BS: Courage of Your Convictions

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 02 - 12:16 PM

the terrorist attacks that the invasion of Iraq might trigger....

Oh, come on.    The FBI can't protect us from the influence of aliens either. But using a scary piece of yellow journalism is hardly an appropriate response to what I said about factless generalizations of danger being anti-social. The fact that big newspapers do it all the time everywhere and infect everything with insanity...sorry, getting carried away there....is no evidence that using these sweeping and, if I may use the word, terrorizing propositions as substitutes for factual reporting is anything but mind-numbing oppression.

I am not interested in being terrorized or staying up at night trembling over non-events. There are enough real events out there requiring intelligent action and understanding without getting thrown into a media-trough fit for baby hogs.



But thanks for the opportunity.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 01:47 PM

Yes, when is a war not a war? When the Boss says it isn't! LOL!

The USA has been engaging in a limited war against Iraq ever since 1989. Like most limited wars, it is an undeclared one, and the rules of engagment keep changing, and it's hard to figure out what they even are. The result of this limited war has been the death of many Iraquis, a few Americans, and a few other people here and there, plus expenditure of a vast amount of money and propaganda, and handy testing out of new weaponry and spying techniques by the US Navy and Air Force.

Saddam has also been engaging in a limited war against Shiites, Kurds, Israelis, and various other people...for a long time now.

Israel has been engaged in a limited war against Palestinians and other Muslims for decades.

Those people have themselves been engaged in a limited war against Israel ever since 1948.

The unbroken period of peace teribus describes in Europe has included a bloody revolution in Rumania, and a horrendous series of wars in the former Yugoslavia, as well as other smaller incidents of bloodshed here and there in various localities...mostly as a result of the Cold War or of old ethnic feuds predating the Cold War and emerging again in the wake of the Soviet Empire's collapse in '89.

When is a war not a war? When the media say it isn't! The media work for the Boss.

And, yes...Japan did invade American territory. So?

So-called "unconditional" surrenders ALSO end with negotiations...but those negotiations come much farther down the road...entailing much greater loss of life than is necessary to secure a victory. Japan and the USA did negotiate various surrender conditions in 1945. It was mostly just a diktat by the USA, Britain, and Russia to Japan, but it did include quietly letting the Japanese know that the Emperor would not be arrested or tried or threatened in any way. That is a negotiated settlement, whether you call it "unconditional" or not.

The claim of having forced unconditional surrender on an enemy is almost always, in truth, a false claim, but it indicates a degree of hubris and self-righteousness on the part of the victor, that's all, Like gloating over the remains of the fallen and completely humiliated enemy. I do not admire such an attitude in victors, whichever side they are on. It lacks humanity. It lacks respect for the foe. It is dishonourable and crass.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 11:30 AM

Perhaps the war wouldn't have happened Teribus, but I don't know that you could say the same about the Holocaust.

As history has shown over and over again, the Western powers are very selected about what acts of genocide they choose to intervene in, and it is pretty apparent from all the historic evidence, that none of the Allied powers were likely to have intervened in the genocide within Germany's borders.

I agree the Allied powers didn't do enough to contain Hitler when they could have. But Hitler was pretty determined to go to war, and there isn't much you can do to stop an aggressor, despite the current fantasies being spun about "pre-emptive" abilities today. The Allies just didn't have their war machine tooled up and ready for the long haul the way Hitler did his--which made a difference too.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 11:26 AM

Hmmmmmmm? What to believe? We are at war. We're not at war. We are at war. We're not at war. We are.................. And the beat goes on.

I've heard Runsfield on C-Span radio saying it both ways depending on what point he's trying to make. So confusing?

I wish that Don would at least have just one answer but being the the man will say naything and min *in love* with hearing himself talk.

Anyone else ever listen to thye guy. I mean, there is one piece of work. And very tricky.

Excuse me, back to pulling the pedals off this flower. We are at war.
We're not at war. We are at war. We're not at..........................................................................................................................................

