Some random observations and ponderings
-
perlmunger wrote: Is this merely a difference of opinion between you and the Pres.? at a high level, yes. i disagree with the way he's handled nearly everything he's done. basically there's a big difference between my personal politics, and his. for example, i really think Iraq should have and could have been handled by the UN. but GWB blew that option with attitude and lousy diplomacy. remember, after 9/11 even the french were waving US flags; the whole world was on our side. but look at where we are now - we're leading a gang of countries who's leaders are acting against the wishes of 70 to 90% of their populations. much of the world sees the US as a threat and a menace. now, they may feel that way incorrectly, but the fact is, they didn't have to feel that way at all. i think if the al-Queda to Iraq links GWB says he can prove really exist, then we should have had no trouble getting the rest of the world to help us out in Iraq. all we would've had to do was say: "look, here are the links. this person and this person were funded by Iraq" (or whatever), showed them the proof, and everyone would've said "damn straight! let's get the bastards!". there would have been no discussion at all. but, instead he told the world, from the outset, that we didn't need their help, weren't going to show them our "proof", and that the UN was irrelevant. he started out bad, insulted and alienated our allies. another example, Turkey. because the population is so strongly against GWB's war, we couldn't even get them to come along for 26 billion dollars. Powell says there's a mostly "quiet" coalition of countries on our side right now. know why they're quiet? because the populations of those countries are strongly suspicious and/or fearful of the US and so the leaders won't come out and stand next to GWB and Tony Blair. to paraphrase Newsweek: support for the US shouldn't be a liability. even without the al-queda issue, he should have been able to get the UN to enforce its resolutions on Iraq's WMDs. his father had to persuede the UN to take action in 1991 (Gulf War 1)- the UN didn't just leap out of their seats and start invasion plans. it wasn't easy, but he did it; and he did it with diplomacy and coalition building, not by telling the world: "You bunch of anti-american sissy faggots better get your shit together and get on our side cause we're gonna do it anyway, and you'll be next if you don't!" perlmunger wrote: Or do you think that he there ar
I would definitely have to agree with your points about diplomacy. It's too bad. But I do hope, and believe that President Bush would realize his error. Looks like he will have to learn it the hard way if he does, though. I told my wife that if it were me, if I were the Pres. (I hear laughing...it could happen), I would go along with the UN. I feel strongly that by not doing so the US has undermined the U.N.'s mission. I believe that GWB and Co. are right that Saddam needs to be unseated, however, I would much rather say, "U.N., we whole heartedly disagree with you but defer to your judgement. Mark my words, when this menace becomes a real threat, I will not even hesitate to say I told you so." I think that in many ways that is a better way and more admirable--a way of saying to the world "we believe in this system even if you don't go our way". I love the US and the freedom we have and I think that the only course of action we have in order to convince the people of the world that we are not just a big bully is to handle everything with diplomacy. Don't get me wrong, I do support removing Saddam from power--unreservedly. I just wish we had taken another route. That being said, I also believe firmly that leaders are divinely appointed. I repect that many people would disagree with this, but I believe that there are reasons for everything. Sure, there is a time for revolution and for standing up and saying "no more". However, I don't see this as such a case. I believe that whatever outcome these things may bring about are intended by something greater than us. Call me crazy... oh..wait, you already did! ;-) I just think that as much of a poor speaker and diplmat he may be, he is a well-intentioned person and he is moral. I believe he believes he is doing the right thing. To me, that goes a long way. I appreciate your insight. It's helped me figure out a little more where I stand on these things. Thanks. -Matt ------------------------------------------ The 3 great virtues of a programmer: Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris. --Larry Wall
-
Is that true? When he said "GWB's Grand Plan" it sounded as though he was saying that this whole Iraq thing is only Bush's crazy idea. I retract it from Chris in this case (sorry--been reading too much Bush bashing today--assumed it was the case here), but I do still wonder what the answer to the question is. I don't think Bush is the smartest guy ever, but I do believe him to be a genuine good man and President. I'm trying to see what the rest of the world (apparently) sees, I guess. ;-) Thanks. -Matt ------------------------------------------ The 3 great virtues of a programmer: Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris. --Larry Wall
perlmunger wrote: I'm trying to see what the rest of the world (apparently) sees, I guess. The rest of the world simply wants a reason to whine. If terrorists attacked the UK with resourses obtained from Bagdhad, I'm sure they would be whining about why the US didn't step in to help. It's much easier to critize than to stand up for what you believe is right. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
