The US, The UN and Iraq

perception - I was not clear in what I wrote. I am not comparing the scale or the risks involved. I simply think at this point we are waiting to see if Saddam will blink, as he is, us.

Destination: Dubai
Trans-shipment: Permitted
Origin: Eilath

Back and able to post for one day I note yet another clown on thread frothing-at-mouth with what HE calls OUR history, as in:

"Had he not preserved the union, Pennsilvania might now be a German colony.
Louisianna might be a French colony. "

Lousiana and Pennsylvania say hello to the alleged USAF fighter pilot (no kidding, that's his claim) of excellent education in English other than not knowing that the Louisiana purchase far predates the Civil War, and that his abysmal spelling of U.S. States indicates that his country is not ours.

Additionally, having no CLUE on what nuclear missiles in Cuba entailed - and it wasn't "World Extinction" just communist extinction <G>

HofT - Please tone it down and attack the points made, not the person. Name calling is not conducive to useful debate, nor is it allowed under the guidelines. Thanks.

Hot spots

A lot of allegations you can't back up with anything but rhetoric.
My claim(of being a USAF pilot) is backed up with retirement orders and a fairly extensive flight record all documented. Are you fresh out of high school?

How do you presume to know what i "seem" to think? You're avoiding the point here--the two situations are not analagous. I'm disgusted that you trot out such flag-waving antics as to mention Lincoln in his situation as a valid comparison to the opportunistic, law-unto-himself Bush. This is typical here, don't answer the rebuttal i made of your earlier post, introduce a barely relevant side issue. Can you offer proof that the soldiers of our army will vote for Bush? I nowhere said they wouldn't; do you imply that you have certain knowledge that they would? More importantly, can you support your original analogy in the face of the rebuttal i've offered?

Setanta - With respect, while Lincoln's ends may have justified his means, it seems quite clear that he took tremendous liberties with the Constitution and used almost dictatorial powers to achieve the preservation of the union. While I don't agree that Bush has shown himself to be anything near a "law-unto-himself", I do believe that characterization can reasonably be levelled at Lincoln.

Setanta

My original post was not addressed to you but you come snarling back trying to pick a fight.

My second post was not addressed to you---it could have been addressed to Blatham.

Go pick a fight somewhere else.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, with the prior knowledge and consent of the Congress; he introduced conscription, with the prior knowledge and consent of the Congress; he instituted an income tax, with the prior knowledge and consent of the Congress. I could understand why you would say that Lincoln acted as a law unto himself. There is still a very crucial distinction to be made however--the United States, by any reasonable definition, was already at war at the time the Lincoln was inaugurated. In those cases in which Lincoln's actions, taken in concert with the Congress, were considered to have been illegal, they were voided by courts. The income tax stood until it was deemed unconstitutional in 1873. I know why you say what you do; but i maintain that what Lincoln did, he did in the midst of a genuine national emergency, while the United States were directly under attack. Bush has not made a convincing case that Saddam is responsible for the 9/11/01 attack and this country is not at war, and will only be at war owing to the willfullness of this president. Having gone to the United Nations for an inspections resolution from the Security Council, he, or, his administration acting on his behalf, has attempted to define the results of said inspections without reference to Mr. Blix et al. This is why i describe Bush as a law-unto-himself president. I'm willing to concede that the same can be said of Lincoln. I see no convincing argument here, however, that the cases are analagous.

Setanta - the first 3 lines in my previous post concern shipping documents, easily procured by any customs authority at the ports involved. Considering the *furious* and *continuing* editing of the post I was quoting from, here's that literary masterpiece in its entirety as it currently appears:

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

"Posted: 2003-02-11, 16:12 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I may, I would like to trouble you all with my idea of perspective relative to some of our history. Lincoln is thought of and revered as possibly the greatest president in our history----it could be said that he killed 600,000 men(this is the total number of men killed in the US civil war) Not 246 as Bush 41 killed in the first gulf war, or zero that Clinton killed in Kosovo(we are viewed as cowards by the French for bombing from 15000ft because they did not have the courage to put their troops in harm's way). Lincoln did not fight the civil war to free the slaves---he fought the war to preserve the union---freeing the slaves was a fringe benefit. Had he not preserved the union, Pennsilvania might now be a German colony.
Louisianna might be a French colony. These United States might have become another Europe with many little countries all bickering over anything and everything.

IMO, if CNN and body bags had been the venue of the day as it is now, Lincoln most probably would have been lynched after the first battle. He would have gone down in History as a madman, not a Hero. But yet he killed 600,000 men and became a hero. Lincoln was a man of vision surely, but most of all he was a man of conviction. Surely that war could have been averted but it was not. Once it started there was no turning back---think what would have happened had he lost his conviction when he saw the carnage on the battlefield? This country would not exist. I believe I am correct in saying that Great Brittain was waiting to attack us in our weakened condition. Any number of a circumstances could have changed the course of history had Lincoln lost his conviction. He did not and now his is immortalized.

