0
   

Will Saddam torch Iraq on his way out?

 
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 03:24 pm
Steve

Now I know you're not naive----during wartime a campaign of MIS-information is one of the best ways to keep your enemy off balance and you should remember that type of effort during WWII, keeping the evidence of the Normandy invasion secret by dis-information.

Why do you and many other people attribute any lack of information or mis-information to be immoral motives on the part of the administration?
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 03:33 pm
Blaise

That will be because of a change in administrations, a shift in the thinking of the American people toward shrinking our military to nothing or any other whim of a democracy that cannot be explained.

The memory of past horrors is not within the capabilies of the American public--but so be it. They just want to put it past them so they can go back to being couch potatoes.
0 Replies
 
BlaiseDaley
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 04:02 pm
Hmmm, I the the misinformation that is coming from the administration is that this whole episode is about anything other than securing oil.

As for the US learning anything, I was speaking in regards to what type of folks we befriend in the first place, Knucklehead(Sadumbass) was "our guy" for quite a while or, at the very least, someone with the dough to buy our weapons and technology.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 04:19 pm
Perception

I think when you get to a certain position in life, and at the head of government of the most powerful nation on earth is certainly one, you are forced into saying and doing things that may be for the best in the long term, but is wrong in the short term. There's no way out. That's the dilemma all powerful people are sometimes faced with. Perhaps that's what is happenning now regarding Iraq. Personnally I would not have voted for Bush, but I wouldn't swap him for Saddam! Lets hope this whole thing is sorted out as best as possible. UK troops will undoubtedly be fighting too!

Merry Xmas

S
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 04:26 pm
Steve

I sense that you and I are on the same frequency---just using different language and style. As I said earlier England is our most reliable ally and the only one we really want OR NEED.

Happy holidays
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 04:36 pm
Blaze

We have been forced by events of the past to have diplomatic encounters with potential enemies---as we adhere more and more to the Doctrine of pre-emptive strike I will predict there will be fewer and fewer of these unfortunate alliances- it will be similar to a political candidate who does not need money from anyone--he is not beholden to anyone. I think the world is in for a long overdue lesson on the projection of power in a global environment but I would not like to see it done in an arrogant manner. It will however be perceived by everyone as arrogant---so be it.
0 Replies
 
BlaiseDaley
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 05:05 pm
Perception- That whole pre-emptive strike issue is in and of itself arrogant from the get go. Is this a doctrine soley for the use of the US or should China take it up as well, the case can be made the only nation to use nuclear weapons against another country is the US. As the 800 lb gorilla I feel it really is our duty to be supremely cautious in how we use our ability to bully.

As for diplomatic encounters, Allende, the Shah or Iran, our ongoing dealings with the Saudis are much more business dealings, I feel, than diplomatic necessities; there are folks in those respective countries that use the very words Bush did, "you're either with us or against us", and, sadly, they don't mean it in way that is in league with US.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 05:18 pm
Blaze

Acting in the best interests of the world as well as our own is not being a bully---However no matter what we do we must accept the fact that you cannot please all the people all the time---so be it.

I'm off the air for awhile.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 05:21 pm
as far as dis-information goes it was Churchill that blasted away at the BBC for "telling it like it was, therefore endangering the nation" but the credibility of the BBC remained intact as reliable ergo believable. when anyone learns that the propaganda is less than honest, everything that follows is disbelieved and therefore becomes useless. Nixon was a crook, and Clinton did lie. the jury is still out on Reagan. But the bright side of this is that Jimmy Carter was believed. In the long run honesty does pay.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 05:59 pm
dylexia

Then you'd like to have the micro manager back as president?

Under his presidency the interest rate climbed to 22%, Castro dumped all his criminals on our shores and laughed, Carter micro managed the use of the white house tennis courts, the Iranians made us an impotent paper tiger over the hostage crisis----to me those were dark times for the US---but then it makes sense for a poet to disregard all that.
0 Replies
 
BlaiseDaley
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 06:00 pm
Perception- I think, typically, we act in our own best interests and, if it works out, the best interests of the world happen to be served as well.

See you upon your return.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 06:40 pm
perception

Two quick points...

First, the point about Carter's relative honesty seems to me a good one because lies, omissions, and misdirection do bring about cynicism and mistrust, which is greatly a part of the battle you are fighting here with folks like me and dyslexia and steve. If we hadn't had those precedents of dishonesty, we'd be far more willing to believe the leaders. So the point really is not necessarily bringing Jimmy back, but bringing back that element of the honesty he represented. I think McCain could have done that.

The second point is on pre-emption and the protests against this doctrine...

I am against it too, as it is proposed by Perle and Wolfowitz, where one nation (the US) is running the show. Then, China or any other country can make the same argument. I am not against it, in fact I'm quite in support of it, if it is a function of a body like the UN - a body superior to any single nation. But clearly that is not Perle and Wolfowitz's notion.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 08:58 pm
Thinking ... expanded response to follow.
Dinner intervenes.



timber.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 10:21 pm
perception: in reading your responses i take it your digs at poets are directed at me, kinda a waste actually i have been a farmer/rancher as well as a social worker most of my adult life and have no grasp of the art of poetry. i raise cattle, sheep and hogs and do child abuse investigations so i am essentially just another working stiff.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 10:33 pm
Blatham

Your first point----just because Clinton was amoral and dishonest I don't think you should say that Bush and his administration fit in the same category. Remember we are at war---the rules are different--disinformation is for the benefit of our enemies. I also think Carter is a hypocrit and actually dishonest for acceptin the Nobel prize when the president of the committee admitted he awarded it to Carter as an afront to Bush. Which to me was one of the most dispicable acts I can imagine.

Your second point---we will fly the UN flag as we are trying to take action on behalf of the world as a token of appreciation for your advice. Now don't take offense----the remark was made actually as a suggestion that might work. We will do the Un's work just as we did stopping the genocide in Kosovo for the UN---if they will promise not to help.

This point of view is stated with the greatest of humility but it's really difficult to be humble when you're good.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 10:34 pm
dyslexia

Well then in regards to your signature I hope you find a few acorns.
0 Replies
 
BlaiseDaley
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 10:36 pm
Perception - we do the UN's work when it suits us or all the time?
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 10:39 pm
Blaze

If Bush didn't look after our interests first then you would be correct in calling him stupid.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 10:43 pm
perception: i see that civility is not your strong suit but it helps of maintain a dialogue with others.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2002 11:09 pm
dyslexia

Noted---what exactly was your intent in using that signature, " Even a blind pig can find a few acorns". I wouldn't say you are entirely innocent of a little poke now and then. You also keep this from getting too boring---as when everyone agrees and just start slapping each other on the back. No one learns anything---we may never change any opinions here but at least you have caused me to do a little research---that to me is valuable. Your point of view is valuable really because it is so different from mine and I know that I should remain alert for the next hand grenade but I don't consider you to be mean spirited or vindictive.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/03/2021 at 06:50:56