I would definitely have to agree with your points about diplomacy. It's too bad. But I do hope, and believe that President Bush would realize his error. Looks like he will have to learn it the hard way if he does, though. I told my wife that if it were me, if I were the Pres. (I hear laughing...it could happen), I would go along with the UN. I feel strongly that by not doing so the US has undermined the U.N.'s mission. I believe that GWB and Co. are right that Saddam needs to be unseated, however, I would much rather say, "U.N., we whole heartedly disagree with you but defer to your judgement. Mark my words, when this menace becomes a real threat, I will not even hesitate to say I told you so." I think that in many ways that is a better way and more admirable--a way of saying to the world "we believe in this system even if you don't go our way". I love the US and the freedom we have and I think that the only course of action we have in order to convince the people of the world that we are not just a big bully is to handle everything with diplomacy. Don't get me wrong, I do support removing Saddam from power--unreservedly. I just wish we had taken another route. That being said, I also believe firmly that leaders are divinely appointed. I repect that many people would disagree with this, but I believe that there are reasons for everything. Sure, there is a time for revolution and for standing up and saying "no more". However, I don't see this as such a case. I believe that whatever outcome these things may bring about are intended by something greater than us. Call me crazy... oh..wait, you already did! ;-) I just think that as much of a poor speaker and diplmat he may be, he is a well-intentioned person and he is moral. I believe he believes he is doing the right thing. To me, that goes a long way. I appreciate your insight. It's helped me figure out a little more where I stand on these things. Thanks. -Matt ------------------------------------------ The 3 great virtues of a programmer: Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris. --Larry Wall
Matt, perlmunger wrote: I love the US and the freedom we have and I think that the only course of action we have in order to convince the people of the world that we are not just a big bully is to handle everything with diplomacy. Don't get me wrong, I do support removing Saddam from power--unreservedly. I just wish we had taken another route. Just want to say I agree. I do believe that there are times when diplomacy fails and you have to do something but I totally agree that in this case a good diplomatic route was not taken. ""
-
Matt, perlmunger wrote: I love the US and the freedom we have and I think that the only course of action we have in order to convince the people of the world that we are not just a big bully is to handle everything with diplomacy. Don't get me wrong, I do support removing Saddam from power--unreservedly. I just wish we had taken another route. Just want to say I agree. I do believe that there are times when diplomacy fails and you have to do something but I totally agree that in this case a good diplomatic route was not taken. ""
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: ...but I totally agree that in this case a good diplomatic route was not taken. During the last 12+ years what would you have liked to see done differently? Disclaimer: I'm not being a smart ass. I'd just like to hear some valid alternatives. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: ...but I totally agree that in this case a good diplomatic route was not taken. During the last 12+ years what would you have liked to see done differently? Disclaimer: I'm not being a smart ass. I'd just like to hear some valid alternatives. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003
Mike Mullikin wrote: During the last 12+ years what would you have liked to see done differently? First let me state again that I do believe Saddam should be removed. Saddam should have been removed many times in the past. So Clinton not taking action to build a coalition many years ago is a start. Now getting to today. All actions prior to 9/11 are moot. I state that due to 3 top people that advise Bush have a history of being anti-Saddam (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice.) Now they very well maybe correct but those feelings are what I feel have lead to an automatic association of our War with Terror and Iraq's defiance with the UN and disarmament. I feel that diplomatically forcing that association is a primary reason we do not have support for action. The US is doing what it wants with out presentable proof, so when does it stop? In my opinion a valid question. Secondly Bushes statement that "you are for us or against us" is just asking for people to disagree. Again poor diplomacy. So although I do believe the US is taking proper action. I do not believe we have arrived at this point by the best route. ""
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: During the last 12+ years what would you have liked to see done differently? First let me state again that I do believe Saddam should be removed. Saddam should have been removed many times in the past. So Clinton not taking action to build a coalition many years ago is a start. Now getting to today. All actions prior to 9/11 are moot. I state that due to 3 top people that advise Bush have a history of being anti-Saddam (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice.) Now they very well maybe correct but those feelings are what I feel have lead to an automatic association of our War with Terror and Iraq's defiance with the UN and disarmament. I feel that diplomatically forcing that association is a primary reason we do not have support for action. The US is doing what it wants with out presentable proof, so when does it stop? In my opinion a valid question. Secondly Bushes statement that "you are for us or against us" is just asking for people to disagree. Again poor diplomacy. So although I do believe the US is taking proper action. I do not believe we have arrived at this point by the best route. ""
Just seems to me that if the UN (or any other coalition of nations) was going to do anything about Iraq they would have gotten around to it by now. Like my father used to say "It's time to shit or get off the pot!" Mike Mullikin :beer:
Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003
-
Just seems to me that if the UN (or any other coalition of nations) was going to do anything about Iraq they would have gotten around to it by now. Like my father used to say "It's time to shit or get off the pot!" Mike Mullikin :beer:
Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003
Mike Mullikin wrote: Just seems to me that if the UN (or any other coalition of nations) was going to do anything about Iraq they would have gotten around to it by now. I do not disagree. But that does not automatically mean that we have done the best diplomatic job. ""
