0
   

The US, UN & Iraq III

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 10:17 am
By any reasonable review of information currently available, the decision to invade Iraq was made prior to establishing reason. Everything that has followed has merely been acquired/contrived justification. Blix was not given more time for the sole reason that that it made no difference what he found/did not find, the scheduled invasion would happen regardless of findings. The charade of requesting U.N. approval was only a gambit for legitimizing a prior made agenda.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 10:21 am
tartarin

Was trying to show the circularity... our access to 'facts' is very much via the administration.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 10:23 am
Welcome, Joelo! I don't like it either, not a bit. I didn't say it in my above post because it didn't seem necessary, but he wouldn't have had my support. Nothing in my view can justify what Bush did -- others set the bar lower. But to do it and to LIE about it, intentionally fool us? It shocks me that others are willing to let this pass. It makes no sense that we don't hold our government to the same standards that we hold our kids -- or, indeed, other countries!
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 10:26 am
Oops. I'd better rush out and remove the little mini-nuke I just attached to a strut in the kayak, Blatham.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 10:33 am
Joelo, Welcome to A2K. If you have followed this disucussion from the very beginning, many of us have stated that what his president and administration have done is legally and morally wrong. They have changed the whole concept of warfare from defensive to aggressive. We are now disucssing the moral breakdown of our government. They have lied to the world community to justify this war with Iraq, and the truth is now being exposed for all to see. Even with all this after-the-fact knowledge of the lies perpetrated by our government to justify this war, many are prone to "forgive" them, but many of us challenge that deduction. They are saying, "look, the Iraqi people got rid of Saddam, the monster." c.i.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 10:54 am
Tartarin wrote:
Blatham -- Maybe you're being ironic, but if not, I disagree profoundly. Ends justifying means only works in extremis.

Bush had the opportunity to say to us and to the world: We believe Saddam has extremely dangerous weapons which could be used against us and other countries. We can't prove it. However, in the current climate of terrorism, we can't afford to wait for all the dots to be connected. We believe the most responsible action will be to invade Iraq and make sure any WMD's are destroyed.


Tartarin,

With respect to your first point I suppose, to paraphrase a former President, it depends on what is the meaning of "in extremis". I assume you believe Roosevelt was "in extremis in 1939-1940, but that Bush was not in 2003.

With respect to the second, you may well be correct. I doubt that we would have gotten more international political support with the approach you suggest - the opposition appeared to be based on other factors - however we may well have garnered more public sympathy. I doubt that would have prevailed in the Security Council, so this tactic would have required we act without the attempt to get their support - an option which I would have considered as reasonable.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 10:54 am
I rented "The Pianist" yesterday without great expectations and found it really fascinating. Particularly interesting were the changing levels of acceptance which accompany atrocity (something which Hannah Arendt raised and in turn raised the hackles of many). The levels of acceptance on the part of the Warsaw Jewish community as each limitation, insult, and atrocity is commited; the levels of acceptance within the non-Jewish Polish community -- a kind of inevitability (Jews are always treated this way, oh dear); the military and political calculations and miscalculations in the world beyond Poland which actually pushed people into the ghetto, into boxcars. Lying and secrecy and cover-ups are old-timey stuff. I suspect that those of us here who are older and more experienced will have been more likely to have our lie detectors working overtime from Bush's campaign speeches onward -- we don't just hear Bush, we've "heard that song before." And know where it leads. And we know we're supposed to wait it out -- "this too passes." If I had to guess where we, the American people, are in the timeline of "The Pianist," I'd put us on the sidewalk, watching the long stream of Jews heading to the ghetto, still embracing the occasional friend and then watching them walk off.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 11:01 am
dyslexia wrote:
.... The charade of requesting U.N. approval was only a gambit for legitimizing a prior made agenda.


I agree with you. Indeed President Bush said as much in his speech to the General Assembly prior to the debate in the Security Council. As I recall he said the UN's actions (or failure to act) would determine whether it would remain relevant in the unfolding world scene.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 11:01 am
George -- Kindly take back your scissors. I don't want to split any more hairs with you. I wasn't there to judge Roosevelt's actions. I am here to judge Bush's in the full context of his life, his campaign, and his administration, as well as all the reports we are now able to get, minute by minute, of international complexities . Not to omit the opinions and counsel of wise heads outside of this country and its politics.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 11:03 am
"Failure to act": Another Bushism. The UN acted -- it denied Bush's demand. "Failure to act" has passed into the language but it really means "failure to do as I want you to do."
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 11:07 am
Blatham,

I'm about half way through the Hoffman piece, and now am off to the gym and other events. It is well-written and quite interesting. So far no big problems with his recitation of the facts or the consistency of his reasoning. Where we part ways is in his implicit assumption of the validity and effectiveness of the 'progressive agenda' which he, correctly, claims is being reversed or set back.

Thanks for the cite. I'll get back to it and to you later.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 11:28 am
Tartarin,

OK, "failure to do as I wish" is allright with me. I don't want to split hairs either, but do become skeptical of inconsistent views.