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 10:36 AM

Not only the Aleutians, but various Pacific Islands such as Guam, Midway, et al.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 07:17 AM

The United States hasn't been "at war" with anyone since WWII -- the last time the Congress declared war. I'm not sure Congress has the guts to do so any more.

Japan did invade the United States: the Aleutian Islands.

And that's all I'm going to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 06:41 AM

Donald Rumsfield - WHO ME ???? Got to be kidding!!!

Getting back to having the courage of your convictions, the current US President certainly has that. And please remember that America is not at war with Iraq. I have stated in other threads what I believe he was trying to accomplish, and he has succeeded in doing it. Now all we have to do is to wait and see what the Iraqi authorities declare and what the inspection teams report.

LH - a lot earlier in this thread we discussed the differences of the terms "unconditional" and "negotiated" with regard to cessation of hostilities.

The Second World War was fought on the agreed principle among the Allies that unconditional surrender was a requirement on the part of the Axis Powers. This resulted in a period of peace in Europe that continues to this day.

Examples of negotiated settlements used to end hostilities during the twentieth century have been:

First World War - What was negotiated contributed directly to the causes of the Second World War.
Korean War - What was in fact negotiated was a ceasefire
Arab/Israeli Wars - All negotiated, with no side honouring what they agreed to do - result continued conflict.
Gulf War - Iraq, the blatant aggressor in this conflict, ended up refusing to comply with obligations it agreed to fulfil - result yet to be determined.

In other threads parallels have been drawn between Hitler and Hussein. In the case of the former, had a number of European national leaders (basically those of France and Britain) had the courage of their convictions, and faced up to their responsibilities, in the face of blatant treaty violations on the part of Nazi Germany, the Second World War need never have happened. Instead, they proceeded on what they wanted to believe would happen, and blythly ignoring what they knew could happen.

The current incumbent of the White House is not making the same mistake.

The USA is not at war with Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 02:55 PM

Good post, Ebarnacle... :-) "the biggest cause of the situation is the sense of a big organization, the rich industrialized part of the world, not listening to the people who consider themselves downtrodden."

Yup. Precisely.

Also, that rich industrialized part has helped to maintain a great number of local despots in the poorer parts of the world. Saddam was one of them, a hired hit man, until he failed to "take out" Iran...mistake #1...and then went into business for himself by invading Kuwait...mistake #2. Now the kingpin, the Boss, who lives in Washington, is going to take out the hitman Saddam who failed the Syndicate and disobeyed orders. That's what it amounts to.

Osama was another "soldier" of the Organization, who was useful for killing the soldiers of the opposing mob (Soviet Russia), but he and his people became a problem after the opposing mob went bust and got bought out by the Syndicate in Washington. Now Osama is persona non grata, and will be rubbed out if the Boss can find him. The Boss hasn't found him yet.

Osama and Saddam are disgruntled former employees of the System. Osama, being a religious idealogue, has decided to make war on his former employers and die for the cause, if necessary. Saddam, being more of a pragmatist is trying to figure out how to stay alive and in power when outgunned 500 to 1. It's not an easy proposition, but no one can say he lacks determination...he's sort of like "Mad Dog Cole", if you recall your gangster movies...always preparing for one more glorious shootout.

The Boss in Washington and environs now has the entire "city" (the western world) terrified as to where Osama and Saddam may strike next, despite the fact that they are outgunned, as I said, 500 to 1. When you are outgunned 500 to 1, a direct confrontation can only be suicidal and pointless, so Osama (if not Saddam) has been reduced to hit and run attacks in unexpected locations...in other words, what is called terrorism by those who are not required to use such roundabout methods in terrorizing and destroying people...because they can just walk in anywhere with high-tech weaponry and do it openly.

The truth of the matter is, ALL the involved parties are committing terrorism and have been for A LONG TIME.

