• We're a fun, friendly, and diverse group of planners, placemakers, students, and other folks who found their people here. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! Use your email address, or register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

Nightline -with Ted Koppel

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
Anyone catch Nightline last night? Great debate about the timing of the war. Seems even old Ted is in the "let's get it on" camp.
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,161
Points
27
Just found out that France, Germany, and Russia are going to block the UN war resolution...big surprise.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
23
It's time. Bad decision if we try for another resolution without the votes to win and the assurance there will be no veto.

The debate is over, time for those who think Mike Farrell et al. represent this Country better than Ms. Rice, Mr. Powell, and Mr. Bush to move toward the ashheap of history as they are already forgotten.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,078
Points
33
Whether you are in favor of war, opposed, or undecided, I think you have to agree that the Bush team has handled the foreign policy aspect extremely poorly. Rather than negotiate behind closed doors, gain consensus, and then propose action, Bush has (arrogantly) plowed forward with his plans and expected everyone else to acquiesce. Pretty dumb. He is not his father.
 

biscuit

Cyburbian
Messages
3,904
Points
25
I stayed-up to watch Nightline and thought it was it was good enough to warrent being rebroadcast at an earlier time so those who aren't watcing tv at 1 am can see the debate. I can't help but say however that, excluding his quip to the French Ambassader, I was disapointed at the performance of my man John McCain. I usually like the man an admire his honosty but I noticed that he bubled about and was evasive at best whenever a hard hitting question of pre-emption was asked. Maybe he was just uncomftable being a cheerleader for the Bush admin. Lord knows it would make my skin itch if I were.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
33
Michael Stumpf said:
Whether you are in favor of war, opposed, or undecided, I think you have to agree that the Bush team has handled the foreign policy aspect extremely poorly. Rather than negotiate behind closed doors, gain consensus, and then propose action, Bush has (arrogantly) plowed forward with his plans and expected everyone else to acquiesce. Pretty dumb. He is not his father.
I agree. His Cowboy Arrogance is showing too clearly. Especially with continually changing the terms and conditions for avoidance of war. First it was disarm, now its disarm and exhile Saddam. What will it be now that France, Germany and Russia have strapped on their balls?
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
23
Stop with the gratutitous "Cowboy" references.

And I think he has handled the foreign policy side of the equation well. I mean, hell he didn't have to go to the UN, but he did. He did not have to try and negotiate with the Pro-Saddam appeasers, but he did.

We can argue til we are blue in the face on this but I fundamentally believe in the policy of preemption in the best interests of the United States.

Damn it, things have changes since September 11 the world is different and unsafe. The President is principled and honest.

No he is not his father. If he was I am sure he would be riduculed for just that.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
23
And to equate "strapping on balls" to leaving Saddam in power, sticking their head in the sand, and relying on us to do the job is insane.
 

Wannaplan?

Galactic Superstar
Messages
3,115
Points
26
gkmo62u said:
Stop with the gratutitous "Cowboy" references.
Stop with the gratuitious literal-minded attitude. It's a joke, even if it is disrespectful. Relax. This is the Friday Afternoon Club, ya know?!
 

Wannaplan?

Galactic Superstar
Messages
3,115
Points
26
Michael Stumpf said:
Whether you are in favor of war, opposed, or undecided, I think you have to agree that the Bush team has handled the foreign policy aspect extremely poorly. Rather than negotiate behind closed doors, gain consensus, and then propose action, Bush has (arrogantly) plowed forward with his plans and expected everyone else to acquiesce. Pretty dumb. He is not his father.
Spot on!

And in early 2001, before September 11, let's not forget that our Cowboy President dismantled the ABM treaty with Russia. If my memory is correct, Russia did not like that move.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,078
Points
33
gkmo62u said:
Stop with the gratutitous "Cowboy" references.
I love John Wayne movies, and can seldom pass up one of his westerns. You always knew there would be action. People would'nt talk about their differences and try to find a compromise, they would fight. If the problem was big enough, it would be a gunfight. When I think about the way Bush handles himself, I think of the old westerns and of their image of cowboys. Cowboy diplomacy. I wonder if "The Man Who Shot Libery Valance" isn't perhaps in some ways a good metaphor for what is going on now.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
I'm sorry to rant, but. . .