Do you really believe we can make better judgements about contemporaneous events than those which we can examine in the context of history and what resulted? That is an - unususl - view.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 11:40 am
Neither is entirely reliable, but as voters and participants in our political process, we are required to get the best information we and act on it. History tempts us with its certainties, but don't forget it's the victor who writes the history. We are still writing contemporaneous events, so to speak, and are complicit.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 11:41 am
Oh, and George, isn't consistency the hobgoblin of little minds?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 12:15 pm
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a petty mind -- there, Geroge, I gave you an out . . .

Tar, if George acknowledges what you've written at all, i think his argument could center on the word "foolish" . . .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 12:19 pm
Here, let me be more precise:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen ...


-- from the essay Self Reliance

I obtain this here[/color] . . .

(Consumption Warning: no part of the last two posts is being delivered in either a sarcastic or aggressive manner . . . )
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 12:30 pm
Oh my G-d I blinked and had 20 pages to read or so it seemed.

George you articulate some valid points very well.

Oops got to go more later

But please one thing, what has Oliver Cromwell to do with Chile?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 12:32 pm
A little known episode infvolving his son John and the aleged "Jamaica Expedition," but i believe i'm prohibited by international law from recounting the adventure to an Englishman . . .
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 12:36 pm
Steve

"Jews from other countries became interested in the Jewish community in Chile. Simon de Caceres, an ex-Converso based in London, tried get permission from Oliver Cromwell to lead a military contingent of Jews to conquer uninhabited lands in Chile in 1656." from: Jewish Virtual Library: Chile
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 02:41 pm
From the New Yorker:


Quote:
DONALD RUMSFELD ORDERS BREAKFAST AT DENNY'S
by FRANK GANNON

Issue of 2003-06-09
Posted 2003-06-02


That's a good question. Am I ready to order? Let me answer it a little off to the side.
First of all, there are things that we know. I can look at this menu and see that. But there's a danger there. Do I "know" that hash browns are not included in the Original Grand Slam Breakfast? It says that on the menu, which, by the way, is nicely laminated and we're grateful to the laminator. But getting back to the hash-brown potatoes. I should "know" that they're not included.
The real truth is, there are no "knowns." This is a whole new menu. Are we in the past? No. Are we using the past's menu? No. Are there things that we know we know? Not exactly.
There are known unknowns. That is to say that there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things that we don't know we don't know. Got that? I want you to note that on the check.
By the way, the Meat Lover's Skillet is a fine piece of work. Thank you for putting that together.
Now, as far as ordering. First, juice. And a small glass of skim milk. Then, to answer the question that I know you were going to ask, yes, this maybe isn't the healthiest place to eat, but we're here. That much is not debatable. We're here. Here. Not someplace else. Not there. Back in philosophy class, that's what we used to call a "given." Now, who said we should be here? We don't know. Who picked this place? I can't say. Who drove the car? I wasn't paying attention. Who's paying for this? That will become clear. Where do we sit? Anywhere you like. Do you like a booth or a movable seat? Makes no difference. Do you want to sit facing the door? Not at this time.
All these questions are not "givens." We can talk about them and we will talk about them when the time is right. Now is not the time or the place to talk. It's the time to order, and that's exactly what we're doing.
Now, another thing. Does this place have a hell of a lot of cholesterol on the menu? Sure. Does cholesterol result in clogged arteries? Probably. Do clogged arteries cause cardiac events? Sometimes. Is it a good idea to clog up all your arteries so your blood stops moving completely? I doubt it. Has the blood completely stopped moving in several parts of my body? Sure. Am I going to grab my chest, fall on the ground, and twist my face into a grotesque mask of pain? Absolutely. Am I gonna go ahead and order the Original Grand Slam Breakfast? You betcha.
Look. I want bacon and sausage. Now, let me stop right here. Bacon is, we all know, and nobody seriously doubts it anymore, very similar to sausage. They both come from pigs, they're both cooked, and they're both eaten. They're similar. S-I-M-I-L-A-R. They're not the same. S-A-M-E. If they were the same, I wouldn't be ordering both of them. I don't think the most liberal person in the world can deny that, unless he wants to maintain the existence of a parallel universe, with spacemen and ray guns.
Now, is there going to be a cost for this? Sure. Will it be a high cost? I don't know. Am I going to pay for it? Don't know. Am I going to pretend I'm going to the bathroom and then just bolt on the check? Maybe. Are they going to catch me getting into my car? Not if I send somebody out to start the car and pull it up right outside the door so I can just run out and dive into the back seat. Do I have a good chance of getting away with it? Absolutely. Is this a crime? I personally think of it as defending myself from breakfast items of exorbitant price. Period.
It's just a rational way of dealing with expense, a very forward-looking, sensible way of dealing with breakfast in a very cost-conscious manner. That's all. Thank you very much.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US, UN & Iraq III
  3. » Page 120
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/27/2025 at 12:49:16