BS: JFK may have saved the world?

Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world?
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 02:45 PM

Crediting Bush's invasion of Iraq with Libya coming around is like crediting the rooster for the rising of the sun. The rooster thinks he deserves the credit. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 04:11 PM

Tinker, I read with interest your comments.

"A non-violent philosophy is a nice thing to have, but it seldom accomplishes much in the real world, which is why we glorify the exceptional leaders who can succeed with it, e.g. Ghandi."

The "real world" depends on which "reality" one subscribes to.
Actually, when Ghandi or King used it, it worked. The problem is that it is often dismissed out of hand without grounds to support that hypothesis.


"But years of sanctions and UN resolutions meant nothing to Saddam, a dictator (sorry, BBC, but that's what he was) who slaughtered thousands of his own people, made war on at least three nearby nations (Iran, Kuwait and Israel), permitted torture and rape as his sons' birthright, etc., etc. Yeah, they haven't found the WMD's, but they found a lot of mass graves. Is that somehow more acceptable?"

These graves were considered acceptable when the Reagan and Bush administrations condoned his actions as a deterrant to Iran.

"It's so easy to slam Bush, especially from across an ocean. But what would you have suggested, instead of the war, that could have removed Hussein from power? What exactly would have been a better idea that would have accomplished the same goal in the same time frame?"

Number one, involving the World Community in the process rather than for the Bushies to go it alone. The inspections quite to the contrary to some propaganda were working. They were neutralizing his power.

"Ask any parent. Threats of punishment carry no force unless the punishments occasionally occur."

As a parent I disagree. Punitive responses may have an inverse affect to acceptable behavior. The spate of child abuse cases that we see today are evidence of this. The child grows up to be another molesters Actually, many children can become innured to punishment that is meted out with regularity. The way to handle child rearing has to do with opening options that include more than punishment. This was not done in Iraq, sorry to say.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 04:41 PM

Castro is a military dictator but would have no vested interest in starting a nuclear war. It was a political move. Cuba could become dust if he were to launch such a missile. I believe he's a despot but not crazy. Who knows if he really had nuclear armaments in those delivery systems? I personally doubt it. It's like Iraq's WMD's.

The idea behind Communism as practiced in the USSR or Cuba is more
about enforcing that ideology on the rest of the world, not obliterating it. That latter doesn't make sense for a Communist ideologue.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 04:49 PM

It is a mistake to confuse good judgement with either weakness or a blanket policy of non-violence. People commanding armies cannot afford to be non-violent, as that is not their job in life...they are (or should be) warriors. They cannot afford to be weak. But they need good judgement. It is not good judgement to launch an unnecessary war for spurious reasons in violation of international law and in defiance of a great majority of World opinion.

Saddam did it when he attacked both Iran and Kuwait. America and Britain did it when they attacked Iraq recently. Stalin did it when he attacked Finland (in '39). Hitler did it when he attacked Poland. Mussolini did it when he attacked Ethiopia.

Whether one gets away with this sort of thing or not (either in the short run or the long run) depends on many factors, but it is not good judgement nor is it good moral conduct, and to say so is not necessarily to endorse non-violence in all situations.

A good warrior fights only when it is truly necessary and when it is unavoidable. He does not do so capriciously, out of the need to beat on his chest, impress people, steal what is not his, and cow the World. The World in the end outlasts such a warrior and swallows him.

There is conflict in the World because of massive economic and social inequality and great oppression in many places, and there are weapons of mass destruction in the World because huge aggressive powers like the USA, Russia, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain invented them, funded them, built them, sold them and used them. In a situation where the big players create monstrous things, the small players will soon learn to imitate them, just as children learn from their parents...for better or for worse.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world?
From: kendall
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 05:41 PM

What could we have done as an alternative to invading Iraq? How about we demand that Saddam return all those W's M.D. that we loaned him under the Reagan administration? He was supposed to use them on Iran, not his own people, or us.

Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Dec 03 - 05:59 PM

There were many, many alternatives, and they've been discussed over and over again on this forum. Iraq was already a country which had lost most of its fighting power and its economic strength and 3/4 of its own airspace for over ten years, an almost unprecedented situation in history. It was crippled, isolated, and effectively incapable of defending itself against attack by a major power. It's WMD's were mostly gone by shortly after '91.

The USA attacked Iraq not because of any actual need, not on behalf of Iraquis themselves, not in self-defence, but for direct gain for the USA and the Bush administration...according to how they saw it.

