OT, Hollywood types and ...
04-10-2003, 02:10 PM
#16
Gentlemen,
Many Brits, like so many Americans, chose a "no war" position because it's the EASY and socially popular choice. After all, why should we lose a single life to help the citizens of Iraq? They are a decent people who live in decent conditions and hate capitalism, America, and all we stand for. I know this because the British/American media, the U.N. and Mr. Saddam Hussein told me so. Thankfully, we didn't give them the faith, trust and credibility extended to Adolph Hitler by Neville Chamberlain.
I sincerely doubt Mr. Blair or Mr. Bush are PRO-war. They both understood that British and American soldiers would lose their lives in the effort. Sending troops to war is likely the most difficult decision they've ever made. A decision made exponentially more difficult by the relentless criticism from the feel good crowd, the left-wing media, the self-absorbed pundits, the out of touch (and largely uneducated) celebrities, the America haters, etc..
America has never liberated a people and stolen their resources. In fact, we helped rebuild Europe and Japan after WWII, have protected S. Korea from it's communist neighbor for 50 years since the Korean war (a typically unresolved U.N. action), restored civility to Afghanistan, all at U.S. taxpayer expense. What other country on the planet has been so compassionate?
The "no blood for oil" argument doesn't have any historical precedence, nor will it gain any after this action. At worst, proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil will be used to rebuild a neglected infrastructure, feed a starving nation, and restore the wilted spirit of a proud people. Is that such a bad thing?
Will the U.S. buy Iraqi oil? Of course! We were buying it before the war and we'll likely continue buying it after the liberation of Iraq.
The good news is the proceeds from the sale of oil (Iraq's only significant resource) will NOT be used to build elaborate palaces for a brutal dictator, erect more bronze statues, expand a dangerous military machine or support terrorist training and homicide bombings.
The U.S. and Britain have demonstrated true leadership over the last few months. The people of Iraq are expressing their thanks in unbelievably touching gestures and expressions.
The aforementioned critics now say that the U.S. and Britain have created a "humanitarian crisis". Such statements further demonstrate their ignorance and contempt by ignoring the fact that Iraq has been in a sustained humanitarian crisis for over a decade. The U.N. has done nothing to help these people. The U.N. has ignored the fact that the food for oil program proceeds were nearly entirely diverted to Saddam Hussein's military, weapons of mass destruction, palaces and lavish lifestyle.
I've never been more proud to be an American. I am truly humbled by the courage and conviction of George Bush and Tony Blair. I am disgusted by the words and actions of Jacque Chirac, Gerhardt Schroeder and Vladimir Putin. They have their dirty fingerprints all over the plight of the people of Iraq and did nothing to help them. Conversely, the attempted exploit the situation for personal and political gain and blood money earned through the sales of military and chemical goods to Saddam Hussein. Would you prefer that Tony Blair and the British people had marched in lock step with Jacque Chirac and the French?
We are witnessing the writing of an important chapter in history. I don't expect the critics to ever retract their innacurate statements. In fact, I fully expect them to double their efforts to undermine the credibility of our leaders through a relentless campaign of vicious attacks. It's the only way they can save face.
Ok - I'm glad that's off my chest!
MC
Many Brits, like so many Americans, chose a "no war" position because it's the EASY and socially popular choice. After all, why should we lose a single life to help the citizens of Iraq? They are a decent people who live in decent conditions and hate capitalism, America, and all we stand for. I know this because the British/American media, the U.N. and Mr. Saddam Hussein told me so. Thankfully, we didn't give them the faith, trust and credibility extended to Adolph Hitler by Neville Chamberlain.
I sincerely doubt Mr. Blair or Mr. Bush are PRO-war. They both understood that British and American soldiers would lose their lives in the effort. Sending troops to war is likely the most difficult decision they've ever made. A decision made exponentially more difficult by the relentless criticism from the feel good crowd, the left-wing media, the self-absorbed pundits, the out of touch (and largely uneducated) celebrities, the America haters, etc..
America has never liberated a people and stolen their resources. In fact, we helped rebuild Europe and Japan after WWII, have protected S. Korea from it's communist neighbor for 50 years since the Korean war (a typically unresolved U.N. action), restored civility to Afghanistan, all at U.S. taxpayer expense. What other country on the planet has been so compassionate?
The "no blood for oil" argument doesn't have any historical precedence, nor will it gain any after this action. At worst, proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil will be used to rebuild a neglected infrastructure, feed a starving nation, and restore the wilted spirit of a proud people. Is that such a bad thing?
