Re: God Is With Us L3
Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: most snipped http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html In fact, the most emotionally moving testimony on October 10 came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girlSobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait CityI saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die... http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html ...Later, it was learned that Nayirah was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington and had no connection to the Kuwait hospital. She had been coached - along with the handful of others who would corroborate the story - by senior executives of Hill and Knowlton in Washington, the biggest global PR firm at the time, which had a contract worth more than $10 million with the Kuwaitis to make the case for war... He raped her [a Handmaid] -- and she was *pregnant*!! - IIRC, a line from the movie The Handmaid's Tale: a lie justifying the murder of a dissenter who had done no such thing. Now Saddam is a ravening dog who ought to be shot - but at least in the field of biological agents useful for terrorism, the US govt. gave his regime some teeth in the 80's [2 summers ago I posted links to the Library of Congress site detailing the bacterial pathogens, phage vectors and CDC training for at least one Iraqi scientist]. I suppose it's more palatable to believe that somebody's a monster all by themselves, not that your government helped create that horror. I had posted some time [2 years?] back that assassination, repugnant though it is, was preferable to full-out war, and was told that it had been tried and wasn't feasible. I recently was informed that a sniper/special forces team *had him in their crosshairs* and was ordered not to shoot -- it is not clear to me if this was during or after GWI. Aside: this is less reliable data than my previously-cited military technical advisor's assessment of Iraq pre-GWII; since I don't know the security-type system of rating information, I'll put it in medical research terms: the tech advisor's info I'd rate as a placebo-controlled trial, whereas this 'crosshairs' statement I'd class as a retrospective study. My hopes that this mess would be turned around, faint to begin with, are daily less, with the continued violence in Iraq, and now weather becoming a serious factor in the Kurdish north (apparently it was a concern for the Kurdish leaders before the election time was decided upon, but their observations were overruled). Debbi Pottery Barn Rules Maru }:/ __ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3 - addundum
JDG wrote: O.k., o.k., how many people can't help but look at the above subject title and say: A God Impersonator Is With Us ;-) JDG Well, either you believe that God is with us or not, impersonator aside. :) A God Impersonator Is With Us doesn't translate as nicely to whatever language emmanuel comes from. I like emmanuel. (Then again, I'm a sucker for a certain song about emmanuel.) Namaste, Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3 - addundum
O.k., o.k., how many people can't help but look at the above subject title and say: A God Impersonator Is With Us ;-) JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3 - addundum
Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Of course, I also think that comparing folk to horses is a form of compliment, so - take that with a good dose of bran! ;) Does that include being compared to only certain *parts* of horses? Neigh! Indeed, most horses' haunches deserve far more respect than those humans referred to euphemistically as 'donkey's hinder ends.' Cause, if so, I might have a lot more friends than I previously thought, based on what they called me. ;) U...you go right on believing that. It'll make you feel better... ;) Debbi who has ridden her horse on Jackass Hill (really! That's the name of the hill nearby! Official green street sign and all.) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
Responding to a greater-than-month-old-post (and there are lots of others too, but I'm trying!)- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip most ... for every expert you can mention who was caught flatfooted by Iraq, I'm pretty sure I can find another in the same field who was predicting disaster from the beginning. For instance, we had US armed forces commanders predicting *precisely* the series of events we're seeing now, and these men were ostensibly students of military history to a depth at least as great as anyone you can cite. A West Pointer and former career military man of my aquaintance, with combat experience in Vietnam, opposed going into Iraq before Rumsfeld et al got their way; he is *furious* at what this admin has done to the military -- and US standing. And I'll believe an experienced person in the field rather than some chickenhawks [an insult to raptors, BTW!] every time. Debbi Officially Ceasing The Search For WoMDs In Iraq Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3 - addundum
On Jan 20, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote: Of course, I also think that comparing folk to horses is a form of compliment, so - take that with a good dose of bran! ;) Does that include being compared to only certain *parts* of horses? Cause, if so, I might have a lot more friends than I previously thought, based on what they called me. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
JDG wrote: O.k., I presume that you believed then and continue to believe now that Baathist Iraq had the capability to mass produce chemical weapons. I also presume that you believed then and continue to believe now that Baathist Iraq had the capability to mass produce anthrax, and possibly other biological weapons. I presume that you believed then that Baathist Iraq had the ability to produce nuclear weapons in the near term.Do you no longer believe that Baathist Iraq had this ability? I don't think you're grasping what I meant. I believed the Bush administration when it told us that Iraq was close to building nuclear weapons, might also be creating chemical and biological weapons that they could deploy here. I no longer believe that this was true then or now. And why do you believe that it is more likely that this intelligence was manipulated deliberately, rather than misinterpreted by individuals who saw the intelligence they were presented with as confirming what they already believe - even *knew* - to be true? Mainly because of my familiarity with the process by which intelligence is vetted for the daily security briefing. I don't buy the explanations given by the administration for the erroneous information it presented as justification for the war. They don't make sense to me unless the system that was in place for decades was bypassed or dismantled, for which the administration is responsible. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