It is terrorism to maintain conditions of gross material inequality in the World, to rob people of their land and their civil rights without giving any recognition of having done so, and to maintain heavily funded despotic regimes over people as long as those regimes cooperate with Western corporations.

That is terrorism on a massive basis, and it has killed far more people than the 3,000 who perished on Sept 11th.

It is extraordinary to me that a group of people can be so blind to their own actions as to commit organized legal terrorism on millions of people for decades...and then go into absolute shock and rage when some of those people strike back with illegal terrorism on a few thousand...AND NOT GET THE CONNECTION!

Truly astounding.

I am opposed to ALL terrorism...not just to terrorism committed by the small and unofficially sanctioned players who are outside the wealthy club run by the Boss...and who, in fact, used to work for him as hired guns.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 08:43 PM

Teddy Roosevelt and Bushkin? To amend the quotation that dished Dan Quayle: "Mr Bush, you are no Teddy Roosevelt."

Flaws and all, noone could ever have made a case that Teddy Roosevelt was a coward. Bushkin's "wartime" record on the other hand...

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 07:39 PM

And now I've read that Big Mick post I take it you're referring to, on this thread. And, very unusually, I find myself in disagreement with Big Mick. I can't see where there is what I'd call "disrespect" in the posts I think are being complained about. Maybe I've just missed reading them, or I've read them in a different sense or something.

When someone is trying to argue a pacifist case, that doesn't mean they are disrespecting people who have fought, and so far as I can see that is all that the posts that have been seen as offensive have been doing. As I said, I might have missed the relevant ones, but I've skimmed through this thread and couldn't spot ones that I'd feel qualify.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 06:50 PM

But is GUEST the same as GUEST, or perhaps the same as GUEST...? Some GUESTs have respect where respect is owed, some don't, some posts have respect some don't, some are clearly people who mean what they say, some are just trying to rattle people's cages. Some have even been known to write things I'd agree with - but the lack of a nod of identity devalues them, and they end up in the same bin as the rubbish ones.

Posting without some kind of a handle is bad manners and it's bloody silly, but it's not worth getting upset about, let alone trying to read between the lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 04:31 PM

Mc G of H, Big Mick has rumbled guest, and guest you know that.

You said you did not see the alledged disrespect to vets,read what Big Mick has wrote about guest in the threads this person has started.

This thread is named Courage of Your Convictions, something guest does not have.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 03:52 PM

Little Hawk, The reason that the Romans and the Jews were unable to come to an accomodation was that there was a demand for major change--in this case in style of worship. The polytheistic Romans were demanding that the Jews violate a central tenet of what made them Jews: monotheism.

"I would try and resolve whatever had caused the overall situation in the first place which led to people having such hard feelings as to resort to terrorism!" While it does not explicitly apply to Bin Laden and company, the biggest cause of the situation is the sense of a big organization, the rich industrialized part of the world, not listening to the people who consider themselves downtrodden.

The current Iraq situation is really caused by the fact that both Bush and Hussein are peace loving men. What could be more peaceful than a world in which everyone agrees with you or dies? There was a parody in MAD magazine about 40 years ago called "The Rifle, Man." In it, the hero goes around protesting that he is a peace loving man as he blows everyone he meets into the great beyond. His son asks him how, if he claims to be a peace loving man, he can justify all the killing he does. His response: "There ain't nothing so peaceful as a dead man, son." Sound familiar?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 03:38 PM

Sorry, Doug, I didn't mean to ignore you. I got a phone call in the middle of posting and didn't see your "thumbs up" remarks.

How come I didn't know that we might disagree on TR? Jus' funnin'. I'll bet you got TR and Junior's pictures hanging right there in your pudder room.

Two peas in a pod, except TR probably had 2 or 3 more I.Q. points to work with... Jus funnin' again. They were probably about the same in that regard.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 03:18 PM

Yeah, TR. Heck, we got our modern version of TR livin' in the house that the military industrial complex is renting for him in Washington D.C.