Will the U.S. buy Iraqi oil? Of course! We were buying it before the war and we'll likely continue buying it after the liberation of Iraq.
The good news is the proceeds from the sale of oil (Iraq's only significant resource) will NOT be used to build elaborate palaces for a brutal dictator, erect more bronze statues, expand a dangerous military machine or support terrorist training and homicide bombings.
The U.S. and Britain have demonstrated true leadership over the last few months. The people of Iraq are expressing their thanks in unbelievably touching gestures and expressions.
The aforementioned critics now say that the U.S. and Britain have created a "humanitarian crisis". Such statements further demonstrate their ignorance and contempt by ignoring the fact that Iraq has been in a sustained humanitarian crisis for over a decade. The U.N. has done nothing to help these people. The U.N. has ignored the fact that the food for oil program proceeds were nearly entirely diverted to Saddam Hussein's military, weapons of mass destruction, palaces and lavish lifestyle.
I've never been more proud to be an American. I am truly humbled by the courage and conviction of George Bush and Tony Blair. I am disgusted by the words and actions of Jacque Chirac, Gerhardt Schroeder and Vladimir Putin. They have their dirty fingerprints all over the plight of the people of Iraq and did nothing to help them. Conversely, the attempted exploit the situation for personal and political gain and blood money earned through the sales of military and chemical goods to Saddam Hussein. Would you prefer that Tony Blair and the British people had marched in lock step with Jacque Chirac and the French?
We are witnessing the writing of an important chapter in history. I don't expect the critics to ever retract their innacurate statements. In fact, I fully expect them to double their efforts to undermine the credibility of our leaders through a relentless campaign of vicious attacks. It's the only way they can save face.
Ok - I'm glad that's off my chest!
MC
04-10-2003, 04:11 PM
#18
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
A recent note I sent to a coworker:
I recently recalled a line from the movie, "A Few Good Men". If you have not seen the film, it is the story of the court-martial of 2 Marine sentries accused of attacking and killing a weaker member of their squad stationed in Cuba. At a point in the story where it is not yet clear if the Marines are guilty of the crime of which they are accused, one disillusioned defense attorney asks another, "Why do you like these guys? Why do you fight for them?". The reply was, "Because they take their position up on the wall. And they say, 'Nothing is going to happen to you tonight, not on my watch' ".
At times we forget that we live in relative safety, because someone else "has taken a position on the wall". How many countries can find 250,000+ volunteers to "take a watch" for someone else, or go into harm's way voluntarily? Some countries will offer support, but most are satisfied to stand on the sidelines and critique the sacrifices of others.
At the end of the trial, the 2 Marines are found not guilty of murder, but guilty of following orders of dealing out discipline as per the unwritten code of the Marine Corps. For this they are dismissed from the Corps. The senior Marine questions his devotion to God, country, and the honor code of the Corps. He is reminded that you don't have to have a patch on your sleeve to have an honor code.
Occasionally everyone needs to remember that tonight some unnamed soldier has volunteered to take your turn on the wall.
It's all easy to forget the sacrifices of others that we take for granted.
I recently recalled a line from the movie, "A Few Good Men". If you have not seen the film, it is the story of the court-martial of 2 Marine sentries accused of attacking and killing a weaker member of their squad stationed in Cuba. At a point in the story where it is not yet clear if the Marines are guilty of the crime of which they are accused, one disillusioned defense attorney asks another, "Why do you like these guys? Why do you fight for them?". The reply was, "Because they take their position up on the wall. And they say, 'Nothing is going to happen to you tonight, not on my watch' ".
At times we forget that we live in relative safety, because someone else "has taken a position on the wall". How many countries can find 250,000+ volunteers to "take a watch" for someone else, or go into harm's way voluntarily? Some countries will offer support, but most are satisfied to stand on the sidelines and critique the sacrifices of others.
At the end of the trial, the 2 Marines are found not guilty of murder, but guilty of following orders of dealing out discipline as per the unwritten code of the Marine Corps. For this they are dismissed from the Corps. The senior Marine questions his devotion to God, country, and the honor code of the Corps. He is reminded that you don't have to have a patch on your sleeve to have an honor code.
Occasionally everyone needs to remember that tonight some unnamed soldier has volunteered to take your turn on the wall.
It's all easy to forget the sacrifices of others that we take for granted.
04-10-2003, 04:12 PM
#19
I've gotten a kick out of some of some of the "alternative" news web sites yesterday and today. (alternative to what? Logic? Facts?)