Nick Arnett wrote: JDG wrote: O.k., I presume that you believed then and continue to believe now that Baathist Iraq had the capability to mass produce chemical weapons. I also presume that you believed then and continue to believe now that Baathist Iraq had the capability to mass produce anthrax, and possibly other biological weapons. I presume that you believed then that Baathist Iraq had the ability to produce nuclear weapons in the near term.Do you no longer believe that Baathist Iraq had this ability? I don't think you're grasping what I meant. I believed the Bush administration when it told us that Iraq was close to building nuclear weapons, might also be creating chemical and biological weapons that they could deploy here. I no longer believe that this was true then or now. Besides which, according to the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraqs WMD, Iraq retained almost no capability to manufacture either chemical or biological agents beyond their knowledge base. It would have taken them months to begin manufacturing simple chemical weapons, years for nerve agents and (from the report): In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level. As for Nukes: Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraqs ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date. Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program. Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years. The inspection regimen instituted prior to the invasion would undoubtedly prevented any capability to manufacture WMDs. And why do you believe that it is more likely that this intelligence was manipulated deliberately, rather than misinterpreted by individuals who saw the intelligence they were presented with as confirming what they already believe - even *knew* - to be true? Mainly because of my familiarity with the process by which intelligence is vetted for the daily security briefing. I don't buy the explanations given by the administration for the erroneous information it presented as justification for the war. They don't make sense to me unless the system that was in place for decades was bypassed or dismantled, for which the administration is responsible. And of course there are numerous reports that the system in place _was_ bypassed and beyond that we have ample evidence that Bush and the neocons had every intention of finding a way to attack Iraq even prior to 911 so we know that the administration was predisposed to find and believe information that condemned Iraq and to ignore the volumes of evidence that they did not. Further, they were not beyond a campaign of terror, including the use of mushroom cloud imagery, in their successful attempt to buffalo the American public. I'm expecting to learn a bit more about aluminum tubes during Rice's confirmation hearings. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
On Dec 24, 2004, at 10:12 AM, JDG wrote: At 12:29 PM 12/18/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: I can only see it as strategic to Iraq if their purpose was to pull the West into the region in order to touch off a larger conflict. If it was to actually try to expand their borders, they were nuts, a possibility that cannot be discounted! Nuts? If your man, John Kerry, had been President, the US wouldn't have even attempted to stop him. That's pure conjecture and you know it. Stop spewing BS and pretending it's truth. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:44:28 -0500, maru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've a good point there. I think Hussein has been widely under-rated; I've been hearing things about how he made preparations to aid the insurgency while the US was building up to an invasion (but obviously its been more successful than Hitler's plans along those lines). Also, I remember reading a long time ago that Saddam had quietly informed the White House before the Kuwait invasion, and taken the official silence as tacit consent. Any truth to this? ~Maru Saddam was directly told by the US Iraq ambassador that border disputes and matters concerning Kuwait were internal matters and the US had no interest. Since the US was a big supporter of Iraq to counterbalance Iran Saddam felt this was a go-ahead. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:38:37 -0800 (PST), Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can only see it as strategic to Iraq if their purpose was to pull the West into the region in order to touch off a larger conflict. If it was to actually try to expand their borders, they were nuts, a possibility that cannot be discounted! Nick Why would they be that? If Michael Dukakis had been President of the United States in 1990 - hardly an unlikely outcome - Saddam Hussein would be ruling Kuwait, along with Iraq, right now. The overwhelming majority of Democratic Senators voted against the war. The Democratic Party had majorities in both the Senate and House of the Congress. Why was it unreasonable to think that we would do nothing to reverse the invasion? The reasons given by the Democratic Senators were that Saddam had indicated a willingness and even an eagerness to negotiate that Bush I was ignoring and Bush was repeatedly upping the hoops that Saddam had to jump through as he met each one. That said - Iraq War 1 was clearly justified as a UN action to protect a sovereign state that had been overrun by its neighbor. It was in no way clear at the time that we were going to do something about the invasion, and had we not, Iraq would be the most powerful (non-Israel) country in the Middle East right now, would have nuclear weapons (the UN reported that Iraq was ~1 year from getting nuclear weapons in 1991), and would be a major world power. Given what Saddam Hussein knew, forget about insane, it wasn't even dumb. If invading Kuwait had worked, he would have been the greatest hero in the Arab world since Nasser. A bit overstated since Arab nations contributed troops and support to kick his butt. My only problem with Kuwait was more the rhetoric and dishonesty and hypocrisy from Bush 1 leading up to the war. One of Bush's biggest allies and US supporters in the region was now demonized to whip up war fever to reinstall an oil sheikdom which offered good business contracts.. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
On Dec 17, 2004, at 9:34 PM, JDG wrote: At 11:31 AM 12/17/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: I won't argue with that. I don't think that constitutes attacking the United States, though. So, you would disagree that firing shots with the intent of bringing down a country's aircraft ordinarily constitutes an act of war against said country? Please note that I am not saying Justifies Gulf War II, I am merely trying to determine your definition of attack the United States, and using act of war as a proxy for attacking. Thank you, John, sincerely. This is the kind of clarity that my messages have been intended to elicit. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
