Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ian

Trouble

Recommended Posts

Iain,

 

Point taken. I do remember mentioning in another thread a book I was then reading about the war of 1812 and we kinda got sidetracted, briefly, talking about that. But, no, you did not ask for a citation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To label American actions in Viet Nam as "adventurism" is at best superficial and at worst plain ignorance of history. America was involved in Viet Nam long before the 60s.

 

My sources incude my father who served in Viet Nam 1959/1960 as well as some books, one of which I cited in a previous thread. Another specific to WW2 American involvement in Viet Nam would be A dirty Distant War by E.M. Nathanson; an historical novel.

 

"Aventurism" certainly fits a number of American actions prior to WW2, but I do not see it as appropriate thereafter.

I have to agree with you there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admire your conviction. So many 'facts' at your disposal that fly in the face of what is spouted by the leaders of our nations....just where do you get them from?

 

As high and mighty as you might like to see it the fact is that even world politics at it's most sophisticated level works just like the schoolyard.

 

....and every schoolyard has its bully. Shame that this particular bully is bigger than the teachers and on an uncontrollable rampage.

 

 

Only my opinions though ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admire your conviction. So many 'facts' at your disposal that fly in the face of what is spouted by the leaders of our nations....just where do you get them from?

 

 

 

....and every schoolyard has its bully. Shame that this particular bully is bigger than the teachers and on an uncontrollable rampage.

 

 

Only my opinions though ;)

Yes every schoolyard has a bully. But if the bully were fully out of control there would be a great deal more damage.

 

Thankfully in the case of worl politics no schoolyard bully has been able to defeat the Captain of the football team, but the rest who don't get to bang the prom queen are still resentful and see him as a bully too.

 

 

 

And in the case of world politics there are no teachers at all to supervise the situation. Just the student government that is always bickering over what the school dance theme will be while the Captain of the football team faces off with the bully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chopdoc,

 

I think this image I posted here about the time we were about to invade Iraq clearly demonstates my attitude at that time :mrgreen: :

 

http://www.simplico.netfirms.com/Navy.jpg

 

But when no WMDs were found, my attitude eventually reversed. If GWB was duped, so be it. If not, that's even worse. I do not know. I just know I desire some other person as president after Nov. since no apology from GWB is forthcomming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time a I felt very much the way I do now. I did not want us to go to war but felt that if we did we needed to go all out to prevent a Viet Nam. I put little emphasis on WMD. I do believe that Saddam was making meager attempts at chemical or biological weapons development and the evidence has supported that but those attempts were inconsequential and had little to do with the war.

 

Ultimately I became very disappointed in the UN and still am.

 

I have certain emotional reasons for hoping that we pull out soon but that does not change what I truly think about the war.

 

When the US met with resitance at the UN everything unfolded very much as I suspected it would. Little of it has surprised me. That we found Saddam surprised me. The speed of the war and how fast it was over surprised me. The residual fighting has not surprised me, what has surprised me is that there has not been more and bloodier.

 

What I think about it all has little to do with WMD and has not from the beginning. If that were what this was about there are other nations we should have attacked first because we know for a fact they are developing such weapons. So it just wasn't about that regardless of how much emphasis people put on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes every schoolyard has a bully.  But if the bully were fully out of control there would be a great deal more damage. 

 

Thankfully in the case of worl politics no schoolyard bully has been able to defeat the Captain of the football team, but the rest who don't get to bang the prom queen are still resentful and see him as a bully too.

 

 

 

And in the case of world politics there are no teachers at all to supervise the situation.  Just the student government that is always bickering over what the school dance theme will be while the Captain of the football team faces off with the bully.

The school bully and team captain are ALWAYS one and the same. Don't you watch Michael J Fox movies over there? :P The bully/captain is also a teenage jock.

 

So we have no teachers in charge, just an hormonal teenager with more brawn than brain running uncontrollably around the world stage. I concur ;)

 

I don't disagree that this bully could do a lot more damage, but the fact that he hasn't bought the world to an end (yet) does not mean what damage he has caused isn't significant, does it?

 

As for the prom queen reference; I expected better than the old "you only oppose us because yer jealous" chestnut :rolleyes:

Edited by Sir T Fireball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the American military is a volunteer force, that does not mean that they willingly shed their blood for just anything. True, they have little choice in the matter once they are commited to battle.

 

So, that leaves 1 person and 1 person only responsible for shedding their blood; the president. Congress may approve, but their information comes from agencies under the executive direction of the president. There were no WMDs, therefore no imminent threat to America.