My favorite one was Pravda, with a hysterical article on how all the bombing will effect plate tectonics and cause massive flooding in Russia. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Many of them have not had an updated article since April 8th. Most of the rest totally ignore the scenes of April 9th and still focus on civilian casualties. It's actually kind of funny.
While we are thanking countries, I want to send a special thanks to Australia and especially Poland for also taking a stand and supplying troops and other resources to help with this effort.
My favorite one was Pravda, with a hysterical article on how all the bombing will effect plate tectonics and cause massive flooding in Russia. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Many of them have not had an updated article since April 8th. Most of the rest totally ignore the scenes of April 9th and still focus on civilian casualties. It's actually kind of funny.
While we are thanking countries, I want to send a special thanks to Australia and especially Poland for also taking a stand and supplying troops and other resources to help with this effort.
04-10-2003, 07:20 PM
#20
Gentlemen:
Time to post a dissenting view. I'm glad Saddam is gone. Was there ever any question that he was a diabolical tyrannous dictator? But I can point to umpteen equally nasty leaders who manage to avoid the military wrath of the U.S. Suharto's Indonesia was not a pretty place at all. Nor was Mobuto's Zaire or for that matter Kabila's Congo (nee Zaire). Robert Mugabe? Not a nice man. And please, don't get me started on China, a country that executes more of its citizens annually than the rest of the world combined. Then there is Saudi Arabia. The list goes on and on and on.
The pretext for this war was WMD disarmament of Iraq. The pretext for the pretext was the fight against global terrorism. Well, if you wish to go after sponsors of global terrorism, I'm sorry to say that Saddam would be way down the list of guys to get. WMD? Bottom line is that you need not only a payload of bad stuff (chemical, biological, nuclear) but also the means to deliver the bad stuff. My opinion is that this threat was nowhere near what we were lead to believe.
Was this a "just" war? In my opinion, no. Will the world be a safer place because of it? Again, my opinion is no. Was a military solution the only solution? I do not believe so.
This war was launched for several reasons. There is no doubt one of them was to get Saddam. But I believe that goal could have been accomplished by more selective, covert means (yes, assassination). However, in doing so, there would have been no opportunity for the U.S. to show the Arab world that it means business, and is more than willing to use its military might to protect its interests globally.
I repeat, is the world a safer place today because of the war? My opinion is emphatically no.
Time to post a dissenting view. I'm glad Saddam is gone. Was there ever any question that he was a diabolical tyrannous dictator? But I can point to umpteen equally nasty leaders who manage to avoid the military wrath of the U.S. Suharto's Indonesia was not a pretty place at all. Nor was Mobuto's Zaire or for that matter Kabila's Congo (nee Zaire). Robert Mugabe? Not a nice man. And please, don't get me started on China, a country that executes more of its citizens annually than the rest of the world combined. Then there is Saudi Arabia. The list goes on and on and on.
The pretext for this war was WMD disarmament of Iraq. The pretext for the pretext was the fight against global terrorism. Well, if you wish to go after sponsors of global terrorism, I'm sorry to say that Saddam would be way down the list of guys to get. WMD? Bottom line is that you need not only a payload of bad stuff (chemical, biological, nuclear) but also the means to deliver the bad stuff. My opinion is that this threat was nowhere near what we were lead to believe.
Was this a "just" war? In my opinion, no. Will the world be a safer place because of it? Again, my opinion is no. Was a military solution the only solution? I do not believe so.
This war was launched for several reasons. There is no doubt one of them was to get Saddam. But I believe that goal could have been accomplished by more selective, covert means (yes, assassination). However, in doing so, there would have been no opportunity for the U.S. to show the Arab world that it means business, and is more than willing to use its military might to protect its interests globally.
I repeat, is the world a safer place today because of the war? My opinion is emphatically no.
04-10-2003, 08:08 PM
#21
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until the US deals with the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, we will never be trusted in the Arab world. Many American don't care what the Arab world thinks of us, and that's their right. However, I do think it is important. Some say we're sending a message to terrorists. 80% of the 911 hijackers were from Saudi, but we have played down this point. When 100,000 was being killed in Rwanda, the US voted against every UN proposal that called for intervention because we have no interest in that part of the world. Will we find WMDs in Iraq, perhaps. However, let's not forget that we gave them the knowledge and training in this area to fight against Iran...and looked the other way when they used them. Are we spending over $200B over the next several years just to liberate the Iraqis? Don't think so.