... telling us about how Saddam wasn't that bad As of 17 Feb 2003, less than a month before the US invasion, the Bush administration had not made the argumment that a new government would help the people of Iraq free themselves from a cruel dictatorship. It made it later. It looks to me that discussion of an argument that the Bush administration did not make until later takes attention away from the other arguments that it made earlier. Moreover, dsuch a discussion takes attention away from an argument it never made (except faintly) but which I think motivated the US government as a whole and its military: to intimidate others. (Doubtless the Bush administration had a slew of reasons; but other parts of the US government were, I think, primarily motivated by the intimidation argument.) So let me repeat a part of a message I sent to this list on 17 Feb 2003: ... arguments put forward to invade Iraq. 1. To help the people of Iraq free themselves from a cruel dictatorship. Salmon Rushdie made this argument. No government that I know of has said that this is a prime reason to go to war, although all claim it would be a nice side effect. 2. To support UN Chapter 7 resolutions. International laws and resolutions are a Liberal, Democrat, and contemporary European ideal; they provide a mechanism for restraining the actions of a super power. Ironically, the primary argument that the U.N. should become ... an effective organization that helps keep the peace. was made by US President Bush, not by others. Regardless whether anyone thinks he is the least bit truthful in expressing US hopes, the argument favoring a mechanism to restrain a super power such as the US is powerful, and should appeal to others. 3. Find and destroy chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons The French point out they lived for years next to a power that had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and that broke treaties. In this respect, the Iraqi government is neither special nor unusual. The US says that the Soviet government was successfully deterred but that the Iraqi government is unusual in that it cannot be deterred. The US points out that Iraq has twice started disastrous wars in attempts to to gain control over neighbors, and thus over those who depend on oil from the Middle East, and may well try again. (Note that the French, German, and other Europeans' economic borders run through the Middle East. They are more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the US; hence the growth of a Middle Eastern hegemony is more of a threat to Europe than to the US.) 4. Overthrow the government of and establish a major US presence in an Arab country so as to frighten the other Arab dictatorships into greater efforts into policing against enemies of US. I think this is the primary motivation of the US government. (And I still think #4 was the primary motivation. I also think that the other reasons were good, but I do not think the US chose its action on account of any of them alone.) Do you think that US has been successful in intimidation? Especially now, during `Phase 4' (to use a US military phrase) of the campaign, which has been going on since the middle of April 2003? What are your measurements of US success? To me they are three: a feeling among people in the US and elsewhere that they are safer than they were before the invasion, a lower price for oil (because a major oil producing region is less susceptible to the actions of a small number of people), and a gain in the felt legitimacy of US power by more regional powers so the US need not spend so much militarily. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iraqi Attacks and Violations Re: God Is With Us L3
I would not describe live ammunition as sabre rattling. Hmmm ... You will gain a better understanding of history if you do. As is, the phrase is misleading. Many governments, especially those run by evil men, attempt to intimidate others by killing people. The phrase is sabre rattling, but people die. Of course, not all sabre rattling involves killing people; sometimes it is just a threat to kill people. But a threat gains credence if backed by death. How many a government kills depends on its and the others' culture and accident. Thus, if a government thinks that one killing will cause the other government to be intimidated and give in, it will try to kill just one. If it thinks that killing three thousand will achieve the same effect, it will kill three thousand. In either case, it will figure that such killings and the subsequent giving in of the other side (presuming its predictions are successful) is less expensive to it than a war. (I mean an actual war, not a pretend war.) (Everyone quotes Stalin, who said words to the effect that `one death creates a martyr; a million deaths create a statistic'. He killed millions.) -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:39:33 -0500 (EST), Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4. Overthrow the government of and establish a major US presence in an Arab country so as to frighten the other Arab dictatorships into greater efforts into policing against enemies of US. I think this is the primary motivation of the US government. (And I still think #4 was the primary motivation. I also think that the other reasons were good, but I do not think the US chose its action on account of any of them alone.) Do you think that US has been successful in intimidation? Especially now, during `Phase 4' (to use a US military phrase) of the campaign, which has been going on since the middle of April 2003? What are your measurements of US success? To me they are three: a feeling among people in the US and elsewhere that they are safer than they were before the invasion, a lower price for oil (because a major oil producing region is less susceptible to the actions of a small number of people), and a gain in the felt legitimacy of US power by more regional powers so the US need not spend so much militarily. Surely you are joking or being ironic. Terrorists attacks worldwide have increased. Experts agree the terror threat is greater now than ever. Oil prices are mush, much higher. The amount of oil exported from Iraq is down. Before the war the US was getting 80% of Iraqi oil through intermediaries. The US has lost legitimacy as a state bound by international laws and is no longer seen as a credible source on intelligence claims. The US reputation and positive feelings toward are way, way down. Under Bush military spending is up well over a $100 billion dollars - not even counting the Iraq War and Occupation. The US has just reached the point where it has over 50% of world military and intelligence spending. The next closest power is 5%. Gary Denton http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, I remember reading a long time ago that Saddam had quietly informed the White House before the Kuwait invasion, and taken the official silence as tacit consent. Any truth to this? According to a partial transcript at http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/the_new_world_order/glaspie.html U.S. Ambassador Glaspie said the following to Saddam Hussein on 25 July 1990, referring to a possible forthcoming invasion: Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. I cannot find the full transcript that I cut out of the New York Times in the fall of 1990, a transcript that the NYT said was the Iraqi version. If my memory serves me rightly, there were slight differences in the wording between that version and this. In particular, in the NYT version the `but' begins a new sentence. But as I remember, this is a fair restatement of what the NYT said was the Iraqi version. The critical point is that almost all quotations I see in the US media quote only the part that says ... that would be none of our business ... which does suggest a `green light'. Incidentally, the latter part of the Web page I quoted records a journalist as saying or asking Glaspie that `America green-lighted the invasion.' As far as I can see, since the US did not have a treaty with Kuwait, Glaspie could not say any more than she did, which was that ... it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. In any event, she was blamed by the US government as well as by others for the invasion. You will note that the invasion of Kuwait was the first invasion and absorption of a second country since WWII. (Kuwait was recognized by the UN as a sovereign country. It was not a `protocol state' like the Koreas or Vietnams. Other invasions and occupations between 1945 and 1990 either were civil wars in the international legal sense or else did not involve annexation.) Also, I have heard it said that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was the person who persuaded US President Bush to support the UN. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
