The Iraq Questions

Timber

I certainly am not foolish enough to think that my desires to disarm the country will be entirely successful but I think we must attempt it to maintain order. If this war results in civil war and anarchy that we can't control-----then how will the world view us? As bunglers and fools and rightly so!

I find the term jingoism not relevant in serious discussions such as this and I'm surprised you would indulge in it's use.

perception, I perceive Craven's motivations, expectations, and rationale to be different from your own, and perhaps of more flexible, less easily penetrated cloth.

In all respect, many of your posts seem to indicate lack of distinction between position and proponent. Much of the contempt you infer, and confer, appears to be not only unreciprocated but unwarranted.

It may not be your intent, but I often sense your replies structured more to provoke emotional contention than to promote reasoned debate. Little profit is to be expected from attempting to mold the world to fit one's own agenda, however just and noble that agenda might be.



timber

Walter

You have your opinion ----I have mine.

With regard to your attempt at bludeoning me into retracting my reply to Craven---please refrain from further such tactics.

perception

Would you please have a look in the member agreement of this site!

I've been listening to a number of interesting political debates on various topics related to the Middle East on the radio recently. Something that has been coming up frequently is the possibility (not probability) that Saddam will take a retirement package that is being offered to him. He'd be able to go out on a high point (from his perspective), have a lot of money for him and his family, and retire someplace pleasant. The question that is then raised in the debates is what will the U.S. do then. Any ideas here?

Timber

Maybe I'm a little thin skinned by I perceive many insults and terms of contempt hurled my way because of my position on the way the war should be waged and the consequences of that war.

I admit that some of my comments are intended to provoke controversy but not contention because as you say the result is not fruitful. It is interesting how quickly contention and antagonism creep into the conversation when I voice a line of thought that is different from the "popular" view. I think if you will go back and read my comments just on this thread and then read the responses critically you will see some invective being formed to be hurled back at me. If after you have done that---you still feel it all my fault come back and we will determine my next course of action.

Saddam's abdication and exile poses a thorny problem. Consistency of policy would mitigate for pursuing justicial accounting for his behavior, but no doubt stir further contention to the top of the already boiling broth. Even dispossessed, the man would offer focus for radical fundamentalist agenda and thus remain a danger.

I'd rather just shoot the sumbitch.



timber

perception, I don't lay blame or fault on you, partner, and forgive if I gave you to think I did. For there to be a dispute, there must be more than one participant. Its just been my experience that the best way to avert a dogfight is to get the attention of the dog doing the loudest barking before proceeding further with the matter.



timber.

The problems created by Saddams exile truly boggle the mind---even I with all my "outlandish" proposals won't even attempt to tackle that one.

perception - i agree it's mind-boggling. I've been following these particular debates for a while, and the people 'in the know' mention this option (retirement not exile) more each week. I've been looking at some of the Muslim news-sites to get another angle on all of this since I started 'hearing' about the retirement (it seems they've been talking about it for a while, but my ear was passing over it). Their view on this is interesting. Makes it seem like everyone on this site is actually arguing from one side of things. Maybe a few degrees off from each other, but still on one side.

Today, they also talked about the changes in the Palestinian leadership anticipated for later this year. It throws so much in the middle east into question.

Why don't you make your next course of action contacting a Moderator? Do you feel aggrieved? Put upon? Insulted? We can't know this unless you tell us. Send a PM to either Phoenix32890, fishin' or myself and let's handle this as directed under the Member Agreement, okay?

Thanks.

Friedman on "Is the war about oil?"...this is a very good piece and I can tell that because it agrees with my opinions...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/opinion/05FRIE.html

A good article, blatham, and one with which I find little quarrel. Of course oil is a factor, but it is one factor among many. Those who imply US enthusiasm for, and cynical motivation in the matter of, war in the Iraq matter allow their own agendas to limit their perceptions of the issue. Nothing is Black-or-White.

Deriding our Iraq stance as inconsistent with our approach to DPRK and her nuclear intransigence betrays a lack of understanding of either situation. Folks in general tend to accept an appearance in fitting with their own prejudices and assumptions, rarely delving into the details of that appearance's structure.


timber

blatham, Although that op-ed piece is the opinion of only one person, I'm sure many people in this world thinks the same - me included. GWBush has not shown anybody a good reason why we should have a war with Iraq. He keeps claiming Saddam is a danger to his neighbors and the US, but where's the beef? Not only that, but Bush all-by-his-lonesome has changed the world politics of war. He is trying to justify a pre-emptive attack on a country that is not in defense of offense. GWBush scares the bejesus out of me! c.i.

Tricky stuff, isn't it? The mix of elements doesn't make for simple thinking or easy solutions.

A fundamental beef I share with Friedman is the adminstration's attempts to be deceitful and simplistic. If one is about to go into a war, or send one's kids into it (as a few here are), then the LEAST we should expect of these buggers at the top is honesty.

blatham, "Honesty" and politicians in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Or as my friend would say, it's "moronic." c.i.

Have you guys only just woken up?

Its about re arranging the whole of central eurasia, primarily to secure energy resources, and secondly to protect Israel by destroying its most potent foe.

The only question you have to ask yourself is "does my conscience allow it" ?

Hmmm.....does my conscience allow it? It's not so much my conscience that bothers me; it's all the hoopla GW's rhetoric doesn't engender trust nor a case for war with Iraq. My conscience would bother me if I didn't know the difference. c.i.

Regarding Iraq as it exists under Saddam Hussain, there is not much my conscience doesn't allow, Steve.

When you use the word 'secure' I'm reminded of an old joke. Indulge me?

Tell the air force to secure an area and they bomb it into oblivion.
The marines will destroy it in detail.
The army will establish a defensive perimeter around it.
The navy will lock it up and go home.

My point being that some words have different means to different persons. If, by secure, you mean insuring a free market between willing sellers and willing buyers, I would agree, in part. If you use secure as a euphemism for steal, I think you are on the wrong track.

You ignore Iraq's propensity (shown by history known to all of us) to violence.

C.I. and Roger

I know you don't need my endorsement of your replies to Steve but you have it all the same.

After all the many many comments and responses about Iraq on this and other threads it would appear that one conclusion has been reached by all---Saddam is dangerous to middle east stability but..........................from here on it gets very murky but here again the concensus seems to be---He must go but.......................from here it goes from the ridiculous naivete of let's ask him to be nice, to the very hawkish Shoot the Sumbitch or Bomb him into oblivion.

Would it be too much to ask anyone to give me a conclusion of the concensus of opinion on this thread.