The US, The UN and Iraq

Would that be "Dovish" Eagle?

BillW, How does a dove-eagle look like? LOL c.i.

As self proclaimed:

LOL ... I was placing a different interpretation on "Hawk", I guess ... I was thinking more along the lines of philosophic or political "Hawk". The Avatar does represent The Biggest Hawk There Is, though ... not unintentionally.



timber

Raptor

timber, T-Rex also?

Bang a Gong



timber

Get it ON!

There are no doubt a few puzzled looks and "WTF are they talking about"s gonna be raised by the preceeding exchange. LOL

Bein' old has its advantages, I guess.




timber

timber, Not really. You can look like a hawk on the outside, but have the heart of a dove on the inside. c.i.

Or at the very least we know that there are likely to be greater "collateral damages" from leaving Saddam in power than from taking him out.

tres, I still haven't made that connection, but that would definitely be a 'probable.' c.i.

Asherman

First, I'm a guide, not a moderator, which means I have a t-shirt and all the organizational clout of a dishwasher at MacDonalds.

I took you to task for posting a sentence that was guilty of suggesting far more than you fess up to. It wasn't the first such. Here's another from your reply. Appease? As in dear Neville, right? That's the only option to your stance?

You feel I ought to disprove some idea you hold regarding the relationship between propaganda and anti-war or anti-administration sentiment, but it's unclear what idea you hold, because you suggest, again, more than one thing (and you've pulled this one on a few occasions): those who argue against war are pawns of the enemy, or, Sadaam is happy to see it happen. Rather different, but you chuck them both in. You also leave a rather gaping hole in not allowing propaganda untruths and distortions coming from the other direction, eg, your posts.

As to 'pride', it wasn't about your pride in your country...the chances of me getting you to consider that your nation acts out of any other motive than the fight against 'tyranny' is so dim that I won't try. My use of 'pride' was directed distinctly at your self certainty in what you think and write here.

Not even Bush wants this war as bad as Rumsfeld, Ash.

It's that picture that's all over the 'Net of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam that's got his shorts in a wad. He's hiding more secrets than Saddam is.

Nobody's hornier for this war than Rumsfeld...except perhaps his own archangels, Perle and Wolfowitz.

History repeats itself:

"... It therefore follows that along the vital Pacific Coast over 112,000 potential enemies, of Japanese extraction, are at large today. There are indications that these are organized and ready for concerted action at a favorable opportunity. The very fact that no sabotage has taken place to date is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken."
-- Lt. Gen. John L. DeWitt, memorandum of Feb. 14, 1942, declaring that internment of Japanese-Americans was a "military necessity"

"Another way to look at it is this; that the fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence in and of itself of Iraq's non-cooperation."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, DoD briefing, Jan. 15, 2003

PDid, Good observation! I've alsways assumed it was GW's war with Iraq, because of his connections to oil, but your perspective makes sense too! Rummie keeps talking about how Iraq has not lived up to UNR1441. He wants war - now! c .i.

Some who oppose the use of military force against Saddam ARE pawns of the enemy, mostly unthinking and innocent of treason. Saddam IS happy to hear vocal protests against any use of force against him, after all that is the only way he can win.

Saddam isn't making any demands, so I suppose that using the term "appeasement" isn't as accurate as it should be. What term would you prefer applying to those who prefer avoiding conflict with our enemy for fear that someone will get hurt? No one wishes more fervantly than I that Saddam and Kim will have a sudden epiphany and become great humanitarians willing to change their ways. On the off chance that doesn't happen, don't you think it wise to be ready to speak the language they do understand .. massive force. These two have never behaved in a civilized manner unless faced with credible force.

Those who argue for the threat of direct force, and are willing to commit our troops abroad are also engaged in the propaganda war. We don't appear to be as effective at persuading the People to support policies taken on their behalf, as those who blacken the names of honorable men and argue that it is we, rather than the enemy, who should be denounced. What is at stake is the Will of the American People to support our government's initiatives against enemies who make no bones about how much they hate us and pray for our destruction. Perhaps those who prefer Saddam and Kim to the United States are just more vocal than those evil conservatives, Republicans and middle-Americans. Personally, I am a Federalist and believe in a strong central government, a strong military, and a sound economy based on a stable currency. I make no apology for my views, they are clearly in conflict with your own.

Oh it's the confidence with which I express myself that makes you think I'm "proud", "vain", "egotistical", ect. I do try to keep an open mind, and I can be persuaded. I have been persuaded. I've made many mistakes in my life, and expect to make many more. I know that I should be more humble and compassionate. I try. How well I succeed is for others to say. Perhaps you're correct, but I don't really think so.

What I got out of Asherman's post and Michael Lind's book was that Ho Chi Minh won Vietnam on the streets of the USA with the able assistance of Jane Fonda and the anti war crowd. Saddam with the aid of guys like Tarik Aziz, studied that situation and decided their best bet was to take their war to the streets of America and that time was on their side. I think he's right---people like Scott Ritter( who I think sold out to make a movie)and the anti-war crowd here will win it for him. My opinion only---I hope I'm wrong

Asherman and perception, I'm against the war with Iraq simply because 1) GWBush has not shown that Iraq is a threat to our security, 2) the majority of humans in this world today is against the US war with Iraq, because they don't see the threat, and 3) where's the beef/WMD? If and when Saddam attacks any one of his neighbors with any WMD, he's a sure goner, but then it would be justified - wouldn't it? c.i.

anti-administration, anti-war, anti-logic, anti-Rumsfeld, anti-democracy, anti-America---and on and on...........

Hyperbolic overstatement. Just against preemptively attacking Iraq, that's all.

C.I.

I would try to respond to your question but Asherman, Georgeob1, and Tantor have answered your question at least 20 times over the past month or so, far more eloquently than I ever could but the question just keeps coming back. The obvious conclusion is that we have all come here to sound off with our opinions and ideas while at the same time saying to the other participants on this forum----don't confuse me with facts or sound argument my mind is closed. I have watched this over the past week of self imposed suspension and after the responses to the carefully crafted arguments of Asherman and Georgeob1 there is always the flury of-----yeah but----blah---blah ----blah. Oh yeah, I'm just as guilty as anyone ---- over and out for the night.