Ah, good ol' TOTSE. I haven't been there in a long time... But I find interesting the segment which goes: 'We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960Õs, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.Ó (Saddam smiles)' I would like a copy from a more authoritative source, but it does explain a bit, like why an ally would precipately invade when the US ostensibly was so dead set on protecting Kuwait that it would go to war. And does it really matter that technically 'was the first invasion and absorption of a second country since WWII'? Seems a pretty worthless distinction. ~Maru Robert J. Chassell wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, I remember reading a long time ago that Saddam had quietly informed the White House before the Kuwait invasion, and taken the official silence as tacit consent. Any truth to this? According to a partial transcript at http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/the_new_world_order/glaspie.html U.S. Ambassador Glaspie said the following to Saddam Hussein on 25 July 1990, referring to a possible forthcoming invasion: Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. I cannot find the full transcript that I cut out of the New York Times in the fall of 1990, a transcript that the NYT said was the Iraqi version. If my memory serves me rightly, there were slight differences in the wording between that version and this. In particular, in the NYT version the `but' begins a new sentence. But as I remember, this is a fair restatement of what the NYT said was the Iraqi version. The critical point is that almost all quotations I see in the US media quote only the part that says ... that would be none of our business ... which does suggest a `green light'. Incidentally, the latter part of the Web page I quoted records a journalist as saying or asking Glaspie that `America green-lighted the invasion.' As far as I can see, since the US did not have a treaty with Kuwait, Glaspie could not say any more than she did, which was that ... it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. In any event, she was blamed by the US government as well as by others for the invasion. You will note that the invasion of Kuwait was the first invasion and absorption of a second country since WWII. (Kuwait was recognized by the UN as a sovereign country. It was not a `protocol state' like the Koreas or Vietnams. Other invasions and occupations between 1945 and 1990 either were civil wars in the international legal sense or else did not involve annexation.) Also, I have heard it said that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was the person who persuaded US President Bush to support the UN. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraqi Attacks and Violations Re: God Is With Us L3
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:18:31 -0500, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 08:02 AM 12/17/2004 -0800 Damon Agretto wrote: I believe John was referring to both the Bush assasination plot as well as the occasional saber rattling with regards to the No-fly Zones. I would not describe live ammunition as sabre rattling. Then you don't know what sabre rattling means. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
At 11:47 PM 12/17/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: So, you would disagree that firing shots with the intent of bringing down a country's aircraft ordinarily constitutes an act of war against said country? It now seems inescapable that you are saying the very thing I imagined: We invaded Iraq. I don't think that I would describe Gulf War I as an instance when we invaded Iraq. If I wanted to be sanctimonious about it, I would call your statement here newspeak, absolute newspeak but I will avoid the sanctimony here. Iraq was never occupied by Coalition Forces, even though Coalition Forces did pass through Iraq in order to liberate Kuwait. In my mind, the Coalition actions do not describe an invasion of Iraq. You are also neglecting the fact that the US had *every right* to be there. Under The San Francisco Treaty, which Iraq was and is an active signatory to, the US was authorized to use all necessary means to restore the government of Kuwait and to restore international peace and security to the area. Indeed, the US still is so authorized. Anyhow, lets return to Dave Land's original statement: George Bush lied to Congress and the citizens of the United States to go to war against a country that had never attacked us. Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that I disagree that George Bush lied. As I noted earlier, I objected to the assertion that Iraq had never attacked us. In the subsequent discussion, it has become clear that you and Dave Land do not consider Iraq's counter-attack on the Dhahran Barracks to be an attack on us. I disagree, but I concede that reasonable people can disagree on this point. Also in the subsequent discussion, it has also become clear that you and Dave Land do not consider a foiled attempted assassination attempt on a former US President to be an attack on us.I disagree, but I will even concede that reasonable people can disagree on this point.(I would hope, though, that you and Dave Land could also concede that reasonable people can disagree on the above two points, and maybe be a little less sanctimonious about never attacked us, or at least understand why I would strenusously object when someone posts a sanctimonious barb like never attacked us - but I'm not done yet.) Finally, the subsequent discussion has also considered Iraq's attempts to shoot down Coalition Aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zones that were established to protect the Kurds, Marsh Arabs, and other Shiites from any further attempts of genocide by Saddam Hussein. I am wondering how you and Dave Land can claim that these attempts to shoot down our (and Coalition) Aircraft does not constitute an attack on us.One possibility is that you could claim that it is mere sabre-rattling, but the term sabre-rattling comes from rattling a sabre within its scabbard - it hardly seems an appropriate phrase to describe shooting with live bullets and murderous intent. I suppose another possibility is that you could argue, as you do above that a counter-attack is not an attack. This would describe the No-Fly Zone, however, as continuing action of Gulf War 1 - and therfore, you would not be able to describe George W. Bush as leading us to war in Iraq, because we were already at War. Nevertheless, I think that under an examination of the total body of evidence - the strike against Dharhan, the attempted assassination of George H. W. Bush, the shooting down of an unmanned US spy plane, and the regular attempts of Iraq to shoot down our manned aircraft that it is somewhat sanctimoniously over-the-top to describe Iraq as a country that had never attacked us. