ot - iraq

here is an excerpt from president bush's speech given at the veterans
of foreign wars convention (i think 8/22/07):


Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got
into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind
that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United
States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that
debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of
America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose
agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-
education camps," and "killing fields."

There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can
hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle -- those
who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the
11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11
attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that "the American people had risen
against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same
today."

His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to
al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to "the
aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how
they ran and left their agents."

Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans
"know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam
specter is closing every outlet." Here at home, some can argue our
withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility --
but the terrorists see it differently.

We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they
say. Bin Laden has declared that "the war [in Iraq] is for you or us
to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever." Iraq
is one of several fronts in the war on terror -- but it's the central
front -- it's the central front for the enemy that attacked us and
wants to attack us again. And it's the central front for the United
States and to withdraw without getting the job done would be
devastating. (Applause.)

ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1188091315.416515.116680
@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> here is an excerpt from president bush's speech given at the veterans
> of foreign wars convention (i think 8/22/07):
>
>
> Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got
> into the Vietnam War and how we left.

I know, it's disgusting, isn't it?

He's got a lot of balls talking about Vietnam in the first place. And
then making completely false statements about it.

He's right about one thing - Iraq *is* like Vietnam in this way: it's a
quagmire and the sooner we're out of it the better.

Chak



--
We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not
unreasonable that we grapple with problems, but there are tens of
thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we
can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on.
--Richard P. Feynman

AMEN!
Jacquie
"Chakolate" <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9997D847A68BBchakolatehotmailcom@207.115.1 7.102...
> ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1188091315.416515.116680
> @g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> here is an excerpt from president bush's speech given at the veterans
>> of foreign wars convention (i think 8/22/07):
>>
>>
>> Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got
>> into the Vietnam War and how we left.
>
> I know, it's disgusting, isn't it?
>
> He's got a lot of balls talking about Vietnam in the first place. And
> then making completely false statements about it.
>
> He's right about one thing - Iraq *is* like Vietnam in this way: it's a
> quagmire and the sooner we're out of it the better.
>
> Chak
>
>
>
> --
> We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not
> unreasonable that we grapple with problems, but there are tens of
> thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we
> can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on.
> --Richard P. Feynman
>
>

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 02:15:26 GMT, Chakolate
<chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:

>He's right about one thing - Iraq *is* like Vietnam in this way: it's a
>quagmire and the sooner we're out of it the better.


This is neither here nor there with me....I have no dog in the race.
(Meaning only that I have no relatives serving in the war) But, if we
pull out now without a clear victory and a stable Iraq, doesn't that
mean that all our men that died in this war have died for nothing? I
mean, if its the same or worse than when we went in, I would hate to
have had a son die there for naught.

I do not plan on starting a political arguement...just thinking out
loud.

Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 02:15:26 GMT, Chakolate
> <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >He's right about one thing - Iraq *is* like Vietnam in this way: it's a
> >quagmire and the sooner we're out of it the better.
>
>
> This is neither here nor there with me....I have no dog in the race.
> (Meaning only that I have no relatives serving in the war) But, if we
> pull out now without a clear victory and a stable Iraq, doesn't that
> mean that all our men that died in this war have died for nothing? I
> mean, if its the same or worse than when we went in, I would hate to
> have had a son die there for naught.

We could be in there for decades and it would still be for naught. We
simply do not know the future.

I think the right attitude is to thank those who already tried for
trying, whether or not we "win".

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote in
news:51v2d3turqsu3b33ni4ra1i170pa4jtltd@4ax.com:

> This is neither here nor there with me....I have no dog in the race.
> (Meaning only that I have no relatives serving in the war) But, if we
> pull out now without a clear victory and a stable Iraq, doesn't that
> mean that all our men that died in this war have died for nothing? I
> mean, if its the same or worse than when we went in, I would hate to
> have had a son die there for naught.
>
> I do not plan on starting a political arguement...just thinking out
> loud.
>

But you do have a stake in it - a billion or so taxpayer dollars every
few days. You're getting ripped off.

My take on it is that it was an unjust war to begin with, we had no
business doing it, and Iraq will have to straighten its own problems out
eventually anyway, they might as well do it now.