The world has ALWAYS been a dangerous place. September 11 was a horrible event, but it did not somehow "change everything."

These plans are a fantasy cooked up ten years ago by a bunch of Little Caesars who were slapped down by Bush I but found a more easily manipulatable president in Shrub. They are attaching this scheme to September 11 to justify their own ideology.

The whole point of cooperative arrangements like NATO (and even the UN) is to reduce or spread danger around. Unilateral preemption is not only expensive but will be, in the medium-to-long run, unsustainable and MORE dangerous for the world and the US.

You claim to be a libertarian, gkmo, but empires are never very conducive to civil liberties and small government. Even if the empires claim to be "fostering democracy" in their subject
countries. Look at the plethora of propaganda, invasive police powers, and big government. Not only will "democracy" not be spread in the mideast, but it will be, over time, threatened right here.

But, what it comes down to in the end is trust. I don't trust Cheney or any of the inner circle. They are profiteers with some scary history behind them.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
33
Mastiff said:


Who loaned France a set of balls?
Beat me to it Mastiff. I was going to edit the post to say "they all share 2 sets"
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
23
17 UN Resolutions. 12 years. If a Cowboy was this slow to draw, he'd be up on boot hill.

Maybe I am way out of touch on this, a war monger if you will.

I tend not to think so and that all this hatred for the President arises because you (all-not individual specific) couldn't get enough votes in Florida and you have had no outlet for dealing with your defeat.

El Guapo, El Feo where are you when I need you? Am I too far out there?
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
Westerns

The lawmen in town know the townsfolk are chickens and will not be there in the clutch. The lawmen in town know that If Marshal George walks out on main street at noon and kills Saddam with one shot 'tween the eyes there will be law and order in Dodge City and word will spread to Cimmeron and Spearville.

On the other hand if Frenchy and the German talk Sheriff George in to writing him 18 nasty letters and then 12 years later they send an unarmed Dutch deputy out to Saddam's farm to ask if he wants to give up his guns - maybe he will. Maybe he will die from a stroke while laughing his ass off. That is more likely.

I'm almost to the point where I say we stop the war process on Iraq and let the world have a taste of what it is like with no policeman on the beat. Bend over France the Germans are coming.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
23
BKM

Your personal hatred for the President makes you difficult, and in the end, useless to debate.

what kind of jive is "profiteers"?

If you don't think the world is different today, you just don't get it.

We should not be afraid of Unilateralism. it is not inherently wrong.

How is this empire building? No legs on that arguement.

I fail to see how more freedoms and less government control of ones life is not consistent with trying to give the same to opporessed people of the world.

That's what irks me about the Pro-saddam appeaser crowd, there is no outrage for the people of iraq.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
33
gkmo62u said:
I tend not to think so and that all this hatred for the President arises because you (all-not individual specific) couldn't get enough votes in Florida and you have had no outlet for dealing with your defeat.
gk - dont get me wrong, I support the POTUS and support the war effort (although I'm still wrestling with this at some level).

I do think that the foreign policy team has made mis-steps on this one. Thats all.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,078
Points
33
gkmo62u said:
17 UN Resolutions. 12 years. If a Cowboy was this slow to draw, he'd be up on boot hill.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying Clinton handled this right. I would not say that Clinton handled anything right. We should have held Saddam's feet to the fire back then, but we failed due to poor leadership from the president. As a result, we are now faced with a different situation in 2002-3 than we were in 1992-3.

Maybe the quick-to-draw approach would have been appropriate back then, but that does not mean that it is now. The diplomatic situation has changed. We are not wanted there by our hosts. There is greater sensitivity among Arab peoples to how the US (and the West) relates to them and Islam. The Israeli-Palistinian situation has grown dramitically worse. We are not supported by most of the more important countries that were previously our allies.