How can there be "no alternative" to unprovoked aggression? I'm sure Hitler felt there was no alternative to the attack on Poland (since he risked...and got...a major war in Europe by doing it). He must have felt that there was no alternative. He was dead wrong. There are always any number of alternatives to aggression.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 08:02 AM

Little Hawk,

What has America gained in Iraq? What did it think it would gain?

Hitler's mission, as perceived by him, was the reunification of Germany and the defeat, by conquest, of soviet communism. He knew full well that in attacking Poland to regain the territories ceded to Poland under the Treaty of Versailles in order to join East Prussia to Germany, he risked war with Britain and France. He had already bought off Russia in the short term. He, along with the German Chiefs of Staff, thought that Germany would win that war. He was wrong, but in the German analysis of the situation there was no alternative, Poland would not give up that territory (which was German) regardless of any inducement the government of the Third Reich might have offered.

The likelyhood of Cuba firing missiles at targets in the US was nil, as those missiles and their payloads would at no time have been in their (Cuban) control. They were Soviet missiles, Soviet warheads, maintained and operated by Soviet troops.

The Cuban missile crisis showed the need for second strike capability to remove the threat of pre-emptive strike by either party during the "cold war". In 1962 Soviet submarines posed little threat, up to 1964 Soviet submarines were referred to as "Coffee-Grinders" - you literally could hear them from miles away. In 1964 the USSR crash stopped their submarine building programme and concentrated for the next four years on oceanographic research and espionage. In 1968 they restarted the build up of their submarine fleet, the subs build after 1968 were much quieter (not as quiet as US boats) and they knew better than anyone else where to hide them.

Through successive treaties and agreements, nuclear disarmament was well on course, up until the time India and Pakistan tested their own build nukes and delivery systems. Direct threat to the world caused by a Taliban inspired take-over of Pakistan - insignificant, range of delivery systems takes those missiles as far as the Indian capitol, that is as far as they ever had to fly. Indirect threat within the same scenario - potentially massive.

Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 11:27 AM

I think your summary of the German motives for attacking Poland is entirely accurate, teribus. It was, in any case, a reckless and bad decision, but I understand the rationale behind it all right. Hitler took a gamble. He figured that Britain and France would make angry noises but not go to war over Poland. He was wrong. And so, he got a war in the West that he would rather have avoided, since his real objective was the destruction of the Soviet Union and the colonization of much of their land and resources.

You ask "What has America gained in Iraq?"

Darned if I know! I suppose we might better ask that of George Bush and Karl Rove...I'm sure they could come up with some kind of answer.

"What did it (America) think it would gain?"

I can only speculate...a military victory and a political coup which would strengthen the Bush administration's position at home and abroad? Direct control of some valuable oil fields? A base for future Middle East operations aimed at...Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Al Queda? The nourishment of voter support for the Bush administration by waving the flag and creating a crisis? Stimulation of military spending to boost the economy? Elimination of a dangerous foreign government run by a former employee who went bad?

I don't know. What do you think America (meaning the Bush administration) thought it would gain? Governments certainly do not launch overt wars of aggression unless they think they are going to gain something out of it.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 12:21 PM

Little Hawk statements made in your two posts, 31 Dec 03 - 05:59 PM, where you state:

"The USA attacked Iraq not because of any actual need, not on behalf of Iraquis themselves, not in self-defence, but for direct gain for the USA and the Bush administration...according to how they saw it."

and 05 Jan 04 - 11:27 AM, where you state:

"You ask "What has America gained in Iraq?"

Darned if I know!"

Which is it?

In turn you asked me what I thought the US might think they would gain.

1. Closure and compliance by Iraq of all outstanding terms and conditions of UN Security Council Resolutions.

2. Removal of a regime that advocated the destruction of the State of Israel and who pursued that aim by supporting terrorist groups.

3. Establishment of a representative and democractically elected government in Iraq. The sovereignty of that state within existing boundaries being guaranteed by the USA

All the above enhance the prospects for peace in the region if seen through to fruition.

Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 07:05 PM

I said "direct gain....according to how they saw it". I don't actually know how they saw it. I can only guess... I have no way of knowing for sure what they were really thinking when they launched that war.

Neither do I know what they're really thinking now. I just know what the News tells me, and I take that with a grain of salt.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world?
From: GUEST,Jasper
Date: 17 Mar 04 - 09:26 PM

For the record the UN was very involved in the cuban missile crisis. I can remember adlai stevenson showing the smoking gun to the world community. Just off the top of my head I believe their were back channel negociations that involved UN personnel. IN fact I believe that is one of the dialogues that finally succeded in resolving the standoff. Look it up. I would but I am too lazy right this minute.
Jasper