I'll bet the mothers of the men and women who died would really rather
that no more mothers will have to suffer like they are.

Chak

--
We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not
unreasonable that we grapple with problems, but there are tens of
thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we
can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on.
--Richard P. Feynman

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:40:10 GMT, Chakolate
<chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:

>But you do have a stake in it - a billion or so taxpayer dollars every
>few days. You're getting ripped off.

That's only money. The loss of life is far more worrisome to me.

I would hate to think that my brother, son, father, died in a war
where nothing was accomplished. We just threw up our hands and walked
away.

And yes, I would say yes to no more mothers burying their children.

In the end there is no winner in war.

Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:51:43 +0200, thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no
(Keera Ann Fox) wrote:

>We could be in there for decades and it would still be for naught. We
>simply do not know the future.

Exactly.

>
>I think the right attitude is to thank those who already tried for
>trying, whether or not we "win".

I have a vision of a mother with the American flag that draped her
son's coffin in her lap, watching the news program showing the
military leaving Iraq with no clear improvement in their situation.
Very sad.

Dana

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

"Dana©" <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote in message
news:ctk3d3d6ur3vhq8kibn6msoho9p71b70vs@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:51:43 +0200, thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no
> (Keera Ann Fox) wrote:
>
> >We could be in there for decades and it would still be for naught. We
> >simply do not know the future.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >
> >I think the right attitude is to thank those who already tried for
> >trying, whether or not we "win".
>
> I have a vision of a mother with the American flag that draped her
> son's coffin in her lap, watching the news program showing the
> military leaving Iraq with no clear improvement in their situation.
> Very sad.
>
And I see that mother being grateful that, at least, no additional mothers
will find themselves in her situation, holding a flag, no matter whether or
not the death and loss was reasonable or justified.

Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote in
news:llk3d3pa5ieaddkti2usr5mb5hq7tesu2d@4ax.com:

> In the end there is no winner in war.
>

Heh - that's a Libertarian view of all wars.

Chak

--
We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not
unreasonable that we grapple with problems, but there are tens of
thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we
can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on.
--Richard P. Feynman

Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote:

> I would hate to think that my brother, son, father, died in a war
> where nothing was accomplished. We just threw up our hands and walked
> away.

Far from it. It's not "throwing up hands" to realize that no more good
can come of our presence. That's a mature and honest stance.

I don't want to repeat the 70's, where we could hardly talk about
Vietnam after it was over. That's not right, either. So to the people
fighting in Iraq, honoring their commitment to serve their country, we
should say, "We lost the war, but we are grateful to our volunteer
military that give it their all."

> And yes, I would say yes to no more mothers burying their children.
>
> In the end there is no winner in war.

Never is. Took me a while to realize why my grandparents, who lived
through two world wars, were such staunch pacifists. So am I. In this
day and age, we should have other solutions.

In the EU and UN, they've been discussing the wording of a new
anti-terror law. What is a terrorist? Sometimes one has to fight
oppressors. Are such people terrorists? To me it's a no-brainer: Fight
the way Mahatma Ghandi did, with demonstrations, boycots, sit-downs,
etc., all without weapons.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

On Aug 26, 12:50 pm, "suzilem"
<slem...@deflectprocessedmeat.texas.net> wrote:
> "Dana©" <AneeB...@ownmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ctk3d3d6ur3vhq8kibn6msoho9p71b70vs@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:51:43 +0200, thinkbig.shrinkto...@online.no
> > (Keera Ann Fox) wrote:
>
> > >We could be in there for decades and it would still be for naught. We
> > >simply do not know the future.
>
> > Exactly.
>
> > >I think the right attitude is to thank those who already tried for
> > >trying, whether or not we "win".
>
> > I have a vision of a mother with the American flag that draped her
> > son's coffin in her lap, watching the news program showing the
> > military leaving Iraq with no clear improvement in their situation.
> > Very sad.