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:12 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 - Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:52 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 7:25 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 xponent Too many Hits To Bother With Maru I now recall that with a bit more detail. But, having someone on the list who talked to someone was in a hospital after the war is also a reasonable data point. I don't think so really. I've talked to plenty of people who swear they have seen flying saucers (people who in other circumstances would be taken as rational and reasonable), but if I were to repeat their stories no one here would take these data points as being anything other than the mistaken impressions that they are. Sure, eyewitness accounts are not always right. But, we are talking about someone who continues to have responsibility in the area of foreign affairs discussing something fairly mundane that she observed in the course of her responsibilities. Swamp gas doesn't cause one to see that incubators are missing. There is no arguement that the testimony before Congress was not by an eye-witness. But, the rebuttal of the testimony did not include, as far as the references I read from you, reasonable assurance that all the incubators stayed put during the period of occupation. I saw some generalities, but nothing that even matches Now if Gautam were to say onlist that he saw this himself at a time when he was at this location in Kuwait it would weigh heavier as a fact. (I do not doubt Gautam an iota myself). But the fact that this gossip (in that it is third hand) It's second hand...Gautam heard it first hand. Quotes in a news report are also second hand, as is quoting a news report. Both are a bit more than gossip, I think. is repeated by a government employee gives it less creedence these days considering the way the truth is mangled with regularity by Our Employees. But, as an aside in a blistering attack on Bush II, to show that her criticism of Bush does not mean she thought Hussein was OK, it's hard to understand how she was just pushing the party line. Maybe a story that came out of Kuwait was personalized, in order to better persuade Congress. Maybe they framed a guilty man. Maybe the incubators were removed, but the premature infants were not thrown on the ground...they just did without. And, maybe the person from the US embassy was flim-flammed. Mayhaps the Illuminati or the gray aliens are hiding something in Kuwait.G When I worked with field and lab reports, I usually worked to not reject any field reports out of hand, even if what they claimed was in contradiction with the lab data that I took. I usually found that there was something behind the field reports, even though exactly as reported, it was impossible. In this case, from what I've seen, you and David are postulating Because a false eye-witness account of Hussein's actions was given before Congress, he didn't do anything of the source. I'm arguing Taking incubators out of Kuwait for use elsewhere is consistent with what I know of Hussein's other actions. The fact that the Kuwait's ambassador's daughter gave a false eye-witness account makes accounts coming directly from the Kuwait government, or directly from Bush I suspect, because they knew about the false accounts. But, it doesn't falsify the premise. Thus, other accounts still need to be considered. Just because OJ was framed, he isn't automatically innocent. :-) I don't doubt that Iraqi soldiers trashed many buildings and did bodily harm to many people. I don't doubt that American soldiers have done similar things in Iraq. Why do you, specifically, doubt that they would steal incubators. Let's say they knew of hospitals in Iraq that could use them. Why not move them to where they would do more good. But not every story repeated will have the same component of truth. No, but I try to weight probability as dispassionately as possible. Part of this is an assumption that I have about the general bias of the news media. The news media is biased towards explanations that provide a good, simple story. The original story was the eye-witness account. The first twist was that it was a PR job. Telling the story that it was a PR job that was set up, but that did happen to claim something that was close to what actually happened, opens up a can of worms that is not easy to report. So, the story stays simple. Explaining that someone lied about the truth wouldn't have much in the way of legs. It does illustrate some
Re: God Is With Us L3
At 12:28 AM 12/18/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: Lots of stuff about Nariyah She didn't see it. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. Dave is a good orthodox leftist and an apologist for totalitarian dictators, Rob, but I thought better of you. That's what I fail to understand about your rhetoric here. I don't see Dave apologizing for dictators and I certainly am not either. Some Americans are bad people. Our jails are full of them. Some bad people make it into the military and do bad things that shame us. I don't see anything that is in any way unpatriotic about pointing that out and sending the bad guys sorry asses to prison. We keep our own house clean, do we not? xponent No Monopoly On Goodness Maru rob Rob, I think that one key reason that you fail to understand Gautam's rhetoric here is that you just made Gautam's point for him. JDG -Gautam 1 Rob 0, Maru Silly of me to not think of everything in terms of winners and losers, eh? No Rob. What I was pointing out to you, is that your response to Gautam beginning what I fail to understand was probably thought by you to be a rebuttal of Gautam's point. I am going to guess that from Gautam's perspective, and certainly from my perspective, that that very same post of yours was considered to be prima facie evidence of precisely the point that Gautam was making. You should know better than anyone to not respond to the silly Maru tagline of a post, and look at what was actually being said in the body of the post.So let me try it again one key reason that you fail to understand Gautam's rhetoric is that you just made Gautam's point for him. If you are going to try and rebut Gautam's point about leftists, it would probably be best if you didn't engage in precisely the sort of activity he is accusing leftists of. I think that you should be able to figure out the rest of Gautam's rhetoric from there. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