 

I would much prefer shedding American blood to stop genocide in Africa, for example. But even then, it would be far better for African nations to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not speaking of jelousy, I never mentioned the word or implied it. I said resentment, and I believe that is very accurate after haveing lived in nine countries and experienced the attitude toward Americans.

 

I am sorry to hear that your school experience was so difficult and left so many scars, perhaps some therapy could help. To equate your real life circumstances to a Michael J. Fox movie is disappointing.

 

The school bully and the team captain are most often not one in the same, they are at odds with each other. If you see it that way it is simply because you were never either one of them nor even in either's favor. This is often the plight of the Beta Male and the resulting frustration and resentment is proven to exacerbate cardiovascular disease, disturb social development, and disturb emotional development. If you really see my analogies the way you say I sincerely advise you to have your GP monitor your cardiovascular condition and possibly give you a referral for counseling.

 

 

The fact remains that I stand on my analogies in principle and academically. I don't make the suggestions lightly. In fact I wouldn't mind defending a masters thesis on it. Since I am returning for another masters in the Winter I think I should give the idea strong consideration actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The school bully and team captain are ALWAYS one and the same. Don't you watch Michael J Fox movies over there?  The bully/captain is also a teenage jock.

Baloney! I was both the captain of the football team and, yes, the prom queen was my girlfriend. But I was not then and certainly am not now a bully. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the American military is a volunteer force, that does not mean that they willingly shed their blood for just anything. True, they have little choice in the matter once they are commited to battle.

 

So, that leaves 1 person and 1 person only responsible for shedding their blood; the president. Congress may approve, but their information comes from agencies under the executive direction of the president. There were no WMDs, therefore no imminent threat to America.

 

I would much prefer shedding American blood to stop genocide in Africa, for example. But even then, it would be far better for African nations to do that.

Posted Image Edited by Sir T Fireball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is often the plight of the Beta Male and the resulting frustration and resentment is proven to exacerbate cardiovascular disease, disturb social development, and disturb emotional development.

:woot: I demand a 2nd opinion!!! Anyone seen Zion lately :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

Baloney! I was both the captain of the football team and, yes, the prom queen

:blink::woot::lol:

 

I demand a 2nd opinion!!! Anyone seen Zion lately 

:lol::mrgreen:

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no imminent threat to America.

 

I would much prefer shedding American blood to stop genocide in Africa, for example. But even then, it would be far better for African nations to do that.

imminent threat was only part of the problem with Iraq, the rest fall on broken war resolutions which should have been enforced throughout the nineties but werent. The American people nor our leader at the time was willing to stomach what "peacekeeping" in Africa would have ment. If you think Iraq is bad now, Africa would have been and will be 10x worse if we do intervene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imminent threat was only part of the problem with Iraq, the rest fall on broken war resolutions which should have been enforced throughout the nineties but werent. The American people nor our leader at the time was willing to stomach what "peacekeeping" in Africa would have ment. If you think Iraq is bad now, Africa would have been and will be 10x worse if we do intervene.

The broken war resolutions were then and still are a matter for the UN, not us. They were UN resolutions, not US resolutions.

 

There was only one justification for ignoring the UN, an imminent threat to us that the UN was wrong about. They were right and we were wrong. Why is that so difficult to admit?

 

What maybe should have been done in the 90's doesn't matter, cause we went to war in 2003.

 

Please note, I did not say that we should intervene in Africa. I'm am under no illusions about what that would entail. It was merely a comparison. It is beyond our capabilities anyway. That is a job for African nations or the UN, again, not us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did I say "that we should fall back on the UN?"

 

Who ever said that is was up to us to stop death everywhere in the world no matter what the UN has or has not done?

 

You appear to have the preconceived notion that everthing is our responsibility? I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was only one justification for ignoring the UN, an imminent threat to us that the UN was wrong about. They were right and we were wrong. Why is that so difficult to admit?

 

 

Actually that's where the essietial difference can be for some.

 

I take it back a step further and say that the UN was wrong. Wrong for not standing beside the US. I don't think is was the US that ignored the UN, I think it was the UN that ignored the US.

 

It has little to do wit Iraq being an imminent threat to US soil and everything to do with Iraq being an imminent threat to the lives of those enforcing the UN mandates on Iraq, and a threat to the authority of the UN in the situation which it won by war in the early nineties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how can you claim that we should fall back on the UN, name one time that the UN has actually prevented or stopped death

I don't understand this question very well. The fact of the matter is that we went before the UN to get a resolution passed. In fact, before we invaded Iraq, the UN passed unanimously Resolution 1492. Remember? Everyone in the UN was with us? The problem with 1492 was that it initiated a weapons inspection program headed by Hans Blix. From the very start, we disagreed with this program. So therefore, we ignored the UN and our own resolution, and went to war. Some might say we even jumped the gun.