Cindy Sheehan faced up to the fact that her son died for nothing.
Les
>
> And I see that mother being grateful that, at least, no additional mothers
> will find themselves in her situation, holding a flag, no matter whether or
> not the death and loss was reasonable or justified.- Hide quoted text -


>
> - Show quoted text -

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:15:25 +0200, thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no
(Keera Ann Fox) wrote:

>Fight
>the way Mahatma Ghandi did, with demonstrations, boycots, sit-downs,
>etc., all without weapons.


That sounds good, but I feel kind of naive. While you were sitting in
and chanting Saddam and Osama would just throw a bomb on you and walk
away shaking their heads smiling. Demonstrations, boycotts, sit
downs, etc only work if both parties are looking for a change. When
one party doesn't think what they are doing is wrong its hard to make
them change.

I am not trying to stop the discussion but.....if we hadn't stepped in
during WW2 how far do you think Hitler would have gone with us just
telling him what he was doing was wrong and to stop it?

I don't know what the answer is. I am not in favor of the war, but I
sure don't want to have to learn to speak another language at my age.

Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

Chakolate wrote:
> ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1188091315.416515.116680
> @g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> here is an excerpt from president bush's speech given at the veterans
>> of foreign wars convention (i think 8/22/07):
>>
>>
>> Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got
>> into the Vietnam War and how we left.
>
> I know, it's disgusting, isn't it?
>
> He's got a lot of balls talking about Vietnam in the first place.

I have no quarrel with people who evaded the draft during the
Vietnam war. Had I been a man, I suspect I wouldn't have just
joined the National Guard, I'd have headed north, eh? I have a
really big quarrel when those same people start a war and then
send OTHER people's kids into battle.

> And
> then making completely false statements about it.

> He's right about one thing - Iraq *is* like Vietnam in this way: it's a
> quagmire and the sooner we're out of it the better.

I don't know if it's even possible to bring it to an equitable
conclusion, to bring about a cease fire and bring people there to
a state of peace and negotiation, with the wisest of all leaders
in control. I'm damned certain it isn't with the current
administration calling the shots.

FurPaw
--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

Chakolate wrote:
> Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote in
> news:llk3d3pa5ieaddkti2usr5mb5hq7tesu2d@4ax.com:
>
>> In the end there is no winner in war.
>>
>
> Heh - that's a Libertarian view of all wars.

But not solely owned by Libertarians.

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

Dana© wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 02:15:26 GMT, Chakolate
> <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> He's right about one thing - Iraq *is* like Vietnam in this way: it's a
>> quagmire and the sooner we're out of it the better.
>
>
> This is neither here nor there with me....I have no dog in the race.
> (Meaning only that I have no relatives serving in the war) But, if we
> pull out now without a clear victory and a stable Iraq, doesn't that
> mean that all our men that died in this war have died for nothing? I
> mean, if its the same or worse than when we went in, I would hate to
> have had a son die there for naught.

Sons _and_ daughters are dying in this one.

What follows, it should be understood, is my opinion, even though
it is stated in absolute terms.

Generally speaking, I think people who die in most wars die for
naught. Why? Because most wars are fought because a country's
leaders can't figure out a better way to handle the situation, or
because they want revenge, not just self-defense. Bullies who
will not listen to reason must be contained, yes. But sending
people into battle to show up the old man, or to extract revenge
for deaths inflicted, or to grab control of oil and other
resources, is consigning the soldiers who die to die a
meaningless death. I don't have the answers to war, but I'm
totally convinced that fighting this one is NOT the answer to the
situation.

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

On Aug 26, 6:48 pm, FurPaw <furrealpaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chakolate wrote:
> > Dana© <AneeB...@ownmail.com> wrote in
> >news:llk3d3pa5ieaddkti2usr5mb5hq7tesu2d@4ax.com :
>
> >> In the end there is no winner in war.
>
> > Heh - that's a Libertarian view of all wars.
>
> But not solely owned by Libertarians.
>
> FurPaw
>
> --
> "Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
> every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
> a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
> those who are cold and are not clothed."
> - Dwight D. Eisenhower
>
> To reply, unleash the dog.


in the case of iraq, neoconservatives had been wanting to go in for
years & even made overtures during the clinton administration as to
that effect. the rest of the world was not falling for the specious
arguments put forth by our government for going in. it was
unconscionable then to obfuscate the reasons for going into iraq with
bin laden & the horrible terrorist attack here. it's despicable now.
the consequences have been tragic.