Yep, a couple of blowhards with an insatiable appetite for pushing other folks around...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: DougR
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 03:08 PM

Thumbs up, McGrath.

dougR

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 12:49 PM

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres42.html

We need more leadership from men like TR, Lincoln etc

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 12:26 PM

It's pointless arguing with an anonymous GUEST by citing quotes, because there's no way of knowing if the quotes come from the same GUEST or not.

And no good trying to make sense of the personality quirk involved, or pointing out that adding a pseudonym to GUEST in no way infringes their total anonymity, but merely helps avoid people getting at cross purposes, and it makes it much more convenient for other people. When someone isn't listening they aren't listening.

The best policy is to totally ignore them, and hope they'll either slope off, or preferably in some cases (and in spite of what some people have said, I'd say this is one of them) the GUEST will just quietly add on a pseudonym and keep posting, and probably we'll never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:34 PM

My land is bare of chattering folk;
the clouds are low along the ridges,
and sweet's the air with curly smoke,
from all my burning bridges.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:41 PM

Right on, bro, but don't burn too many bridges, my friend. We've got a war to stop.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:09 PM

Bobert, who said anything about quitting? I just said I was done in the thread, bro. I'm still here, still fighting, just doing it in other threads, where I don't have to put up with the grief I'm getting here. That sort of thing doesn't further the debate, or amuse me, so I don't play the game.

Hey--but just to give 'em all something new to bitch about, I just told Big Ole Mick to go to hell in the "A Final Vet's Day Thanks to Wellstone" thread.

Don't you worry about me Bobert, there is plenty of fire here to fight fire with!

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 09:57 PM

GUEST: I said you were different. I said you were not typical. I stood up for you. I asked you to just identify yourself by a number if that's all you could do. Anything to differentiate your posts, which I recognize with out such, so that others would be able to know which GUEST was posting.

You speak of wanting to do what you can in them anti-war movement. Well, quittin' ain't an option. You have a responsibility to *yourself* brother or sister and to the brothers and sisters world wide who's lioves will be spent for the jollies of a bunch of rednecks. If you quit, then you can take every thing that you have posted and run it thru a shreader machine.

I'm sure you have your reasons but you can work around not registerin'. Get over your poutin' and get back to standing up for humanity. Tough! Hey, sometimes we all gotta set the ego on the shelf, paint up a sign and march. That time is now, GUEST! Or just send off your contribution to the Bush drum beaters....

Sorry,

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: JedMarum
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 09:35 PM

Doug - you're much better looking then Cheney!

When I was at school I knew kids who were afraid to say anything that might piss the schoolyard bully off. If I took risks and didn't cower to him, sometime my friends would get pissed at me because they thought he would beat us all up. And it happened a time or two - but the bully always got some back from me - and eventually he figured out it was going to cost him if he f*cked with me - even he if won. So he left me alone. Tortured my poor cowardly friends though.

I fully and firmly support the UN's push for issues resolve in Iraq. I fully and firmly supported the US and its allies in their efforts to crush the terrorists in Afghanistan. I am firmly convinced that the US and its allies, if/when they take military action in Iraq - will do so with a design to spare as much civilian life as possible - and I am firmly convinced we are justified in taking military action to crush Sadam.

I would go, and I would send my sons - if it comes to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: DougR
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 09:10 PM

Interesting that you said that, Nicole. There are those who have said I could be a double for Dick Cheney.

Peter T.: you may be surprised to learn (shocked actually) to learn that no everyone in the United States saw what Ellsburg did as a patriotic gesture. He is the darling of the left, to be sure, but I doubt those of us to the right would give him the time of day.

The New York Times? Well, were they going to be shot, as you suggest, I would suggest that they would need a very good reason to be pardoned by the governor. They printed Ellsburgh's information.