From all accounts Saddam is/was an EVIL man, but he was hemmed in...bombed in the North and South for 10years, sanctions, spy planes overhead. I support our troops 100%, but I wouldn't have put them in harms way over Saddam. I would have fought in Afghanistan, but not in this war. Saddam's regime is over, but as long as we're on Iraqi soil, the war will never be completely over because there will be continuous suicide bombings. In fact, things are starting to heat up again in Afghanistan. Even those that hate Saddam hate the US even more. Historically, whoever we put in power we'll have to go get in about 10 years. There are no permanent friends or enemies, just permanent interests. At one point or another, the Shah of Iran, Osama & Saddam were "friends" of the US.
The loss of life, whether it be American, Iraqi or other Arabs, could have been spared. The world is not safer. We've just spawned several generations of Arabs that will hate the US. Long after the current administration is gone, we'll be feeling the ramifications of these times.
From all accounts Saddam is/was an EVIL man, but he was hemmed in...bombed in the North and South for 10years, sanctions, spy planes overhead. I support our troops 100%, but I wouldn't have put them in harms way over Saddam. I would have fought in Afghanistan, but not in this war. Saddam's regime is over, but as long as we're on Iraqi soil, the war will never be completely over because there will be continuous suicide bombings. In fact, things are starting to heat up again in Afghanistan. Even those that hate Saddam hate the US even more. Historically, whoever we put in power we'll have to go get in about 10 years. There are no permanent friends or enemies, just permanent interests. At one point or another, the Shah of Iran, Osama & Saddam were "friends" of the US.
The loss of life, whether it be American, Iraqi or other Arabs, could have been spared. The world is not safer. We've just spawned several generations of Arabs that will hate the US. Long after the current administration is gone, we'll be feeling the ramifications of these times.
04-10-2003, 10:35 PM
#22
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by tangram:
<strong>Gentlemen:
[...]
I repeat, is the world a safer place today because of the war? My opinion is emphatically no.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">It's safer now for millions of Iraqi civilians.
<strong>Gentlemen:
[...]
I repeat, is the world a safer place today because of the war? My opinion is emphatically no.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">It's safer now for millions of Iraqi civilians.
04-11-2003, 01:27 AM
#23
Addicted Specialist
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Chris C. and tangram raise some important points regarding the US' failure to act on other "humanitarian" causes, and our complicity in aiding a given regime, only for that regime to turn against us at another time. I am no Polyanna when it comes to understanding the complexity and, often, vagaries of political alliances. Yet, to draw the conclusion that we should do nothing with Saddam only because we have chosen not to act against other dictators' atrocities is simply bad reasoning; does one simply "give up" on trying murderers because society has failed to prosecute one killer; or give up on cancer research because we haven't done enough on AIDS? One must always make choices, pick your battles, as it were, when one does not have the infinite resources to tackle all issues. Often, those choices are difficult ones.
Additionally, to do nothing to rectify a "problem," even if we were part of creating it, is simply irresponsible. One doesn't look at one's own mess then point to others to clean it up.
To be sure, I am in no way suggesting the US is, or was, ever the perfect champion for the world's oppressed.
But then again, what country has ever done as much as this one to aid those in need?
What country other than the US has ever stepped up to the plate and act on just grounds, especially in the face of fierce opposition.
And what other country still, warts and all, shines as a beacon of freedom and opportunity for ALL its residents?
While far from perfection, one must remember that no one ever claimed the US was perfect. Still, all told, I am fimly convinced that it has acted justly, with compassion and incredible restraint in the face of heinous and immoral tactics by others without the same regard for life that we have, to help make the world a better place. For this, I am proud to live in and call myself an American.
Regards,
Edward
Additionally, to do nothing to rectify a "problem," even if we were part of creating it, is simply irresponsible. One doesn't look at one's own mess then point to others to clean it up.
To be sure, I am in no way suggesting the US is, or was, ever the perfect champion for the world's oppressed.
But then again, what country has ever done as much as this one to aid those in need?
What country other than the US has ever stepped up to the plate and act on just grounds, especially in the face of fierce opposition.
And what other country still, warts and all, shines as a beacon of freedom and opportunity for ALL its residents?
While far from perfection, one must remember that no one ever claimed the US was perfect. Still, all told, I am fimly convinced that it has acted justly, with compassion and incredible restraint in the face of heinous and immoral tactics by others without the same regard for life that we have, to help make the world a better place. For this, I am proud to live in and call myself an American.