ellen

Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote in
news:cas3d3drbfuarkvk6ks352mt5j1mbr46kd@4ax.com:

> That sounds good, but I feel kind of naive. While you were sitting in
> and chanting Saddam and Osama would just throw a bomb on you and walk
> away shaking their heads smiling. Demonstrations, boycotts, sit
> downs, etc only work if both parties are looking for a change. When
> one party doesn't think what they are doing is wrong its hard to make
> them change.
>

Gandhi's method didn't need to take into account the treatment that his
followers had meted out to others. The US has made enemies all over the
world, and if we want a peaceful end to conflicts we're going to have to
stop spitting in people's faces first.

Chak

--
We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not
unreasonable that we grapple with problems, but there are tens of
thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we
can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on.
--Richard P. Feynman

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote in
news:j5idnV1894D1nU_bnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@comcast.com:

> Chakolate wrote:
>> He's got a lot of balls talking about Vietnam in the first place.
>
> I have no quarrel with people who evaded the draft during the
> Vietnam war. Had I been a man, I suspect I wouldn't have just
> joined the National Guard, I'd have headed north, eh? I have a
> really big quarrel when those same people start a war and then
> send OTHER people's kids into battle.

I think the thing that bothers me most about his not serving in Vietnam
was that he got this plum assignment and then couldn't even be bothered
to show up. To then show up on the deck of an aircraft carrier wearing a
flight suit is an insult to servicemen and women everywhere.

I too would have gone north. I don't blame anyone for not serving in a
war of aggression. But don't then pretend that you're a soldier.


Chak

--
We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not
unreasonable that we grapple with problems, but there are tens of
thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we
can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on.
--Richard P. Feynman

Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote in
news:llk3d3pa5ieaddkti2usr5mb5hq7tesu2d@4ax.com:

> That's only money. The loss of life is far more worrisome to me.
>

It isn't only money, it's our children's future, and their children's.
It's infrastructure that doesn't get fixed, it's schools that don't get
the equipment they need. Money is a scarce resource, and if we squander
it to enrich the friends of the president, we don't have it to spend
where it's truly needed.

Chak

--
We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not
unreasonable that we grapple with problems, but there are tens of
thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we
can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on.
--Richard P. Feynman

Chakolate wrote:
> Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote in
> news:llk3d3pa5ieaddkti2usr5mb5hq7tesu2d@4ax.com:
>
>> That's only money. The loss of life is far more worrisome to me.
>>
>
> It isn't only money, it's our children's future, and their children's.
> It's infrastructure that doesn't get fixed, it's schools that don't get
> the equipment they need. Money is a scarce resource, and if we squander
> it to enrich the friends of the president, we don't have it to spend
> where it's truly needed.

According to this article, the real - including indirect - costs
of the war will exceed a TRILLION dollars, maybe even TWO
TRILLION. Depending, of course, on how much longer it goes on
and what you count as indirect costs, like medical costs of
injured soldiers and lost productivity, etc. etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/bu...a6408c&ei=5090
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yvgr4p

It's a mind boggling amount of money wasted, that could have been
put to so much better use.

The loss of life is indeed troublesome... not just the 3779+ US
troops, but also those injured in Iraq who die after they are
sent back home (estimated to be about the same #, but not
reported as casualties of war), the 27,000+ combat injuries, the
~55,000 nonhostile injuries (disease, accidents), add to that the
death and injuries to coalition troops ... and to the Iraqi
people themselves. (Yes, many are Iraqi vs Iraqi, but would they
have fought each other had the US not invaded?)

Speaking of valuing the troops fighting in Iraq... did you
realize that only 2 Congressional Medals of Honor have been
awarded to US service personnel in Iraq? There were 24 awarded
just to people who fought in the Battle of the Little Big Horn,
and 426 awarded across all the "Indian Campaigns."

[And the national debt is fast approaching NINE TRILLION (will
hit that in October). It has gone up about 56% in the nearly 7
years under the B.AD. That's about $30,000 for every person
living in America. A nice legacy for our children and
grandchildren, dontcha think?]