Despite all of this, Bush comes along and announces that he is going to wage war against Iraq. He says he wants compliance but in the same sentence states that nothing Iraq does will be acceptible. Then he submits resolutions to the UN blindly expecting the other nations of the world to rubber-stamp his war plans. When they fail, the US doesn't simply suffer a political setback, we look like warmongers. In my opinion, this is not good diplomacy.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
23
Michael:

I guess it is old fashioned Big Stick dimplomacy. It may be unsettling to some, yet peace at all costs is equally bad diplomacy, in my opinion.

And in this case, for France and Germany, for instance, peace at all costs would leave Saddam in power and with weapons. That has to be unacceptable.

Maybe GW should not have gone to the UN at all. I would argue that there is no real need for a 2nd resolution and that "a material breech" has already been committed, justifying war.

I can draw a planning comparison: never ask the local government staff a question that you do not know the answer to.

Don't offer a resolution if you don't have the votes.

I think the one other item that I may be out there on is that I am less concerned with how the French people, or more particularly the Arab peoples see us.

I am leaning towards a fairly isolationist stance at this point.

george
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
23
And Brian, I hear you. I did not think criticism of the Powell/Rice team was permitted. Bring back Aunt Bea Albright!
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
Do is dislike George Bush himself? Yes. We can debate endlessly the pitfalls of the US Electoral system and "whether he won" or not, but at this point in history, it is pointless, and that is not the main focus of my complaint.

As for profiteers, many officials in the Bush Administration leadership and in the backdrop were involved in arming Sadaam to begin with. Its just part of the same ol' "realpolitic" that ends up profiting nobody but large arms manufacturers.
After GW I, Cheney and Haliburton were involved in high level consultations to supply the Iraqi government. They have admitted that there will be plentiful opportunities in a post-war Iraq.

I am not an appeaser, I think that Sadaam is evil. I do not join the crowds of people protesting the impacts of the sanctions. 500,000 children dying is not OUR fault.

But, I remain very skeptical about "democracy" being imposed by us. Iraq is not really a nation state, it is a cobbled-together quilt of mutually opposing forces only held together by the Baathist Party apparatus. How is an invasion going to "bring enlightenment" to the natives. Democracy can only evolve over time-heck, until 1865 we ourselves defined 1/3 of the population in the South as subhuman.

As for the Europeans, they are not in any position to lecture anyone on morality.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,078
Points
33
gkmo62u said:
Michael:

I guess it is old fashioned Big Stick dimplomacy. It may be unsettling to some, yet peace at all costs is equally bad diplomacy, in my opinion....

...I think the one other item that I may be out there on is that I am less concerned with how the French people, or more particularly the Arab peoples see us.

I am leaning towards a fairly isolationist stance at this point.

george
Big Stick diplomacy has a place, but it still must be done tactfully. Unfortunately, we are being made to look like we are the bullies who will not be contented with anything short of war. Our good friends in France and Germany have helped quite a bit to paint that picture, but it is still ultimately a failure of the US foreign policy team.

I am very concerned about how Arabs view us, as we may be generating more of the kind of hatred that fosters anti-American sentiment and leads to support for terrorism. After September 11 we had a great deal of sympathy from the Arab world - even Ghaddafi expressed his condolences for what happened. We have squandered that good will and the opportunity it offered to bring Arab and Western peoples together, in favor of turning our anger on them.

Isolationist? How does that fit with your support (I have assumed) for war in Iraq?
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
23
BKM.

Those are excellent points. Can't force democracy down the throats of the unbelievers.. Steady. I mean those without an historic fabric such as, like it or not, the Judaeo-Christian foundings of the democratized west.

I would dispute your premise on the arming of iraq. Times change. The mid 80's support of Iraq was based in opposition to the Iranians. Geopolitcs makes strange bedfellows. Were we wrong about that choice, debateable, I'll grant you that. But can an arguement not be made to wonder would we have been better or worse off if Iranian Fundamentalism would have won the Iran-Iraq war? Did our arming of Saddam help or hinder?

Mr. Cheney has been cleared of any allegations I think, with regard to Haliburton.

Good discussion.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
23
Michael, I think they hate us already. If terrorism had the ability to do worse than Sept.11 they would have.