Bobert: I'm not slighting you, but I haven't had time to check out your "Might is right" statement.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 09:03 PM

Guest are you the same person who wrote this
"I see a history of Mary interjecting herself into threads on war and peace, and inappropriately admonishing individual posters on occassion for what she perceives as attacks on veterans which clearly aren't there. That, to me, is the sign of someone with problems, of someone who needs help, at the very least"

Mary is a vet and whoever wrote this is attacking her.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 09:00 PM

I'm also not going to flog dead Hitlers. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:58 PM

Everyone is entitled to their opinions of what posting anonymously in chat rooms means, and to expressing them freely. It doesn't change the fact that there will always be people who, like me and a number of other fine anonymous posters who often contribute to Mudcat, choose to post anonymously, without giving any explanations for doing it.

C'est la vie. I'm not going to flog the dead horse on veterans, or rehash the Vietnam War, though I have no problem surrendiring to those who wish to do just that.

There are plenty of good music and BS threads where my presence isn't made the issue, and I can carry on the conversations there. But I'm done in this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:55 PM

I'm meant to be asleep,so I must be computer walking type thing.

McG of H, guest wrote this "If Europe and the US had contained Hitler the way we have contain Iraq, Libya, and other despotic regimes, the Holocaust couldn't have happened",complete and utter b-ll-cks, it was this that I was answering,btw I do not have any respect for anonymous guests.

Hitler was attacking the Jews as we all know, what sanctions would have stopped that. Now saying such and such was doing it elsewhere avoids the issue,in reality it should not have happened any where. But back to guests point it was a sweeping generalisation based on un-truths,Hitler covered his hate for Jews during the 1936 Olympics putting on a front, how many Jewish ghettos were there in Germany? Now guest failed to address my points why?

Hitler could not have been contained in the way Guest suggests he had too big an Army, which McG of H has pointed out many times.The advent of nuclear weapons means that the containment of any country with the bomb is academic, we can surround them all we want unless we put a net over them how are we going to prevent a nuclear strike.

I'm not using this as an excuse or justification for a war with Iraq, what I am doing though is asking guest to substantiate the tripe he/she writes. Simply and truthfully I have taken offence at other postings that guest has posted and the perverted pleasure he/she gets from it. So I question why this person has posted what they did and do not see any merit in the posts at all. And guests replies are? well we can all read.

Point is I probably share your views more than you think, but in no way will I give into the like of guest.

One point though McG of H, Germany was inventing zyclonB(sp)and other nasty gases and building up the numbers of the weapons they were suspose to not have and telling the world they have no such weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:39 PM

That's a bit silly really, because at least some of the posts by GUEST in this thread are fair enough (but of course there's no telling which are which, which is the point of complaining about the practice), and the article posted initially was worth reading, which many articles posted here tend not to be, or so it seems to me. And I couldn't actually see the alleged disrespect to veterans that has upset some people.

Much more sensible to add a pseudonym to the GUEST, as a gesture of respect for people here and stick around. But clearly that won't happen. Strange.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:36 PM

Guest: In the past, there have been a lot of issues here with trolls who merely seek to insult people and stir up fights among our relatively polite debating folk. I don't think that's your intention, but I'm afraid you're getting the aftermath.

I personally don't have a problem with folks remaining unregistered, but it's hard to have a discussion with an unknown quantity of one or multiple Guests who all refuse to even use a pseudonym. "Anonymous One" would work, as long as you use it consistantly. Failing to do so is kinda the internet version of heckling performers.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:21 PM

I'm the guest who started this thread, the thread on Kerry speaking at the Wall at yesterday's ceremony, and the thread on Wellstone, with the copy of "When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloomed" as well as a couple of posts in the Veteran's Day thread.

I started these threads because these are the issues I'm interested in. I want to know how, as an anti-war activist, what shorthand I can use to get my points across, without having to reargue the Vietnam War. That war is behind us. There is a war with Iraq looming ahead of us, and my sole motive and intention in discussing that war here, and any tactics I can find out about to that end, is that.

