The US, UN & Iraq II

I misspoke .... I re-read the blog and it said 'huge loans' not grants...... sorry.

Jack the newest member in the [shut up and say thank you] club had this to say in the comments to the post below:
"Think about it, where are bomb shelters, duh, in government or large buildings with a GPS coordinate on someone's list. I can't believe after reading some of the articles you posted that you don't think your government wouldn't mind using you as a shield. Just stay in your home, you will be much safer. When someone knocks on your door and says "U.S. Army/Marines", then you can come out. Believe me, your welfare are at the top of our thoughts. Our goal is to help everyone be as free as us. It may sound corny but it is true. We have always come as liberators. Thousands of young Americans have died over the last 226+ years to help others be free. With all you have to offer, you guys should be as prosperous and peaceful as anywhere else. Who knows. Supposedly the beginnings of man were there. Maybe we'll have a new beginning there to show the rest of the world how it should be." dear jack
Duh yourself ! since you obviously have not been to Baghdad you are not an authority on where the bomb shelters are. These shelters, I think around 30 of them, were built during the Iraq-Iran war. Yes some of them were part of military complexes but many were built in civilian neighborhoods, they were built during a time when the government would give huge loans to people building shelters in their own backyards and bomb shelters became part of the building code for any public building. Jack that statement is simply not correct.
Has anyone been able to prove that on the night that shelter has been used as a C&C center, that there was anyone of importance beside the obligatory Party members? Bad intelligence? **** happens? Well you pooped on me buddy, don't expect me to be all ah-great-america-we-love-you, and your government will be pooping on me some more, now how does that make me feel?
I am not taking any of that "the great liberators - help others to be free" talk because I do not believe there is such a thing in politics called altruism, there are no free lunches and no one does *anything* without some personal motives. So if your government is going to go to war it is not because they are "helping others to be free" it's because a hundred other reasons and this one just happens to be a nice one to throw to the public. And no, I will not say it's the oil, because it is not only oil, although it is a nice little extra thrown in.
Jack the newest member in the [shut up and say thank you] club had this to say in the comments to the post below:
"Think about it, where are bomb shelters, duh, in government or large buildings with a GPS coordinate on someone's list. I can't believe after reading some of the articles you posted that you don't think your government wouldn't mind using you as a shield. Just stay in your home, you will be much safer. When someone knocks on your door and says "U.S. Army/Marines", then you can come out. Believe me, your welfare are at the top of our thoughts. Our goal is to help everyone be as free as us. It may sound corny but it is true. We have always come as liberators. Thousands of young Americans have died over the last 226+ years to help others be free. With all you have to offer, you guys should be as prosperous and peaceful as anywhere else. Who knows. Supposedly the beginnings of man were there. Maybe we'll have a new beginning there to show the rest of the world how it should be." dear jack
Duh yourself ! since you obviously have not been to Baghdad you are not an authority on where the bomb shelters are. These shelters, I think around 30 of them, were built during the Iraq-Iran war. Yes some of them were part of military complexes but many were built in civilian neighborhoods, they were built during a time when the government would give huge loans to people building shelters in their own backyards and bomb shelters became part of the building code for any public building. Jack that statement is simply not correct.
Has anyone been able to prove that on the night that shelter has been used as a C&C center, that there was anyone of importance beside the obligatory Party members? Bad intelligence? **** happens? Well you pooped on me buddy, don't expect me to be all ah-great-america-we-love-you, and your government will be pooping on me some more, now how does that make me feel?
I am not taking any of that "the great liberators - help others to be free" talk because I do not believe there is such a thing in politics called altruism, there are no free lunches and no one does *anything* without some personal motives. So if your government is going to go to war it is not because they are "helping others to be free" it's because a hundred other reasons and this one just happens to be a nice one to throw to the public. And no, I will not say it's the oil, because it is not only oil, although it is a nice little extra thrown in.

why amI dbbl posting everything?

Tartarin !!! i assumed you knew it was the REPUBLICAN guard??

A quick bit of humor not totally off topic because of Walter

Worlds Atilt

Finally, from Charles Barkley, ex-basketball player, commentator and bon vivant:

"You know the world is off tilt when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest basketball player is Chinese, and Germany doesn't want to go to war."

And that's a quote folks !

Timber,I have seen you, until the post above, as even-handed and reasonable. Now, it appears that I am invited to see myself in your description of protesters who resort to hysteria and hyperbole.