</rant>

FurPaw, falling off soapbox ... but see my sig

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:15:25 +0200, thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no
> (Keera Ann Fox) wrote:
>
> >Fight
> >the way Mahatma Ghandi did, with demonstrations, boycots, sit-downs,
> >etc., all without weapons.
>
>
> That sounds good, but I feel kind of naive. While you were sitting in
> and chanting Saddam and Osama would just throw a bomb on you and walk
> away shaking their heads smiling.

Somebody's got to be the first to stop the violence. We actually had an
opportunity to be big with 9/11. Our biggest mistake, IMO, was that we
didn't ride on the coat-tails of sympathy that 9/11 got us, but instead
started planning a war. Having experienced anti-American sentiments up
close, 9/11 was the first time in my life I noticed the whole world felt
for and with the US. And we spoiled it. We alienated a lot of otherwise
supportive countries by insisting on going to Iraq and so quickly. (The
hunt for Obama our allies understood and they are still in Afghanistan,
helping the US.)

> Demonstrations, boycotts, sit downs, etc only work if both parties are
> looking for a change.

Actually, the British were not interested in letting go of India. When
they used weapons and force on Gandhi's unarmed demonstrators, the
public outrage forced the British government to rethink the situation.

> When one party doesn't think what they are doing is
> wrong its hard to make them change.

Sure, but does that justify continuing a cycle of violence? It takes two
to tango, even in international affairs.

> I am not trying to stop the discussion but.....if we hadn't stepped in
> during WW2 how far do you think Hitler would have gone with us just
> telling him what he was doing was wrong and to stop it?

As far as he could. I probably wouldn't be living in Norway and who
knows what allies the US would have had? Probably Germany. Many people
agreed with Hitler, you know. That's why they didn't stop him sooner. It
was only when he started to invade countries and declare war on others
(including the US) that people realized he couldn't be trusted.

I brought up Gandhi as an alternative to terrorism, not defense.

> I don't know what the answer is. I am not in favor of the war, but I
> sure don't want to have to learn to speak another language at my age.

My goodness. Who convinced you of those monsters under your bed? I'm
with FDR: The only thing to fear is fear itself.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

> [And the national debt is fast approaching NINE TRILLION (will
> hit that in October). It has gone up about 56% in the nearly 7
> years under the B.AD. That's about $30,000 for every person
> living in America. A nice legacy for our children and
> grandchildren, dontcha think?]
>
> </rant>
>
> FurPaw, falling off soapbox ... but see my sig
>
> --
> "Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
> every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
> a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
> those who are cold and are not clothed."
> - Dwight D. Eisenhower

You know what was cool about the race to the moon in the 60's? That the
government could spend oodles of money they didn't have on something
_peaceful_. I wish that would happen again.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:50:19 +0200, thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no
(Keera Ann Fox) wrote:

>My goodness. Who convinced you of those monsters under your bed? I'm
>with FDR: The only thing to fear is fear itself.


Isn't that the real reason for the war after 9/11? We were convinced
by the gods in Washington that if we didn't stop them now they would
be marching down our hometown streets very soon? To some those
monsters are very real. Don't under estimate the power of fear....Bush
didn't.


Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

Dana© wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:15:25 +0200, thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no
> (Keera Ann Fox) wrote:
>
>> Fight
>> the way Mahatma Ghandi did, with demonstrations, boycots, sit-downs,
>> etc., all without weapons.
>
>
> That sounds good, but I feel kind of naive. While you were sitting in
> and chanting Saddam

Who? You mean the guy who had NO PART in the terrorist attacks and
was actually on Al Quaida's hit list?

--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:50:19 +0200, thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no
> (Keera Ann Fox) wrote:
>
> >My goodness. Who convinced you of those monsters under your bed? I'm
> >with FDR: The only thing to fear is fear itself.
>
>
> Isn't that the real reason for the war after 9/11? We were convinced
> by the gods in Washington that if we didn't stop them now they would
> be marching down our hometown streets very soon? To some those
> monsters are very real. Don't under estimate the power of fear....Bush
> didn't.