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: During the last 12+ years what would you have liked to see done differently? First let me state again that I do believe Saddam should be removed. Saddam should have been removed many times in the past. So Clinton not taking action to build a coalition many years ago is a start. Now getting to today. All actions prior to 9/11 are moot. I state that due to 3 top people that advise Bush have a history of being anti-Saddam (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice.) Now they very well maybe correct but those feelings are what I feel have lead to an automatic association of our War with Terror and Iraq's defiance with the UN and disarmament. I feel that diplomatically forcing that association is a primary reason we do not have support for action. The US is doing what it wants with out presentable proof, so when does it stop? In my opinion a valid question. Secondly Bushes statement that "you are for us or against us" is just asking for people to disagree. Again poor diplomacy. So although I do believe the US is taking proper action. I do not believe we have arrived at this point by the best route. ""
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: so when does it stop? it doesn't, until 2004 or, Bob forbid, 2008. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
Thanxxs you I dont understand we so many outstanding citiesens do not like me and my family waging wars.:madd: f this dam keyboard!! GW, Da'man
George W. Bush wrote: Thanxxs you I dont understand we so many outstanding citiesens do not like me and my family waging wars.:madd: f this dam keyboard!! GW, Da'man How sad is this?:rolleyes: Notorious SMC
The difference between the almost-right word & the right word is a really large matter - it's the difference between the lightning bug and the Lightning Mark Twain
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please Mark Twain -
- Firstly congratulations to John Denham, ex. Home Office minister, who resigned his position today for his principles, unlike some others who seem to adjust them to suit their mood. Keep ‘em coming guys. - Read Robin Cook’s resignation speech[^]. If you didn’t see him give the speech you’d do well to find a copy on tape just to see Blair’s face when the cheers and clapping start. (Not a repost - this is the full text rather than the highlights.*) When this mess draws into the eye of the storm Cook will be a very formidable opponent and Blair knows it – anything that makes the fine upstanding gentleman sweat is fine by me. * I apologise to whoever it was I questioned may not have read the version linked to below based on their comments, namely with regard to Kosovo, but I did not realise at the time it had been edited to remove pretty all mention of it. - I noticed the US Army is going to use depleted uranium tipped armour piercing rounds. I do so look forward to the next bout of law suits when Gulf War Syndrome v2.0 comes into effect. :( - Seeing as the Pope has now publicly condemned this war (again?), will that change any views? I appreciate a fair proportion of the States is supposedly Christian, but are they Roman Catholics (I think they're the Popey ones?) or others? Or is it only when they happen to agree? - It was interesting to note that the British forces (namely the Para’s I believe, with all their experience in Northern Ireland) have been given the task of dealing with the civilians’ left still drawing breath because the American forces do not know where to start. Let’s hope then that this will not turn into another humanitarian disaster ala 1993. Talking of which, maybe you guys could get around to cleaning that mess up on your way home? - Lastly, my best wishes to all the poor sons of bitches who’ve been required to play their lives on the field for this whole humanitarian disaster on a cocktail stick. I don’t condone what they are doing for a second, but they are their in role to protect me, at least insofar as their employment terms, so I cannot wish them any harm. I just wonder for what it is they will pay - are they going to war to liberate the Iraqi people, or to remove their leader because diplomacy and common sense failed our own? :suss:
Wow, if you all are finished using Robin Cook, could we have him then? He sounds like a man with brain and heart, and before now, I would have doubts about finding either of those in a politician, and definately not both at the same time. :) Our own discussions were totally disrupted yesterday, because a left wing loonie member of the parliament, let two of her supporters inside the government building to throw red paint at the prime minister and the foreign minister. All the news were centered on that story, so the real problem, that we are participating in an illegal attack based on 'because the US says so', were only briefly touched. :mad: "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
perlmunger wrote: I'm trying to see what the rest of the world (apparently) sees, I guess. The rest of the world simply wants a reason to whine. If terrorists attacked the UK with resourses obtained from Bagdhad, I'm sure they would be whining about why the US didn't step in to help. It's much easier to critize than to stand up for what you believe is right. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
Nitron wrote: If terrorists attacked the UK with resourses obtained from Bagdhad, I'm sure they would be whining about why the US didn't step in to help. Yes, we would say something like: "Oh Father, why have you left us?". "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
perlmunger wrote: I'm trying to see what the rest of the world (apparently) sees, I guess. The rest of the world simply wants a reason to whine. If terrorists attacked the UK with resourses obtained from Bagdhad, I'm sure they would be whining about why the US didn't step in to help. It's much easier to critize than to stand up for what you believe is right. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
Nitron wrote: If terrorists attacked the UK with resourses obtained from Bagdhad, I'm sure they would be whining about why the US didn't step in to help. Terrorists (Irish) have already attacked the UK with resources obtained from the US. :| "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can." "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."