You cannot reduce me to fit into your narrow description of those who "don't get it." You speak of the real world as something that is opposed to the Pollyanna views of some others. My view of reality simply does not comport with yours, and I beg you to prove that your view of reality is more valid than mine. You see a world where war is necessary. I see a world where war is not only unnecessary but implies a failure of the imagination. You see a world where the American superview is imposed on every nation, and I see a world where we are one among many, and some of the other-many are wise voices.

I would respect your view more if you gave credence to those of us who are not hysterical or hyperbolic but who differ totally from your major premise, which seems to be that war is an acceptable solution to any problem. I am not a timid pacificist, or a wimpy grey-haired sign-toting protester. I believe in my view as much as you believe in yours. And my view of reality is not pie-in-the-sky. I am a fierce defender; I would fight for my life if I were attacked, and I would win; and I would fight for my country in the same way. We have not been attacked, and I find utterly unconvincing our administration's arguments that we are attacking Iraq to fight terrorism (please...) or save the Iraqi people (please...) or to spread democracy in the Middle East (pleeeease.)

Timber, I do not know why we are attacking Iraq. And I know a lot of people who cannot answer that question either. Do you have a way of answering that question that has not been said, over and over, unconvincingly?

What is not in question is whether we will prevail. Of course we will prevail. Can an elephant crush a mouse? The hourly reports of our troops advancing on Baghdad, truimphal and quietly sure, the reassuring reports on CNN and others, are so much pablum being fed to the citizens of the country. We will roll on, crushingly, totalitarianly, overwhelmingly. Of course, We knew. We always knew. We are the greatest country in the world and we always do what is right.

The saddest thing to me is that we really do believe that what we are doing is right.

Good one, dyslexia.

perception, do you really think Chas Barkley said that? If he did, he has a long and good career ahead of him and it doesn't involve bouncing a ball....

Thank you, Kara, well said.

Kara

I'm also a bit skeptical but I can't say for certain----it was passed on to me.

Kara also wrote:
The saddest thing to me is that we really do believe that what we are doing is right.

You have a degree in philosophy I believe----can you prove to me that we are not doing the right thing. Herein lies the heart of our differing mental concepts.

Kara, You have expressed what I think and feel in a way I could never compose the English language. Thank you. c.i.

Perception,

Is there any proof necessary for an opinion to be an opinion? Aren't we all simply stating our opinions? The opinions stated here are strongly held, but still, on a subject like whether we're doing the "right" thing, what could proof have to do with it?

I think not Perception, differing mental concepts do not include denigration of opposing views, the consistent remarks made as to the intelligence, education and moral clarity of those that question, even deny the necessity of war as a viable option are indicative of lack of reason, not differing mental concepts. were you able to state a case and follow through with reason sans the personal invective then you could expect the same in return.

Lola

Where have you been?

I think it is a fair question for someone of Kara's intellectual ability----perhaps she can convince me we are in the wrong but perhaps in analysing the factors in formulating her answer she might form a different mental concept. I am sincerely endearvoring to find the key that will unlock the vehement difference of opinion on this subject. Philosophical differences on morality require philosophical enquiry.

perception, all I ask is that we put our ideas out here and present them as convincingly as we are able to do so. I, myself, may be less convincing in my postings because I have not been in combat and I do not have the down-and-dirty from the field. But, when you think about it, what is the view from the field that is so overwhelmingly persuasive? The people who have done that, who have gone to war convinced of the rectitude of their superiors' convictions and with belief in the competence of those superiors to lead them, see this way of life as defining their role in the world. What they believe is that they are fighting and dying in a noble cause.

Jessica Lynch, from a poor town in WVA, took the route of the military to escape from a no-opportunity life there, as did her brother. She must have convinced herself that she took this route not only to better herself but because she believed in the nobility of the cause. I can understand that so well.

You ask if I can prove that what we are doing is not the right thing. Perception, only history will answer that question. I would not presume to do so. I have grave doubts about what we have done and are doing, and mostly I doubt our reasons.

I hope so fervently that good comes from this war, but I simply do not see it happening. I see distrust, fear, mini-local-nationalism, chaos. What we have done in rashness, or misperception, or well-intentioned forcefulness, is perhaps the least we have done. I hope that the good we intend, and the good that our troops will dispense, being what they are and what they do, these really kindly and good people, will somehow make this all come right. But I do not really believe that. The good guys in the field are not running the after-war.