Which actually makes him a terrorist - and a rotten leader. Imagine
using your leadership to _scare_ your people.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 03:11:06 GMT, Chakolate
<chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:

>Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote in
>news:llk3d3pa5ieaddkti2usr5mb5hq7tesu2d@4ax.com :
>
>> That's only money. The loss of life is far more worrisome to me.
>>
>
>It isn't only money, it's our children's future, and their children's.
>It's infrastructure that doesn't get fixed, it's schools that don't get
>the equipment they need. Money is a scarce resource, and if we squander
>it to enrich the friends of the president, we don't have it to spend
>where it's truly needed.

I am sure all those thinks need to be attended but once a country
takes away an other countries's leadership, the country becomes
responsible for the safety of that country people. I know america does
a lousy job of that but it can't just walk away. Nobody wats a second
afghanistan.

R

Ratatosk, Jola
--

If you need to e-mail me, replace "don'tbother" with "zedicus"

ratatosk <ratatosk@don'tbother.tweakdsl.nl> wrote in
news:spj6d3hedrt4d9p4lcmm5gl5c9hraeb6jq@4ax.com:

> I am sure all those thinks need to be attended but once a country
> takes away an other countries's leadership, the country becomes
> responsible for the safety of that country people. I know america does
> a lousy job of that but it can't just walk away. Nobody wats a second
> afghanistan.
>

Do you think staying will help? I'm really asking - I'd like to hear a
non-American opinion on it.

Chak

--
We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not
unreasonable that we grapple with problems, but there are tens of
thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we
can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on.
--Richard P. Feynman

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:25:11 GMT, Chakolate
<chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:

>ratatosk <ratatosk@don'tbother.tweakdsl.nl> wrote in
>news:spj6d3hedrt4d9p4lcmm5gl5c9hraeb6jq@4ax.com :
>
>> I am sure all those thinks need to be attended but once a country
>> takes away an other countries's leadership, the country becomes
>> responsible for the safety of that country people. I know america does
>> a lousy job of that but it can't just walk away. Nobody wats a second
>> afghanistan.
>>
>
>Do you think staying will help? I'm really asking - I'd like to hear a
>non-American opinion on it.
>
Am not sure. Am sure you can't just leave. There have to be an
controlling force to make sure things don't go completely wrong. There
has to be some kind of power and safety for the people.

R

Ratatosk, Jola

--

If you need to e-mail me, replace "don'tbother" with "zedicus"

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:06:32 +0200, ratatosk
<ratatosk@don'tbother.tweakdsl.nl> wrote:

>Am not sure. Am sure you can't just leave. There have to be an
>controlling force to make sure things don't go completely wrong. There
>has to be some kind of power and safety for the people.


I agree with this. Aren't we responsible for them and their welfare,
since we tore up their country and brought down the only government
they had? To just walk off and leave them in the condition they are in
now is worse than starting the war in the first place.

Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

ratatosk <ratatosk@don'tbother.tweakdsl.nl> wrote in
news:6da9d3lle2pm10ri3rn7ia1cl5r2bfs113@4ax.com:

> Am not sure. Am sure you can't just leave. There have to be an
> controlling force to make sure things don't go completely wrong. There
> has to be some kind of power and safety for the people.
>

I think that was one of the reasons given for staying in Vietnam. I
don't think it holds up.

It seems to me that all we're doing now, just like we did then, is to
prop up a failed government. Then, we propped up the dictator that was
already in power, now, we're backing a guy who would have long since been
deposed if not for American presence. Which would not be a bad thing if
he was even trying to stop the sectarian violence. From all accounts,
he's not making any real overtures at all to the various factions.

I think that no matter when we leave, chaos will follow. The only
question, to me at any rate, is whether we leave now and let them get to
making their own way forward, or we stay and let many more die before the
process can begin.

We do owe them a lot, I'm just not sure that staying there will
contribute to their safety or well-being.

Chak

--
We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not
unreasonable that we grapple with problems, but there are tens of
thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we
can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on.
--Richard P. Feynman

ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote:

> here is an excerpt from president bush's speech given at the veterans
> of foreign wars convention (i think 8/22/07):

> Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got
> into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind
> that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United
> States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that
> debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of
> America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose
> agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-
> education camps," and "killing fields."

