The US, The UN and Iraq

What the hell ... we all got warts. What matters is how we deal with them.



timber

i agree timberlandko: but what we seem to have plenty of is denial which circumvents "dealing" with our warts. As Ron Reagan so aptly put it "I don't remember"

Good grief, yes...that's the point of all this. Let's be honest about the warts (that everyone does have), because they are causing problems.

I found another opinion worth sharing.

It belongs to Col. David Hackworth:

David Hackworth is one of the most celebrated soldiers in modern U.S. history. He joined the merchant marine at 14, the Army at 15, and he's never looked back. He was the youngest U.S. captain in the Korean War, the youngest colonel in Vietnam. As a soldier and later a war correspondent, he's been on a dozen battlefields, hot and cold. And he never became a Pentagon bureaucrat. Of all the medals that have been pinned to his uniform, it's the Combat Infantryman's Badge he's proudest of.

Now his country is tilting toward war again.

"Having thought long and hard about war with Iraq," Hackworth told me, measuring his words carefully, "I cannot find justification. I don't see a threat. They are not Nazi Germany. This is not the Wehrmacht. In no way does the situation in Iraq affect my nation's security. That is the bottom line of analyzing threats. 'Does this country threaten my country's security?' In this case, absolutely not."

The awesome risks of this war, he said, far outweigh the potential rewards.

"Focus on protecting the American homeland, which is not adequately defended," Hack said. "Nine-eleven proved that. All of the machinations that have gone on since then are more lip service and crowd-pleasing than real. Our borders are still wide open. Our ports are vulnerable, too. And there are plenty of sleeper cells - Middle Eastern terrorists living among us, waiting to do their thing."

A Warrior Against War

PDid, It feels downright good to know that the likes of Col Hackworth feels the same about Iraq's threat to US security. I trust him more than all the "yes" men that surrounds GWBush. c.i.

George said Actually, only a couple...I still hold that quality dope and quality sex are advantagous to a fulfilling human experience.

george...I am not going to argue 'who is baddest' with you. If you have some interest in understanding WHY there is anti-American sentiment in the world, then the answers ought not to be avoided by pointing elsewhere to worse examples. I don't think self-doubts will cripple the nation, but I think an insufficiency of them can do great damage through blindness.

But I've already argued this case. We may have to settle for partial agreements, you and I.

PDiddie

Again, a good link. Thank you.

blatham, You are a gas. "Quality dope and quality sex" together or separately? c.i.

Some things fit naturally, like wine and moonlight......I'll take as much as is available.

Just curious, but have you come across any opinions "worth sharing" that don't agree with your own? :wink:

please take a moment today to look at

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2875&start=40

Quick recap:
1. Attack against the U.S. : already happened (Al Qaeda)
2. Attack against its allies : the Security Pact with Japan requires that one carrier group remain in the area - but the one there now (Kitty Hawk) is about to move to the Persian Gulf.
3. Attack against Iraq's neighbors is 3rd in order of priority >>>
___________________________________________________________
"Yet we cannot allow the real risks associated with acting against Iraq to paralyze us. They must be balanced against the risks of inaction--in this case, a future nuclear, biological or chemical attack against the U.S., its allies, or Iraq's neighbors. We cannot permit Iraq to become another North Korea."

James Baker III, secretary of state under the first President Bush, in today's Wall Street Journal
_____________________________________________________________
>>> Anybody here recalls the U.S. military doctrine requiring sufficient forces to fight simultaneously on 2 fronts? Former Secretary Baker has the sequence right - first U.S., second Allies (that's just NATO and Japan and *nobody else*), THIRD all others.

There being no doctrine for simultaneous fighting on 3 separate fronts, we are asked to believe that fronts (1) and (2) are either neutralized or somehow subsumed into (3). Essentially therefore we depend on Al Qaeda and North Korea to go along with this Iraq charade - let's hope they'll follow our script <G>

tw, challenges for intellectual honesty and fairmindedness are fine, but in this case a bit disingenuous. Nobody spends time on this forum hunting down and posting supporting links for opposing points of view.

Indeed, Snood? Very many of us here are posting links to *factual* *information* - and might find the suggestion of private-agenda-driven selection distasteful, to put it very, very mildly.

HoT

You are a smart one. I'll wager that the name 'Canada' has been referenced on this thread almost as often as the name 'Israel'.

Edited because of the COPS!!

HofT:

Got the book, I love you!! Will call you later.

Anon

Well actually, I have been known to share a point of view with which I disagree, if I find it particularly well-written or thought provoking. I don't go looking for such, but if I find it, I am as likely to share it as not. Whether I agree is not the issue. Will it add to the discussion? That's my measure for its worth, not simply that it agrees with me or does not. (Of course, I am far more likely to find "value" in things that agree with me, because I am far more likely to read them thoroughly.)

Likewise I offered kudos just the other day to Setanta for something he penned in A2K. I happened to disagree with much of his point--as I usually do with him--but I believe his comments added tremendously to the discussion being waged.

If memory serves (and it does) you offered me Abuzz-style insults in response to comments I had made to someone else. To your lack of civility and abuse of the forum, I politely responded that you should feel free to ignore my comments if you find them so distasteful.

In this case, I asked Snood a serious question that I wanted him to consider, and to his credit, I think he did so. I don't think he and I see eye-to-eye on the question I asked, but his response shows me that he considered what I asked, even if he didn't think it was a very "good" question. I think it important to consider what we call a "worthwhile" source here. I think it is an important question. If you don't, that's fine.

Well, i think most of you are bad men and women--if you could only show that same restraint and courteous defference for which i am famous, this site would be much more enjoyable for us all . . .

harumph

okbye

S[/color]