The isolationist thing is something I have just started to wrestle with.

I guess I can justify a war as an isolationist if it is clearly in our best interest. In this case I think that true.

Obviously it can be short sided "a billion japanese by cell phones" etc...and you would hate to minimize your markets, but what if we did step back from things, limits foreign moneys to loser country's who don't appreciate us etc...

as matt Drudge might write.....developing....
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
BKM said:
Its just part of the same ol' "realpolitic" that ends up profiting nobody but large arms manufacturers.
Those arms manufacturers are owned by your fellow Americans. I have stock in Northrup Gruman. Do you think I'd rather make an extra $1000 in the market knowing 1000 American soldiers will die and as many as 100 times more Iraqis may die? No way.

Why is it that you ascribe these motive to those in power who have all their assest in a blind trust? Me - I have a financial motive for war - but that plays no part in my belief that Saddam needs to go.
 

Dan

Dear Leader
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
17,346
Points
53
Re: I'm sorry to rant, but. . .

BKM said:
Not only will "democracy" not be spread in the mideast, but it will be, over time, threatened right here.
What happened to the United States' nation-building capabilities? With our help, Germany and Japan were both turned into model republics after those nations lost Word War II. It's too soon to tell what will happen in Afghanistan, and pundits on the left claim that nation-building efforts in Iraq would just fail. Why?

The United States is, for the most part, a benevolent captor ... at least that's been the case for the past 100 years. If and when Iraq's government falls, the US won't be enslaving Iraqi citizens, stealing oil, flooding the country with Baptist missionaries, or turning it into the 51st state. However, we shouldn't settle for a government led by another dictator which just happens to be pro-US. Cultural homogeneity isn's a pre-requisite for a stable democratic government; consider Canada, the UK, South Africa, and the US to some extent (excluding that little fight we had amongst outselves about 140 years ago). Folks now expect instant results, and that isn't going to happen. I think a democratic Iraq, with the presence of a Kurd minority, is possible.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,078
Points
33
gkmo62u - Not all Arabs hate us. In fact, it is really only a small percentage. I would guess no larger a percentage than Phillipines or Canadians. In my time in the region I had the opportunity to travel to many places and to meet many Arabs of all social classes. While there were some who made clear their disapproval, the majority were very pleasant. Many had been to the US of A, admired us, and felt genuine friendship towards our nation. These are the people about whom I worry our actions will turn away.

Dan, while I was in Saudi Arabia I knew a Baptist minister who spent an inordinate amount of her time trying to get the unrepentent heathen to convert. I remain un-saved, though.
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
Geez, I'm trying to stay out, but I just can't!!!

My own rant follows. You've been forewarned.

I don't see any foreign policy miscues. All I see is highly successful foreign policy jujitsu.

Sorry, but I think it's pragmatically VERY useful to have everyone's interests so clearly exposed, and I credit Bush with that. Old Europe v. New Europe - seriously, I think that's a VERY helpful construct with respect to American interests. Good to have that portion of Europe that is strategically significant and economically vigorous with us. As for the others, what do we have? Withering stagnant nations that have socialized on the backs of American security for 50 years, that's what. The anti-war crowd wants to puff up the obstructionists of Iraqi liberation as the moral force in the world, but the emperor has no clothes. If that's morality, then you can have it. France, with dreams of EU dominance and billions in Iraqi oil contracts through TotalFinaElf, seems to have as its motto "No Blood, For Oil." Also, if you want to see REAL profits from Iraqi arms sales, check the books of French defense contractors. But at the end of the day, what's a little suffering by Iraqi wogs if French treasure and prestige can be built up, right? Germany is just as bad. With equal EU aspirations, it's got a Chancellor who's only hope for political survival seems to be to throw principal, the Iraqi people, and a staunch ally to whom his country's very existence today is owed, over the side - "Hey, I can't govern, but at least I'm not a 'simple cowboy.'" Old Europe would like to think they're indispensible, but I'd remind them that one of their own, DeGaulle, noted that "the graveyards are full of indispensible men."