In times of great peril, IMO it is best to reduce all the factors to black and white---good or evil. Shades of grey only tend to confuse the issues. I will go with the man who has the conviction.


Last edited by perception on 2003-02-11, 16:26, edited 2 times in total
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Whose carnage on whose battlefield is involved is an easy matter to settle for anyone with a map. And, before I forget, Australia bought lots of main battle tanks - or at least signed end-user certificates for them. As of course anyone can see they TANKS would be necessary to DEFEND Australia, thousands of miles from anywhere at all, unless the Maoris are invading with canoes.

Who got these 60-ton "tractors" and their companion 120 mm (variously smoothbore or rifled) "pipeline sections"? Hey - check the multi-names posters around here asking for more U.S. "protection" <G>

Well, HofT, whatever . . . may i inquire why you have addressed your post to me? Surely a failure of comprehension of my middle-aged brain, but how are said shipping documents related to my attempt to refute a comparison of Lincoln's situation to that of Bush?

So, Perception, you somehow consider that it is within your right to dictate which posts i may respond to, and which i may not?

Setanta - You make some very good points, and show yourself to be well-versed on history and these issues. I think we are more in agreement than not in regards to Lincoln, and more at odds than not as regards Bush. I'll call that a "win-win" situation.

Trespassers Will - hello? Attacking any person isn't something I can be accused of; kindly read posts carefully. Thank you <G>

Yeah, Tress, that's a good way to look at it. By the by, were the current administration to provide credible information which showed Iraq or its agents to have been proximate causes of or abettors of the attack on the World Trade Center, i would support this proposed action as a part of the war on terrorism. I believe, however, that absent such proof, this course is a dangerous side venture which may well be counter-productive. And, if such proof were provided, i would support the war while continuing to specifically despise Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

A reasonable position, and aside from the last bit about despising certain people :wink: , one we share to a fairly large degree.

I have spent a lot of time in these discussions debating the reasons others have given for being adamantly against war in Iraq. Many choose to interpret this to mean I am adamantly for war in Iraq. This is not the case.

I would prefer that we find a solution to the Iraq problem without war. I hope that our leaders are doing what they are doing because they have information that causes them to deem that actions they are taking to be necessary, or the best possible path. I am not blindly convinced of this, but just as I believe that most of what Clinton did in office was done because he believed it was the right thing for our country and the world (in that order, hopefully) I likewise believe Bush thinks what he is doing is necessary and right. My political beliefs lead me to trust Bush's instincts and beliefs more than Clinton's, but that doesn't mean my trust is blind. I try to be a skeptic first, and put my political views second.

tres, You don't need to go back 140 years to Lincoln's time to see a president that ignores our Constitution. Try Roosevelt who authored Executive Order 9066 to put Japanese Americans into concentration camps during WWII. c.i.

The following quote from Lola( whose permission I have to use this and I want to make it clear that she used it in an entirely different context) but I believe to be relevant to the participants of this discussion regarding any opposing view.

Quote:
"If you don't agree with me, and I can't talk you out of it, or into it, or can't conceive of it, then you must be sick" End Quote.

Have a nice day Y'all.

One of the blazing signs of evil IS conviction. Historically one of the ways a politician has gotten away with murder has been to take of the present as "a time of great peril." Demonization masquerades as conviction. Political malarkey creates great peril. You would most likely agree that Saddam and Mgabe and Hitler and all those great leaders have been distinguished by their willingness to express themselves in black and white, to demonize the opposition. Others among us put Bush in that group. I do. Hitler's ability to pull off the extermination of non-Aryans and his justification for territorial expansion intrigue historians and social scientists because it's so difficult to understand how so many sane and informed Germans could have allowed Hitler to lead them. (See Fromm's Escape From Freedom.) I'd like to think that, sixty years later, sane and informed citizens in one of the countries which one that war would examine any leader's "conviction" really carefully before allowing themselves to be led into further war and atrocity. The Bush administration has a serial habit of conflating current events in order to justify actions which are moral and logical nonsense. Unfortunately he still has followers who hear the rhetoric but not the conflation. Some seem to be bored by examination in depth and what-ifs and excited by "black and white -- and red all over." It may be a hopeful sign that increasing numbers of influential talking heads and others with a public forum have begun to deconstruct Bush's and Powell's and Ashcroft's and Rumsfeld's and others' "convictions." That, at least, is a start.

Postscript from the Land of Grey: There are two levels (at least!) of understanding when it comes to American history. 1) Lincoln is great, the greatest president, one of the greatest presidents. 2) Lincoln had flaws -- for example he.... At any given moment, depending on the point you want to argue, you can base your argument on either of these truths. That's why I like the idea of thinking of this country as a nation of people who try their damnedest to be wise and generous and good, rather than throw a great rhetorical tarpaulin over large portions of our history and declare, "We're the greatest and always have been!"

Just working with the examples others brought to the table, CI.

What about the conviction that war is never an option and that we must seek peace at all costs?

(My point is that conviction CAN clearly lead to evil, but it is not in-and-of-itself evil. As with anything, it is what you do based upon your convictions that may be evil or good.)