JDG wrote: I don't think that I would describe Gulf War I as an instance when we invaded Iraq. I think the label is appropriate any time one nation's military enters the other's territory uninvited, destroys stuff and kills people. Refusing this ordinary way of talking strikes me as less than straightforward. If I wanted to be sanctimonious about it, I would call your statement here newspeak, absolute newspeak but I will avoid the sanctimony here. Iraq was never occupied by Coalition Forces, even though Coalition Forces did pass through Iraq in order to liberate Kuwait. In my mind, the Coalition actions do not describe an invasion of Iraq. One nation can invade another without remaining as an occupying force. since you surely know this, what's your point? You are also neglecting the fact that the US had *every right* to be there. Under The San Francisco Treaty, which Iraq was and is an active signatory to, the US was authorized to use all necessary means to restore the government of Kuwait and to restore international peace and security to the area. Indeed, the US still is so authorized. Neglecting it how? A justified invasion is an invasion. We invaded Grenada. We invaded France on D-Day. And so on. I don't think that our current invasion and occupation of Iraq are *inherently* wrong, given the nature of the old regime. I do think that the way the war was justified to our nation and the world was terribly wrong; to me, it is fruit of a rotten tree. With what I know now (which may change, of course) I feel very betrayed, misled into believing there was much more of a threat than actually existed. I had visions of a ship sailing into San Francisco Bay and exploding a nuke. In the subsequent discussion, it has become clear that you and Dave Land do not consider Iraq's counter-attack on the Dhahran Barracks to be an attack on us. I disagree, but I concede that reasonable people can disagree on this point. If it was an attack, why even call it a counter-attack? It seems crazy to me to justify attacking another on the basis of something they will do *later*, but that what you seem to be saying. Is that what you're saying? When I read, it has become clear... I feel disrespect. Our perceptions are not facts. At least that's how I see it! Also in the subsequent discussion, it has also become clear that you and Dave Land do not consider a foiled attempted assassination attempt on a former US President to be an attack on us. I am wondering how you and Dave Land can claim that these attempts to shoot down our (and Coalition) Aircraft does not constitute an attack on us. The assertion that Iraq attacked the United States seem to me to be true only in a tactical sense. In the strategic sense, I think that Iraq most certainly has never attacked us. Yet when one states it as a general fact (X attacked y), the implication to me -- and I believe to most people -- is strategic. One must speak in specifics to make the context tactical, not make general statements. In other words, now that you've brought up specific tactical attacks on our country, I agree with regard to those. But I still think your previous messages were Newspeak, as they used the general language of strategy, not tactics. I'll add that when you said I was being sanctimonious, I felt a bit pissed off. You don't know what I'm feeling unless I tell you. I hope this all doesn't seem hopelessly pedantic. I believe that language is one of the most important tools for peacemaking. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
At 11:04 AM 12/18/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: I don't think that I would describe Gulf War I as an instance when we invaded Iraq. I think the label is appropriate any time one nation's military enters the other's territory uninvited, destroys stuff and kills people. Refusing this ordinary way of talking strikes me as less than straightforward. Later in this post, you make a distinction between tactical and strategic language.Do you agree that while US actions in Iraq in Gulf War I could be called an invasion in the tactical sense, they would not be described as an invasion in the strategic sense? With what I know now (which may change, of course) I feel very betrayed, misled into believing there was much more of a threat than actually existed. I had visions of a ship sailing into San Francisco Bay and exploding a nuke. I'm not sure why you feel betrayed here.In what way did you specficially have your perceptions of Saddam Hussein's nuclear threat to the United States changed from 2003 to 2004? In the subsequent discussion, it has become clear that you and Dave Land do not consider Iraq's counter-attack on the Dhahran Barracks to be an attack on us. I disagree, but I concede that reasonable people can disagree on this point. If it was an attack, why even call it a counter-attack? Well, for one, you and Dave Land have disputed that it was an attack. Since the word attack is disputed, I am choosing another word that I feel cannot be disputed, i.e. counter-attack. It seems crazy to me to justify attacking another on the basis of something they will do *later*, but that what you seem to be saying. Is that what you're saying? I think that this paragraph is probably at the center of our disagreements. At no point in this thread have I argued for a justification of Gulf War II. I cannot fathom why ou think that I seem to be saying a justification for Gulf War II. I also cannot fathom your line about on the basis of something they will do *later*. This was written in response to a paragraph I wrote about the attacks on the Dhahran Barracks, something that happened in the past and again not in the context of justifiying Gulf War II, but in the context of disproving Dave Land's assertion that Iaq is a country that never had attacked us. When I read, it has become clear... I feel disrespect. Our perceptions are not facts. At least that's how I see it! I can't explain this. I was writing that your position had become clear. If I have misrepresented your position, that would be one thing. Unless you want to get metaphysical on me, I believe that your position on this subject had been made clear by yourself. Also in the subsequent discussion, it has also become clear that you and Dave Land do not consider a foiled attempted assassination attempt on a former US President to be an attack on us. I am wondering how you and Dave Land can claim that these attempts to shoot down our (and Coalition) Aircraft does not constitute an attack on us. The assertion that Iraq attacked the United States seem to me to be true only in a tactical sense. In the strategic sense, I think that Iraq most certainly has never attacked us. Yet when one states it as a general fact (X attacked y), the implication to me -- and I believe to most people -- is strategic. One must speak in specifics to make the context tactical, not make general statements. In other words, now that you've brought up specific tactical attacks on our country, I agree with regard to those. But I still think your previous messages were Newspeak, as they used the general language of strategy, not tactics. I'm presuming that there is a typo in your last sentence. You seem to be accusing me of using the language of tactics, not strategy. Anyhow, I think that there is, if anything, a stronger case that Iraq has attacked the US in the strategic sense, rather than the tactical sense. Iraq attacked Kuwait, and was threatening the remaining oilfields of the Persian Gulf. This was a direct assault on the US's interests, our economy, and our way of life. That is why US National Security Directives list prevention of a regional hegemon in the Middle East right up at the top of our foreign policy priority chips.So, while the invasion of Kuwait was not a tactical attack on the United States, it certainly was a strategic attack on the United States, which is why we mobilized against it the way we did... as opposed to see the Yugoslavian invasion of Bosnia-Herzegovina or the Rwandan invasion of Zaire. I'll add that when you said I was being sanctimonious, I felt a bit pissed off. You don't know what I'm feeling unless I tell you. And I am telling you that I felt that you were heaping sanctimony upon me. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