Now then, my agenda is different from those who are attacking my anonymity, but really are doing so because they either are supporters of Bush and his foreign policies, or they have an agenda of their own, thanking and honoring and respecting veterans, which is fine by me. What is not fine by me, is the claim that I have said disgusting, horrific, and disrespectful things to veterans. The cyber equivalent of spitting on vets, perhaps? Why would they do this? I don't know, you'll have to ask them.

I'm fine withdrawing from Mudcat discussions if people are so offended by a poster's choice to remain anonymous. I am not going to change my practice, and I am not going to offer explanations for it.

So Ireland, Mary Garvey, Big Mick, Tinker, et al, you win. I withdraw. You've made Mudcat safe again from people like me.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 08:00 PM

LOL, Nicole!

Now, Doug? I have somewhat figured out and "Cheney" works fir me, but a "kinder and gentler" version. He'd sure like to have Cheney's dough, you can bet on that...

But now T-Bird? Whew! we're talkin' *piece of work* here. T-ster might scare Rumsfield half to death...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:57 PM

LOL! Omigod... I'm getting chills, Nicole!

WHAT IF SOMEONE ON THIS FORUM IS ACTUALLY...WILLIAM SHATNER???

(I'm hyperventilating....gotta get a drink of water or something stronger, and calm down...)

-LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:56 PM

I know it says the 17th in the article - but according to the Radio Times it was actually scheduled to be broadcast on last Sunday 10th November, and no repeat is indicated for 17th.

I missed it too. And one thing that makes it more plausible is that at the time Enoch Powell resigmed from the government in protest at brutality against prisoners in Kenya, a fact that is often forgotten.

One way and another this whole episode has been shunted out of public view very effectively.

The point is, nasty things happen when people try to hold empires together - and that is maybe a more appropriate context to fit Saddam into, rather than analogies with Hitler. (Even the use of gas against the Kurds harks back to what the Britishn had done back in the 1920s - though that had had less murderous consequences than Saddam's bungled butchery.)

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:51 PM

'Cmon, Bobert. You know Teribus is really Rumsfeld and DougR is Dick Cheney.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:43 PM

Yeah, we do, LH. A few of the world's leaders would do well to check in here from time to time to see just how far a bunch of folks with different opinions, cultures and experiences *do it*... Yeah, they could learn a lot. As far as I know, there are no known casualties here and even if we were all to get together face to face, I'd go on record of sayin' that there wouldn't be any casualties there either.

Maybe the leaders need a web site? Seriously...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:34 PM

That's cool with me. I can say the same about you, Ireland. One of the things I appreciate about this forum is that we slowly do learn more respect for those of different viewpoints as we talk things over. At least I hope so.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:34 PM

It's not on until the 17th haven't missed it after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:29 PM

Garbage I wanted to see that too, McG of H.I'm off to bed see ya later.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:20 PM

LH I'm not taking you for an idiot, I'm happy to carry on but with the understanding that I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you in any way.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:14 PM

In what way did they mass murder tens of thousands of Kenyans?

Read here - - this is an article tied in to a documetary ("Kenya: White Terror") shown on BBBC2 this week.

Dramatic evidence has been unearthed of such systematic British brutality in the former colony of Kenya that it may require the rewriting of imperial history. Hitherto secret files show that the then colonial secretary, Alan Lennox Boyd, sanctioned a policy of violence towards interned guerrilla suspects...

...Professor Elkins says the scale of suffering and death was far higher than previously thought and the Kikuyu death toll could have been as high as 50,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 06:55 PM

Ireland - Where do you get the idea that a country which doesn't frequently fight with its neighbours would necessarily have forces with "no combat experience"... or, even in that case, with no ability to fight effectively if attacked? The Finns fought very effectively against the Russians in '39, and they did not need the experience of prior attack upon their neighbours to do it. Canada has fought very effectively in several wars without having launched pre-emptive attacks on anybody. The army that Canada sent into the 2 world wars was pretty much an amateur army without prior combat experience, but they fought magnificently. There are numerous other examples. What you need to fight well is patriotic fervour, good modern equipment, and good training (especially of the officers).