Outside Europe, what? Russia? Toothless, clawless bear with the same arms deals that France has, and the very energy infrastructure contracts with Saddam, that the US is accused of lusting after. China? The biggest worry, with more energy infrastructure contracts, no natural oil reserves of their own, and every reason to want to do business with another dictator (the dictatorships seem very clubby, you know?). But they have a nuclear nut next door they don't care to do anything about and no moral leg to stand on either. [Message to China: Ever hear of Kim Jong Il? Clean up your own damn neighborhood before you crap on our plans to clean up what is arguably our own mess.] By the way, I read in Jane's and the Paki press that China also seems to be on the verge of winning a contract to build that pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. So much for Halliburton having an inside man.

At the same time, both sadly and thankfully - the UN has now been fully exposed as an ass. I'm with those who think that it will have been helpful to Tony Blair for us to have tried, even if we fail, the UN route. But that doesn't change the fact that the UN has turned into nothing more than an image-laundering and shakedown scheme for dictators with dreams of world power, and run-down former colonial overlords pining away for their former vassals and their former glory. Seriously, c'mon - Iraq as chairman of the UN's International Conference on Disarmanent (even IRAQ saw the irony, and bowed out before the UN grew the balls to demand it)? Libya as chair of the UN's International Committee on Human Rights? France, screaming "unilateralism," threatening veto on the Security Council, as it shoves a Quai d'Orsay brokered "peace" down the throats of a justifiably unthankful and skeptical Cote d'Ivoire? I'm supposed to take this body seriously? I don't think so.

Arguing that leaving Iraq alone right now promotes stability in the Middle East doesn't move me much. It's a selfish stability that comes at the price of writing off a whole generation of a whole region of the world to squalor, oppression, and fanatacism. I say, bring down Saddam, and watch Iran follow. Then watch Syria snap into line. Then others. Those people who are going to hate us there, hate us already. Those there who crave freedom will only hate us if we do nothing.

The scales should be off any open-minded persons eyes now, IMHO (and it's just an opinion), and it's all thanks to this administration.

As for what the rest of the world thinks of us - JUST FOR NOW, mind you - who gives a flip? Winning the war and liberating Iraq from oppression - even for a CHANCE at democracy there, succeed or fail - is worth it all, and everyone will be clamoring for credit after it's over. Every time somebody questions Bush's foreign policy acumen, or more likely just straight up calls him a moron, I'm reminded of Q. Fabius Maximus (who was fighting Hannibal - another "popular" brutal dictator - along with a dubious roman public at the same time) who said "it is better that a wise enemy should fear you, than that foolish friends should praise."

Whew. Rant over. Sorry...
 
Last edited:

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,078
Points
33
I am in agreement that the conflict with Iraq is not about US economic interests. I will also agree that the UN has lost a great deal of credibility when it would even contemplate electing a country like Libya to a human rights post.

We will have to disagree on whether the Bush team has played the foriegn policy game well. To me, it just seems that we have set ourselves up for several embarrassing defeats and have not clearly stated either our goals or reasons.

Quintus Fabius quoted on Cyburbia? I am impressed. Let me add a quote. Adlai Stevenson said "Making peace is harder than making war."




Um... for the French...

"We read that we ought to forgive our enemies; but we do not read that we ought to forgive our friends."

Cosimo de'Medici
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
Michael Stumpf said:
We will have to disagree on whether the Bush team has played the foriegn policy game well. To me, it just seems that we have set ourselves up for several embarrassing defeats and have not clearly stated either our goals or reasons.
Michael, we clearly will have to disagree on this one. Defeat? Embarrassment? If we lose the vote on Resolution #18 a thousand times, I would concede neither defeat nor feel the sting of embarrassment. It will be a soulless, debasing victory for those that oppose us and that threatens the security of everyone, and we can't be embarrassed by nations that are proving themselves ethical midgets with respect to their own foreign policy.

Goals? Reasons? The goal is regime change, and a shot at Iraqi democacy. The reason is 12 years of brinksmanship with a despot who's danger to us and the world grows daily, and who's thwarted the, er, "will" of the very "international community" that now seeks to buy him time at the hour of reckoning.
 