 

So here are my questions/comments:

 

1. If we had no confidence in the UN, then why did we bother getting Resolution 1492 passed? Why did Powell go to the UN in February 2003 giving further evidence of WMD? Why not just save the time and money if we have no confidence in the UN?

 

2. I find it UNBELIEVABLE to hear people say that this war is not about WMD. It has everything to do with WMD. That's what we told the entire world. WMD. WMD. WMD. WMD. Do you honestly believe that if we say that this war is about something else, that other countries will actually believe it? Hell I don't believe it. I still believe today that we went into Iraq believing that we would find WMD.

 

3. Let's not forget the other key point. That the threat to the US was IMMINENT. The reason that we entered Iraq was not to save Iraq from Saddam. It was for NATIONAL SECURITY purposes. Our intelligence somehow indicated that Iraq had the ability to attack the United States.

 

So we can use all the cutesy Sesame Street analogies we want, but you can't put a dress on this pig. Then on top of all of that, we have Abu Ghraib. You start adding it all up, and it makes us look like arrogant, obstinant, hypocritical bullies. Although I am sure there are many people in the US with these qualities, I do not consider these qualities desirable in our leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. I find it UNBELIEVABLE to hear people say that this war is not about WMD. It has everything to do with WMD. That's what we told the entire world. WMD. WMD. WMD. WMD. Do you honestly believe that if we say that this war is about something else, that other countries will actually believe it? Hell I don't believe it. I still believe today that we went into Iraq believing that we would find WMD.

 

3. Let's not forget the other key point. That the threat to the US was IMMINENT. The reason that we entered Iraq was not to save Iraq from Saddam. It was for NATIONAL SECURITY purposes. Our intelligence somehow indicated that Iraq had the ability to attack the United States.

 

So we can use all the cutesy Sesame Street analogies we want, but you can't put a dress on this pig. Then on top of all of that, we have Abu Ghraib. You start adding it all up, and it makes us look like arrogant, obstinant, hypocritical bullies. Although I am sure there are many people in the US with these qualities, I do not consider these qualities desirable in our leadership.

To address point number 2, believe it.

 

Even if you were right, that still does not make going in wrong. If it was genuinely believed that there were WMD, that's all that matters.

 

 

 

 

 

To address point number 3, Iraq did pose an imminent threat to US forces enforcing the UN mandates. In addition, whether Iraq may or may not have had WMD has little to do with whether they were a threat to US soil or US citizens. That was demonstrated quite well by the terrorist acts on 9/11. It was believed and is still believed that Saddam had ties with and supported the terrorists. Any nation that takes that position should be in fear of imminent attack by the US regardless of what the UN thinks. I will support that notion to my dying breath.

 

 

 

Abu Ghraib? That is a minor pimple on the a$$ of a real problem. It is a disgrace to the military but says nothing about the policies of the United States. The prosecution of those crimes should start at the top with anybody who was aware of them or approvfed of them. The fact that it is starting at the bottom is also a disgrace to the military.

 

 

As far as how you add it up I think you are using a math that does not work.

 

 

In case you havent noticed I am one of very few who looks at the proverbial pig in it's naked honest state. Most of the rest look at it in black and white which leaves one far from the truth.

 

I am much more comfortable than you because i didn't start out believing hype about WMD etc, I saw the situation for what it was. You were sucked in by the hype and obviously resent it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has little to do wit Iraq being an imminent threat to US soil and everything to do with Iraq being an imminent threat to the lives of those enforcing the UN mandates on Iraq, and a threat to the authority of the UN in the situation which it won by war in the early nineties.

And that, in part, proves, in part, part of my point(s). :lol:

 

Here we go again. Weaseling deeper and deeper into irrelevant detail trying to explain away our actions. :lol:

 

Chengrob said it far better, so see the above. I feel a Mac attack coming on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. If we had no confidence in the UN, then why did we bother getting Resolution 1492 passed? Why did Powell go to the UN in February 2003 giving further evidence of WMD? Why not just save the time and money if we have no confidence in the UN?

 

 

As far as that point the answer is obvious. We desperately wanted the support of our allies and tried very hard to get it. We failed and our allies left us to our own devices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...