> There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can
> hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle -- those
> who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the
> 11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11
> attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that "the American people had risen
> against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same
> today."

> His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to
> al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to "the
> aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how
> they ran and left their agents."

> Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans
> "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam
> specter is closing every outlet." Here at home, some can argue our
> withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility --
> but the terrorists see it differently.

> We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they
> say. Bin Laden has declared that "the war [in Iraq] is for you or us
> to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever." Iraq
> is one of several fronts in the war on terror -- but it's the central
> front -- it's the central front for the enemy that attacked us and
> wants to attack us again. And it's the central front for the United
> States and to withdraw without getting the job done would be
> devastating. (Applause.)

Osama really know how to wind Bush up, doesn't he? Sounds like it's
pretty easy for him to dictate US foreign policy :-)

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:18:41 GMT, Chakolate
<chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:

>ratatosk <ratatosk@don'tbother.tweakdsl.nl> wrote in
>news:6da9d3lle2pm10ri3rn7ia1cl5r2bfs113@4ax.com :
>
>> Am not sure. Am sure you can't just leave. There have to be an
>> controlling force to make sure things don't go completely wrong. There
>> has to be some kind of power and safety for the people.
>>
>
>I think that was one of the reasons given for staying in Vietnam. I
>don't think it holds up.

The difference with Vietnam is the importance in the region. Iraq is
an important player in the MO.. Nobody wants an other Afghanistan with
a lot of oil and power that goes with it.

>It seems to me that all we're doing now, just like we did then, is to
>prop up a failed government. Then, we propped up the dictator that was
>already in power, now, we're backing a guy who would have long since been
>deposed if not for American presence. Which would not be a bad thing if
>he was even trying to stop the sectarian violence. From all accounts,
>he's not making any real overtures at all to the various factions.

i agree

>I think that no matter when we leave, chaos will follow. The only
>question, to me at any rate, is whether we leave now and let them get to
>making their own way forward, or we stay and let many more die before the
>process can begin.

So sorry, we can't afford chaos in over there.

>We do owe them a lot, I'm just not sure that staying there will
>contribute to their safety or well-being.
>
I am not saying America has to stay, i just say it can't just leave.
If America leaves it has to put in place some sort of power. It can be
one of Iran's neighbors ( all thou I don't think the will be to keen
to go in)

R

Ratatosk, Jola

--

If you need to e-mail me, replace "don'tbother" with "zedicus"

Chakolate <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:
> ratatosk <ratatosk@don'tbother.tweakdsl.nl> wrote in
> news:spj6d3hedrt4d9p4lcmm5gl5c9hraeb6jq@4ax.com:

>> I am sure all those thinks need to be attended but once a country
>> takes away an other countries's leadership, the country becomes
>> responsible for the safety of that country people. I know america does
>> a lousy job of that but it can't just walk away. Nobody wats a second
>> afghanistan.

> Do you think staying will help? I'm really asking - I'd like to hear a
> non-American opinion on it.

I heard part of a TV programme on the topic a few days ago. The main
point of discussion was that a US general had criticised the UK for
reducing troops while the US was doing its famous "push". The UK
ex-generals they consulted seemed to think that staying would work,
for both UK and US, but only if troop numbers everywhere were
multiplied very considerably indeed. If the governments weren't in a
mood or position to agree to that, then admitting we'd totally screwed
the thing up, weren't helping any more, and leaving the country to go
up in flames in its own way was unfortunately the horrible position
such a ridiculously badly planned intervention had got us into. They
saw the bad planning as being the early destruction of the local Iraqi
military and police infrastructure without having the vaguest idea of
how they were going to rebuild it, and without bothering to commit
enough manpower to replace it ourselves. In other words, just planning
to topple Saddam and completely ignoring the problem of what to do
next.

It sounded a plausible argument to me.

One thing that's always amazed the UK is how on earth Bush managed to
convince so much of the US that toppling Saddam had anything at all to
do with fighting Osama bin Laden, when it was pretty obvious that
whatever else it achieved it was going to considerably increase bin
Laden's power, and also give him a foothold in Iraq he'd never had
before.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]