Regards,
Edward
04-11-2003, 08:53 AM
#25
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record, I never suggested we should do nothing or "give up". A lot was being done. Saddam was effectively boxed in without the loss of lives (American & Arabs).
04-11-2003, 10:26 AM
#26
Rhymes With Polo
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by tangram:
<strong>Gentlemen:
Time to post a dissenting view. I'm glad Saddam is gone. Was there ever any question that he was a diabolical tyrannous dictator? But I can point to umpteen equally nasty leaders who manage to avoid the military wrath of the U.S. Suharto's Indonesia was not a pretty place at all. Nor was Mobuto's Zaire or for that matter Kabila's Congo (nee Zaire). Robert Mugabe? Not a nice man. And please, don't get me started on China, a country that executes more of its citizens annually than the rest of the world combined. Then there is Saudi Arabia. The list goes on and on and on.
The pretext for this war was WMD disarmament of Iraq. The pretext for the pretext was the fight against global terrorism. Well, if you wish to go after sponsors of global terrorism, I'm sorry to say that Saddam would be way down the list of guys to get. WMD? Bottom line is that you need not only a payload of bad stuff (chemical, biological, nuclear) but also the means to deliver the bad stuff. My opinion is that this threat was nowhere near what we were lead to believe.
Was this a "just" war? In my opinion, no. Will the world be a safer place because of it? Again, my opinion is no. Was a military solution the only solution? I do not believe so.
This war was launched for several reasons. There is no doubt one of them was to get Saddam. But I believe that goal could have been accomplished by more selective, covert means (yes, assassination). However, in doing so, there would have been no opportunity for the U.S. to show the Arab world that it means business, and is more than willing to use its military might to protect its interests globally.
I repeat, is the world a safer place today because of the war? My opinion is emphatically no.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">I often wonder what folks like you would suggest. I always read of these other solutions, but never see anthing other than "give inspections more time" Well 12 years is pleanty of time. You say this war was fought on the pretex of global terriosim, and suggest others......Well, the war is not done.
If you can't see the message this has sent around the world, its because you elect to ignore the obvious. Fact is, Arabs, Muslims only understand POWER.
America is the most POWERFUL Country in the world, We could use that power for our on good at any time......WE DO NOT. If we wanted to take oil, We'd only have to travel to Centrel Amercia and take all we want.
As far at Threats, Well you guys to our north don't have to worry about them....You see We are the ones spilling blood to protect your ungratful asses!
<strong>Gentlemen:
Time to post a dissenting view. I'm glad Saddam is gone. Was there ever any question that he was a diabolical tyrannous dictator? But I can point to umpteen equally nasty leaders who manage to avoid the military wrath of the U.S. Suharto's Indonesia was not a pretty place at all. Nor was Mobuto's Zaire or for that matter Kabila's Congo (nee Zaire). Robert Mugabe? Not a nice man. And please, don't get me started on China, a country that executes more of its citizens annually than the rest of the world combined. Then there is Saudi Arabia. The list goes on and on and on.
The pretext for this war was WMD disarmament of Iraq. The pretext for the pretext was the fight against global terrorism. Well, if you wish to go after sponsors of global terrorism, I'm sorry to say that Saddam would be way down the list of guys to get. WMD? Bottom line is that you need not only a payload of bad stuff (chemical, biological, nuclear) but also the means to deliver the bad stuff. My opinion is that this threat was nowhere near what we were lead to believe.
Was this a "just" war? In my opinion, no. Will the world be a safer place because of it? Again, my opinion is no. Was a military solution the only solution? I do not believe so.
This war was launched for several reasons. There is no doubt one of them was to get Saddam. But I believe that goal could have been accomplished by more selective, covert means (yes, assassination). However, in doing so, there would have been no opportunity for the U.S. to show the Arab world that it means business, and is more than willing to use its military might to protect its interests globally.
I repeat, is the world a safer place today because of the war? My opinion is emphatically no.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">I often wonder what folks like you would suggest. I always read of these other solutions, but never see anthing other than "give inspections more time" Well 12 years is pleanty of time. You say this war was fought on the pretex of global terriosim, and suggest others......Well, the war is not done.
If you can't see the message this has sent around the world, its because you elect to ignore the obvious. Fact is, Arabs, Muslims only understand POWER.
America is the most POWERFUL Country in the world, We could use that power for our on good at any time......WE DO NOT. If we wanted to take oil, We'd only have to travel to Centrel Amercia and take all we want.
As far at Threats, Well you guys to our north don't have to worry about them....You see We are the ones spilling blood to protect your ungratful asses!