Last edited:

Jen

Cyburbian
Messages
1,704
Points
24
Good discussion folks,

I just want to know when my family's govt issue gas mask and flak jacket is coming, cuz i have no doubt that we'll see mayhem in our own beloved cities during or in the years after this war which will never be forgotten by the people who hate us.

I supported the Kuwaiti war, it seemed there was a clear purpose, we were rescuing a people. GB is using 9/11 as an excuse. If thatattack never happened or was thwarted, GB would not be going after Saddam. Oh the USA would be waiting for something to happen(usually elsewhere) maybe even baiting Saddam but he's got his excuse now - so be it ! maybe it is time but again I dont see a light at the end of this tunnel.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
The first Pro-War Planner Protest.

I see it as taking care of some long overdue business.

Now Conservative Planners Unite!

Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!

Who do we want dead like Musolini?
Crowd: That SOB SADDAM!

Who do we want to kill him?
Crowd: American Special Forces!

How should he die?
Really Slowly and on Fox News Live with Shepard Smith!

Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Saddam is EVIl and Has to Go!

I have never protested before. That feels liberating. Anyone want to hold a sit in at my local PBS station with me?

P.S. The looooser Peacewanks at the University of Kansas postponed thier anti-war protest because of weather. I can help but make the comparison to those fine young men and women serving in the gulf who will not get their date with destiny posponed because of weather.
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,161
Points
27
In Philly yesterday a bunch of Patchouli oil wearing high school and college kids protested at City Hall and the Armed Forces Recruiting Center.

A bunch of kids hand cuffed themselves to the door of the recruiting office, and were interviewed by the news and stated they were successful in scaring away recruits today.

And then the reporter pointed out that there was another door about 100' away, and potential recruits were coming and going all day :)
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,078
Points
33
Re: The first Pro-War Planner Protest.

El Guapo said:

Who do we want to kill him?
Crowd: American Special Forces!
My point exactly. We should have simply eliminated him. Either send in the Special Forces or Mike DeVouno and some Philly boys to off him. Instead, we have created this huge international mess where we come off looking pretty bad.


I have never proteseted before. That feels liberating. Anyone want to hold a sit in at my local PBS station with me?
I once helped to organize a counter-demonstration when the John Lennon Society marched on the College of Business and ROTC (military-industrial complex) on my campus. Fun!

"Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! JLS has got to go!"
 

Greenescapist

Cyburbian
Messages
1,169
Points
23
Gee, W's saber-rattling has really affected a bunch of you here. I am still against rushing into military action. Yes, it's true that France is prickly with everything the US wants to do-- they just want to be different, but look at our allies with this thing.... the UK, Spain and Bulgaria. That's not exactly a broad coalition- two fallen imperial powers and a poor, developing country. Why shouldn't we give diplomacy some more time? Aren't the risks of American lives lost and American moral high-ground too great to gamble on W's quest to right his Dad's mistake? I think so.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
Greenescapist said:
Gee, W's saber-rattling has really affected a bunch of you here.
I made up my own mind after considering the facts over the last 12 years.

Did Martin Sheen's flower-rattling affect you?
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
Michael, honestly, I do respect where you're coming from, but what would it have gained us if special forces had just taken him out? This is what I think: the world would still have howled. And to top it off, we'd likely be stuck with a replacement toady from the Baathist regime little better than who's there now. There's little chance at planting the seeds for real stability and possible democracy in the Middle East, starting with Iraq, unless we're willing to enforce the chance with a ton of will and lot of steel.

The CIA couldn't have done it, because political assassinations have been illegal since the pendulum swung too far (IMHO) the other way after Vietnam.

I think the reason we have this huge international mess is that, for the most part, the western powers have had literally no or minimal foreign policy for the last dozen years, really since the end of the Cold War. There's bound to be a mess when there's 12-14 years worth of crap to clean up dating back to at least the end of the last Gulf War.

The mess has been there for a long while. It's just been exposed now, and that's just what has to happen before things can be straightened out.