JDG wrote: Later in this post, you make a distinction between tactical and strategic language.Do you agree that while US actions in Iraq in Gulf War I could be called an invasion in the tactical sense, they would not be described as an invasion in the strategic sense? I think that anything properly described as a war is strategic -- war is a strategy for extending power. But some wars are more strategic than others; the first Gulf War certain fits that description in my mind. The invasion of Iraq in that war was tactical -- a tactic employed toward the overall strategy of liberating Kuwait. Stopping short of Bagdad made sense in that framework. I'm not sure why you feel betrayed here.In what way did you specficially have your perceptions of Saddam Hussein's nuclear threat to the United States changed from 2003 to 2004? To speak to time frame you asked about, I believed that Iraq had far more capability to develop WMDs than I now believe they did. I believe that the administration manipulated intelligence, with only a small possibility in my mind that it wasn't deliberate. Aside from what's been reported, I know a fair bit about how intelligence information makes its way to the White House -- the explanations for how erroneous information ended up driving policy struck me as unbelievable. I concluded that either the system that was in place when I became familiar with it has been disassembled or bypassed. Either way, the current administration is responsible. Well, for one, you and Dave Land have disputed that it was an attack. Since the word attack is disputed, I am choosing another word that I feel cannot be disputed, i.e. counter-attack. Okay. I thought you were defending the idea that Iraq had attacked the United States as justification for the war. ... in the context of disproving Dave Land's assertion that Iaq is a country that never had attacked us. If that wasn't in the context of justifying either war, then in fact I didn't understand. When I read, it has become clear... I feel disrespect. Our perceptions are not facts. At least that's how I see it! I can't explain this. I was writing that your position had become clear. If I have misrepresented your position, that would be one thing. Unless you want to get metaphysical on me, I believe that your position on this subject had been made clear by yourself. Well, of course you can't explain it; it's a feeling I have. You are not the cause of it. In other words, now that you've brought up specific tactical attacks on our country, I agree with regard to those. But I still think your previous messages were Newspeak, as they used the general language of strategy, not tactics. I'm presuming that there is a typo in your last sentence. You seem to be accusing me of using the language of tactics, not strategy. Not so much a typo as ambiguity. But I think you get it. This was a direct assault on the US's interests, our economy, and our way of life. I get the first one -- US interests. I'm not so sure about the second -- to me, attacking the economy would mean threatening the system, the feedback loops and so forth that regulate markets. Are you saying that a threat to our goods and services is a threat to our economy? If so, how's that different from our interests? Or are these two akin to strategic interests and economic interests? The last one -- our way of life -- is something I've heard many times over the last couple of years, but I really don't get it. What does it mean to you? So, while the invasion of Kuwait was not a tactical attack on the United States, it certainly was a strategic attack on the United States, which is why we mobilized against it the way we did... as opposed to see the Yugoslavian invasion of Bosnia-Herzegovina or the Rwandan invasion of Zaire. I can only see it as strategic to Iraq if their purpose was to pull the West into the region in order to touch off a larger conflict. If it was to actually try to expand their borders, they were nuts, a possibility that cannot be discounted! Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 10:26 AM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:12 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 - Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:52 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 7:25 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 Sure, eyewitness accounts are not always right. But, we are talking about someone who continues to have responsibility in the area of foreign affairs discussing something fairly mundane that she observed in the course of her responsibilities. Swamp gas doesn't cause one to see that incubators are missing. There is no arguement that the testimony before Congress was not by an eye-witness. But, the rebuttal of the testimony did not include, as far as the references I read from you, reasonable assurance that all the incubators stayed put during the period of occupation. I saw some generalities, but nothing that even matches Sheesh Danincubators (and plenty of other medical eqipment) may have gone missing, but that doesn't automaticly become premature babies dashed to the floor. Nor are missing incubators a sign that such *might* have occured. I wouldn't argue that there was not theft, the discussion concerns cold blooded murder that did not occur and that there are no witnesses to such murders in the first place. In any reasonable argument the onus is to prove that something actually occured, not to prove a negative. But proof of a negative is exactly what you are asking for. Now if Gautam were to say onlist that he saw this himself at a time when he was at this location in Kuwait it would weigh heavier as a fact. (I do not doubt Gautam an iota myself). But the fact that this gossip (in that it is third hand) It's second hand...Gautam heard it first hand. Quotes in a news report are also second hand, as is quoting a news report. Both are a bit more than gossip, I think. By the time Gautam tells us it is gossip, unless Gautam himself is the witness. Like I've said, I trust Gautam, but have no reason to trust people he knows or has met since I cannot judge them (or their character) for myself. I think the reasons for this are obvious when one discusses a point in contention. is repeated by a government employee gives it less creedence these days considering the way the truth is mangled with regularity by Our Employees. But, as an aside in a blistering attack on Bush II, to show that her criticism of Bush does not mean she thought Hussein was OK, it's hard to understand how she was just pushing the party line. Why would the party line be required. This person is part of an organisation and has a vested interest in *its* interests. Nothing uncommon in that. Maybe a story that came out of Kuwait was personalized, in order to better persuade Congress. Maybe they framed a guilty man. Maybe the incubators were removed, but the premature infants were not thrown on the ground...they just did without. And, maybe the person from the US embassy was flim-flammed. Mayhaps the Illuminati or the gray aliens are hiding something in Kuwait.G When I worked with field and lab reports, I usually worked to not reject any field reports out of hand, even if what they claimed was in contradiction with the lab