been screwed over.
Bush needs to either go to war or not. All this begging and pleading is making Saddam look very smart at the moment (if only temporarily).
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2375407
Regards,
Jon P. Kofod
1995 F355 Challenge #23
|
|