By the way, liked and agree with the Adlai Stevenson quote earlier. But keep in mind, there really are such things as just wars, and sometimes stability doesn't really mean peace.
 

Greenescapist

Cyburbian
Messages
1,169
Points
23
No, I wasn't aware that Martin Sheen was positioning himself as a peacenik. Barbra Streissand told me how to think.... just kidding!

Seriously though, I am undecided on this thing. I see points on both sides. Tom Friedman's columns in the New York Times have had some pretty interesting points lately, and he is generally supportive of military action.

Here's a link to his column from yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/05/opinion/05FRIE.html

I just heard that Bush is giving a press conference tonight at 8pm. I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say.
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
GE, Welcome to the scrum! Here's my thoughts...

Greenescapist said:
Gee, W's saber-rattling has really affected a bunch of you here. I am still against rushing into military action.
Ah, yes, that again. The "rush." The 12 year, 17 UN resolution, Congressionally approved rush to war.

Yes, it's true that France is prickly with everything the US wants to do-- they just want to be different, but look at our allies with this thing.... the UK, Spain and Bulgaria.That's not exactly a broad coalition- two fallen imperial powers and a poor, developing country.
France's duplicity goes a little beyond prickliness, in my mind. You may not think much of Italy, Poland, Hungary, Albania, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, Qatar, Kuwait, Pakistan, Australia - I'm getting tired of typing - but I sure value their support. And really, I'm pretty sure their military contributions to this thing will make a bigger difference than if France and Germany threw everything they had our way.

Why shouldn't we give diplomacy some more time?
Again, I've decided that for me, twelve years is enough time.

Aren't the risks of American lives lost and American moral high-ground too great to gamble on W's quest to right his Dad's mistake?
Potential American lives lost is always a throat-lumper and heart-stopper, unless a person is just cold beyond belief. But I think America will only lose its moral high-ground if it leaves the Iraqi people hanging. The beauty of it is - their liberation intersects with our security and long-term regional peace and stability! And when by "Dad's mistake" you really mean, well, the continuation of a brutal dictatorship, then the quest to right it seems pretty darn worth it, to me.
 
Last edited:

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
El Feo said:
And when by "Dad's mistake" you really mean, well, the continuation of a brutal dictatorship, then the quest to right it seems pretty darn worth it, to me.
WTH? The peaceniks want it both ways. In 1991 George the first was a real SOB in the peacnick circles for keeping the killing going on the highway of death and going after the Republican Guard. He surely wasn't allowed to go to the Capitol and kill Saddam. George the first followed the will of the coalition in not making a regime change by taking Baghdad.

On a personal note; all that was between me and Baghdad was a French Brigade. So we could have taken Baghdad at our leisure. We didn't do it because of the agreement with our Arab allies.

I'm sure Bush and associates were personally all for regime change back in 1991 as a policy. But they followed the F'ing UN. So the problem is a result of following the international will not BUSH the first's failure. He failed the Kurds and the southern Sheits, but that is another story.

Saddam will be there in 2013 if we follow the international will again. Hell, I can make missiles in shop class with a few buds at the rate Hans Blix is destroying them. Imagine how well he can rearm in the mean time.

PS - The UN is failure and it is time to expell the diplomats that work there.
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
Let me join the pro-liberation protest!

Let's see - lard bucket, fer beatin' on - check. Life-sized puppets of Schoeder, Chirac and Saddam as Hitler and two pet weasels - check. Goofy costume for me - check.

Now I can chant!

HEY HEY YELLOW JACQUES
HOW MANY NUKES DID YOU SELL IRAQ?

HEY HEY YELLOW JACQUES
HOW MANY NUKES DID YOU SELL IRAQ?

HEY HEY YELLOW JACQUES
HOW MANY NUKES DID YOU SELL IRAQ?