Dys

I invite you to read my reply to Lola---show me the personal invective in my question to Kara. I think you are mistaken.

There is a post by Asherman a few pages back which means to be some variety of argument or attack against Tartarin's posts and her philosphical position regarding the war and regarding protesting the war. The same or similar post was on another thread as well.

We ought to be clear on why Asherman's position is both illogical and fundamentally anti-democratic.

Asherman proposes that it is 'near treasonous' to deny support to soldiers of one's country while in battle, or to wish ill on the adminstration or leaders who set the war in motion.

Clearly, that can't be true, for it would apply to SS troops in WW 2, to Ghengis Khan's soldiers, and to present Iraqi troops. Courage and bravery in battle are one thing. A just cause for why they are in battle is something other. If the cause is seen as not just, then one must deny support.

Equally clearly, it can't be the case that all leaders ought to be supported, for the same reasons - this would apply to Napoleon and Pol Pot. One, as a responsible and independent moral agent within a community, must deny support of leaders where one holds those leaders to be acting immorally.

To insist that community members forgo their unique and independent moral agency is, and this is the correct word, fascist.

perception,

I've been around here. Just not on this thread. I always read it, but don't often feel I have anything new to add. I agree with you that it would be nice if we could convince each other about this war. I'd much rather debate other subjects other than destruction of people, families, cities and ancient archeological artifacts. I love debate, it's the way I learn. Much of what we're all doing on this thread is stating our opinions, sounding off. I doubt we'll do much convincing of each other. But maybe there are other readers who are trying to make up their minds. These we may influence. Philosophical inquiry, yes, but proof, How?

None at all. I still think the war is a cakewalk.

Fascist, perhaps. And against all the principles that this country was founded on.

Kara

That was nicely worded reply but our differences have nothing to do with having been in combat or not----this is a basic moral issue.
Consider if you will something you wrote and scoffed at:

That this war is about liberating the Iraqi people---please ----you said!

Consider for a moment that it is possible that this truly is one of the motivations for initiating this war----would or could you deny this a valid moral justification for going to war?

Consider for another moment that removing a murdering tyrant from power as another true motivation for initiating this war. Is that not another valid moral justification for going to war.

Consider for another moment that seeking to bring stabilization to the most turbulent section of the world is another valid motivation for initiating this war. Is this not another moral justification for going to war.

I think the above possible justifications are at least as valid as your reasons for not going to war which as far as I can tell is only one----we have not been attacked by Saddam. I think I am correct in saying that he declared war on the US during the first Gulf War. If he did and his intentions could be proven---is this not another valid reason for supposing he would someday follow through on his intention to attack us.

The real issue is morality for you---my reasons are a bit more pragmatic but I have given some moral justifications as proof of my good intentions to find an acceptable basis for this war.

There are many other considerations to be sure but do you agree that my intentions are at least honorable and this war could be considered justifyable---depending on the criteria established.

I believe Steve did not question the morality----his objection was supposedly legality--- according to whose standards of legality?
Subjective opposition to objective reality is only superfiscial obstructionism to confuse the issue.

Kara, as far as I can tell, I merely defined a subset without naming any individuals to it. In case you missed it, I've also expressed respect and admiration for protestors or other dissidents of principle, knowledge, and reason, as do not parrot hysteria and hyperbole. I do see war as a failure of imagination or reason, and have posted such, in so many words, often. I reduce no one out of hand, I do not see war "acceptable" at all. I do see it as inevitable. I fully endorse the notion that progress will not be had unless it is pursued. I endorse the notion that peace must be pursued if it is to be had. I live in a world that isn't perfect, but one which has shown, over a few millenia, that conflict occurs despite impassioned lobbying against the practice. I conclude from some familiarity of history that it is necessary to be prepared for war, just as it is necessary to be prepared to fight fire or disease.
I'm not at all happy with the rationalizations and justifications trotted out by The Current Administration in regard to the attack on Iraq, but I feel the current action is an integral part of The War On Terrorism. I offer the following, a cut-and-paste of a commrnt I made on another forum a while back:



I don't see anything which indicates any disrespect for you, or for other honorable folk, or for their views, nor do I see any advocacy of "War at any price". In the world in which I live, the price of peace includes the tax of war, and this is tax time.