"LH is Bush and Blair not doing this?" [consulting their "best" available advisors, as I recommended]. Yeah, sure they are. Absolutely. I just don't happen to agree with their conclusions based on those consultations, that's all.

A common mistake made in most debates by most people is the assumption that the guys on the other side of the debate are idiots who don't have a clue what they're talking about...I am not inclined to make that assumption, Ireland, and I hope you're not inclined to make it about me either, just cos we may arrive at different conclusions about what's best to do. Intelligent and capable people often differ as to what is the best course of action in any given situation.

Where they err is in their assumption that anyone who doesn't see it their way is a dummy or an enemy or both. Not necessarily so.

Differences in opinion are usually the result of key differences in BASIC BELIEFS about life...or differences in personal background, religion, culture, race, political affiliation, etc. (BASIC BELIEFS). A different working philosophy, in other words.

The longer we talk, I suspect the more we will find that both of us are quite rational thinkers, but are proceeding from a different philosophical basis which functions at a deeper level than mere surface events.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 06:32 PM

In what way did they mass murder tens of thousands of Kenyans?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 06:24 PM

Is it rational for a leader to gas its citizens,I think Saddam based on that fits into the irrational category above,but there is our difference in opinion.

Wicked, yes, but not irrational, unless being wicked is irrational. These were citizens who didn't want to be citizens, Kurds who had welcomed the Iranians as liberators (which they were). It's not at all rare to find governments all over the world who aren't toobeen too worried about killing their own citizens when they are seen as "the enemy within". When the French murdered tens of thousands of Algerians, they were killing their own fellow-citizens. And when
the British murdered tens of thousands of Kenyans, they were killing fellow-subjects of the Queen.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 06:09 PM

I would call on the experience and expertise of whoever in my own military, intelligence, and political ranks I most trusted and had confidence in, based on prior experience. I would bear their advice in mind, use my own judgement as best I could, and try to make the best decisions accordingly. Those decisions would depend on the particular situation involved.

LH is Bush and Blair not doing this? Because Bush and Blair come across as airheads does not mean their advisors are.

Where would your military advisors and military personnel get their experience from,would you be using soldiers who have no combat experience. Considering you do not advocate war you would presumably have a country with no combat experience. Would you feel comfortable in using military advisors from allies who have such experience?

Is it rational for a leader to gas its citizens,I think Saddam based on that fits into the irrational category above,but there is our difference in opinion.

Your example of Japan taking the war to America is the perfect your dammed if you do/don't example. FDR was applying sanctions to Japan, America far out weighed Japans might but still they attacked. The point is there is no real logic in war, what people think they would not do is the very thing that happens. History is full of such example's from Troy who would have thought of soldiers being in the horse? up to the colonies taking on mighty England and Napoleon fighting the half of Europe. Should we not learn from this?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Peter T.
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:42 PM

I think the idea that Daniel Ellsberg was treasonous is amusing. For giving aid and comfort to the Vietcong? Presumably the New York Times should be put up against a wall and shot as well.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:40 PM

Your right debacle was a wrong word to use,just because I do not agree with does not mean I have to run it down, it means something to others.

You should know that all war dead are remembered on Remembrance Sunday not just the military,so I was not referring just to soldiers.

Mary has said it for me in her above post,and I believe guest is well summed up in the last line.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:39 PM

Ireland - Well, let me try and answer your question, which was: "How would you do that LH [*defend a country I was in charge of],what experience would you use whose expertise would you call on? If you had intel of a foreign country wanting to attack yours, would you stike first?

There is no one simple answer to that, Ireland. Every single case is unique.

It is when people insist that there IS one simple answer to a generalized question, one panacea for all cases, that they go seriously astray and become idealogues (or religious fanatics).

So, I would have to access the situation according to its own unique qualities, and decide on that basis what to do.