HEY HEY YELLOW JACQUES
HOW MANY NUKES DID YOU SELL IRAQ?
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
El Guapo said:
WTH? The peaceniks want it both ways. In 1991 George the first was a real SOB in the peacnick circles for keeping the killing going on the highway of death and going after the Republican Guard. He surely wasn't allowed to go to the Capitol and kill Saddam. George the first followed the will of the coalition in not making a regime change by taking Baghdad.
Dude, did you misunderstand me? I don't think it's ultimately GHWB's mistake at all. I read about "Dad's mistake" all the time, and was only trying to point out the fallacy of calling it that, and what it is that's really at stake

To the extent that he DID make a mistake, I think it was to allow the allies to tie our hands too much in how the last war was resolved. That left a big ol' stinky mess. But that's one of the hassles you have to deal with with the "multilateral" approach, ain't it?
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
No Way El Feo! I was bagging on the lactating bleeding heart earth mothers for peace and liberation theology.

I was seconding your thoughts - but in my own badly unclear synatax. You I love. Them, I want to chain to a "Baby Milk Factory" during the upcoming fireworks.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,078
Points
33
I liked George the First. I don't think he made any mistakes in Gulf War I. He pulled off an amazing feat by gettng virtually the entire planet on board to kick Saddam and his murderers out of Kuwait. Part of the price of forming that coalition, and most importantly, gaining Arab support, was an agreement not to occupy Iraq. For many reasons, this was the right thing to do. It would have worked, too, if the UN had forced Saddam to comply with the terms of the surrender.

Unfortunately, GHWB was defeated by the Clintons. A bunch of mindless voters decided "It's the economy, stupid," but were themselves too stupid to see that the economy was already recovering. (Clinton did nothing more than take advantage of Bush's correct economic policies, and continue them.) Over the next eight years as the UN shirked its responsibilities and backed down from its obligations to disarm Saddam, Clinton simply ignored the issue.

Therein lies the big problem. There have been no "12 years of diplomacy." Instead, we have had a decade of ignoring Saddam. Now we are suddenly calling for war, and people around the world are asking "If we have ignored this for a decade and it has not been a problem, then why is it now necessary to go to war over it?"

Most responsible people (let's ignore the peaceniks who would protest no matter what) want to see a slower, united approach. They want a united approach among nations. They want a clear indication of the conditions that must be met and the results of compliance or failure.* They want Iraq to fully comply without the chicanery that we have always seen. So far, they have seen none of these. The last option they want is to send in troops, especially if it is only the US and a handful of allies.



* Don't go telling me about UN resolutions. Let's be honest, they are meaningless. Different countries are saying different things. On top of that, Bush is himself, as well as his administration, is inconsistent in his demands and in statements of what he will accept as compliance.
 

Greenescapist

Cyburbian
Messages
1,169
Points
23
What I meant by "mistake" in the 1991 war is that the Bush team is trying fix what wasn't accomplished the first time--- regime change in Iraq. I don't blame Bush for this. I know Powell, amongst a few others, was very much against a full-blown mission to kill Saddam and his guard. I've heard that the CIA tried anyway, but that's another matter.

I know I hit a nerve with Guapo and Feo (is there an El Malo somewhere, too?). I am not a Pollyanna with this situation. Clearly, Saddam must go, it's just a matter of how to get it done, one what timetable and what is the opportunity cost? I agree with your view that we should take things a little slower, consider alternatives to war, listen to the world community, put pressure on Arab states to alienate Saddam and get the Iraqi people to realize that they would be better off without him.
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
Greenescapist said:
I know I hit a nerve with Guapo and Feo (is there an El Malo somewhere, too?).
[ot]Just to clarify, while many of you may have assumed that El Guapo is my handsome twin brother, alas we are not related by blood - though if politics is genetic, we may have been separated at birth unbeknownst to me.

It will NOT surprise many of you, no doubt, that in my case "El Feo" is actually short for "El Americano Feo ," a half-joking nickname given me by a Spanish friend on a trip through Europe in the early 90s. I got it by nearly causing an international incident by threatening some drunk German hostelers, who were harrassing and otherwise abusing my friend (who happened to be very ill at the time), with a repeat of what happened to their forebears at American hands earlier in the century. I would have prefered "El Americano" as the short version. Hmm, I wonder why they shortened it to "El Feo..."

El Feo. Proud, belligerent jingo since at least 1992.[/ot]
 
Last edited:
Top