I would call on the experience and expertise of whoever in my own military, intelligence, and political ranks I most trusted and had confidence in, based on prior experience. I would bear their advice in mind, use my own judgement as best I could, and try to make the best decisions accordingly. Those decisions would depend on the particular situation involved.

If directly assaulted by foreign military forces, I would issue orders for as vigorous a defence as my own forces were capable of...that again would depend upon the unique conditions involved, and I would mobilize the entire country as effectively as possible in every way to resist the attack.

If assaulted by terrorist forces, I would treat it not as a "war" in the normal sense (that is, a war between nations), but as a civil crime...and I would use all possible means of intelligence and police work FIRST to determine who was directly or indirectly responsible, THEN all means of negotiation and peaceful influence with other countries (if necessary) to track down those responsible and capture them...AND...I would try and resolve whatever had caused the overall situation in the first place which led to people having such hard feelings as to resort to terrorism! I would not respond to a terrorist attack by launching a conventional war upon another nation. I don't consider that an appropriate or (in the end) a useful response to terroriam. One may achieve an emotionally satisfying temporary victory and mollify one's feelings of outrage by such means, but one will NOT end terrorism but only encourage further acts of terrorism in the future by so doing.

The last part of your question: If I had reason to believe that another country was planning to attack my country, would I launch a pre-emptive strike (a war) on that country?

Almost certainly not, except in a VERY unusual situation. I would prepare my own defences in the most judicious way possible, to the extent that the other country would be VERY unlikely to even consider attacking me...knowing that it would lead to their own defeat.

Again, however, each situation is unique. If my country were smaller and weaker, then no amount of preparedness might prove sufficient to deter an aggressor (consider the case of Finland vs Russia in 1939...). If so, neither would a pre-emptive strike work. In such a case one hunkers down like the Finns did, prepares for the worst, and fights like hell when the attack comes. The Finns did that, and they seriously embarrassed the Russian army, but lost part of their land eventually to the large foe. They did the best they could. That's all anyone can do under those circumstances.

If you are enormously more powerful than your presumed foe...as is the USA compared to Iraq...then it is not necessary to launch a pre-emptive attack unless your foe is totally irrational and insane, and capable of hitting you hard, and will attack regardless of his own inevitable defeat and destruction. This is a very unlikely situation. So unlikely that it is almost inconceivable.

I do not believe Saddam is that irrational, nor do I think that he is capable of being a real threat to the USA. I do think he is capable of menacing a certain number of people (mostly within his own borders at this point), but so does the USA menace a certain number of people in the world (quite regularly), and the USA seems to feel that it's OKAY when they do it. This is hypocrisy...or it's simply an inability to see outside the "box" of one's own cultural identity.

I repeat, I do not consider an isolated terrorist attack to be adequate justification for launching a conventional war on a small country. I do consider it to be a handy excuse for such a war, however. A very handy one.

As every situation is unique...yes, I can imagine a hypothetical situation where I would at least consider a first strike on a potential attacker...but the reasons for it would have to be FAR more compelling than any that Mr Bush has come up with yet vis-a-vis Iraq.

I have not yet seen a case where such action was justified. The Japanese considered their attack on Britain and America to be just such a "justified" and pre-emptive first strike, by the way. They felt that war had already BEEN launched upon them in 1941 through economic and trade moves by FDR...and in the sense of realpolitik they were absolutely correct in that assessment. This did not, however, justify their launching a military first strike, in my opinion. They were in the pickle they were in due to their own prior aggression upon China, which was no one's fault but their own.

What you are asking for is the moral right to go ahead and do essentially what the Japanese did on Dec 7/41. At least that's how it looks to me...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:32 PM

Thanks for link, Doug. I don't have NPR bookmarked; call me a Luddite, but I tend to listen to the radio on the actual RADIO. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:25 PM

Bobert, this thread is a continuation of guest getting rumbled by others where guest was insulting vets, in no way was this a separate issue at all.

Guest has made some disgusting statements and claims at the same time keeping anonymity so they can deny their own words. Guest Big Mick rumbled you.