data that I took. I usually found that there was something behind the field reports, even though exactly as reported, it was impossible. In this case, from what I've seen, you and David are postulating Because a false eye-witness account of Hussein's actions was given before Congress, he didn't do anything of the source. I'm arguing Taking incubators out of Kuwait for use elsewhere is consistent with what I know of Hussein's other actions. The fact that the Kuwait's ambassador's daughter gave a false eye-witness account makes accounts coming directly from the Kuwait government, or directly from Bush I suspect, because they knew about the false accounts. But, it doesn't falsify the premise. Thus, other accounts still need to be considered. I've gone back and read this entire thread twice now. There is absolutely no argument being made concerning the theft of incubators except by you. What's up with that? Conflating the theft of equipment with the murder of premature babies..well it seems intentional Dan. Just because OJ was framed, he isn't automatically innocent. :-) I've always thought it quite likely he was protecting someone else. G
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 10:55 AM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 At 12:28 AM 12/18/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: Lots of stuff about Nariyah She didn't see it. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. Dave is a good orthodox leftist and an apologist for totalitarian dictators, Rob, but I thought better of you. That's what I fail to understand about your rhetoric here. I don't see Dave apologizing for dictators and I certainly am not either. Some Americans are bad people. Our jails are full of them. Some bad people make it into the military and do bad things that shame us. I don't see anything that is in any way unpatriotic about pointing that out and sending the bad guys sorry asses to prison. We keep our own house clean, do we not? xponent No Monopoly On Goodness Maru rob Rob, I think that one key reason that you fail to understand Gautam's rhetoric here is that you just made Gautam's point for him. JDG -Gautam 1 Rob 0, Maru Silly of me to not think of everything in terms of winners and losers, eh? No Rob. What I was pointing out to you, is that your response to Gautam beginning what I fail to understand was probably thought by you to be a rebuttal of Gautam's point. I am going to guess that from Gautam's perspective, and certainly from my perspective, that that very same post of yours was considered to be prima facie evidence of precisely the point that Gautam was making. You should know better than anyone to not respond to the silly Maru tagline of a post, and look at what was actually being said in the body of the post.So let me try it again one key reason that you fail to understand Gautam's rhetoric is that you just made Gautam's point for him. If you are going to try and rebut Gautam's point about leftists, it would probably be best if you didn't engage in precisely the sort of activity he is accusing leftists of. I think that you should be able to figure out the rest of Gautam's rhetoric from there. That is why my response was in the silly category John. I don't think my argument and Gautam's are the same, but Gautam will respond to that if he is inclined. I'm not going to discuss with someone else what a person on the list thinks. It only serves to muddy the waters IMO. There has been quite a bit of that going on lately (too much I think), and I want to avoid participating in metadiscussions of metadiscussions. xponent Hideous Monsters Of Logic Tour Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 03:24:19PM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Given, however, that I've had to defend on this list the validity of the splended work Indict did on human rights under Iraq, but Our Distinguished Namesake (irony very much intended) will routinely accuse the President, and anyone else who has the temerity to disagree with him of being bribed or traitors, and no one even bats an eye, the double Why should we bat an eye when we have Gautam and JDG to defend and rationalize everything Bush does? standards are pretty damn apparent, and pretty damn shameful, too. That sounds like a good description of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and the people who made and make excuses for Bush and Co. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll add that when you said I was being sanctimonious, I felt a bit pissed off. You don't know what I'm feeling unless I tell you. I hope this all doesn't seem hopelessly pedantic. I believe that language is one of the most important tools for peacemaking. Nick Geez, Nick, then stop using it as a tool to hinder communication. If I'm ever President, I'd hire you as my press secretary. I could do _anything_ and the press would never be able to understand what the hell you said to justify it. Accusing someone of newspeak is the height of sanctimony - particularly from you. It reeks of self-righteous arrogance. If you don't want to be seen as sanctimonious, stop being such a jerk every time someone disagrees with you. You're heading for Brin levels, for God's sake, and he may be the most obnoxious human being I've ever communicated with for any period of time. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can only see it as strategic to Iraq if their purpose was to pull the West into the region in order to touch off a larger conflict. If it was to actually try to expand their borders, they were nuts, a possibility that cannot be discounted! Nick Why would they be that? If Michael Dukakis had been President of the United States in 1990 - hardly an unlikely outcome - Saddam Hussein would be ruling Kuwait, along with Iraq, right now. The overwhelming majority of Democratic Senators voted against the war. The Democratic Party had majorities in both the Senate and House of the Congress. Why was it unreasonable to think that we would do nothing to reverse the invasion? It was in no way clear at the time that we were going to do something about the invasion, and had we not, Iraq would be the most powerful (non-Israel) country in the Middle East right now, would have nuclear weapons (the UN reported that Iraq was ~1 year from getting nuclear weapons in 1991), and would be a major world power. Given what Saddam Hussein knew, forget about insane, it wasn't even dumb. If invading Kuwait had worked, he would have been the greatest hero in the Arab world since Nasser. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why should we bat an eye when we have Gautam and JDG to defend and rationalize everything Bush does? Gee, Erik, if someone came in and read this list, whose criticisms of Bush do you think they'd take seriously, mine or yours? Calling the occupation incompetent (probably the gentlest word I've used) is definitely defending and rationalizing. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
You've a good point there. I think Hussein has been widely under-rated; I've been hearing things about how he made preparations to aid the insurgency while the US was building up to an invasion (but obviously its been more successful than Hitler's plans along those lines). Also, I remember reading a long time ago that Saddam had quietly informed the White House before the Kuwait invasion, and taken the official silence as tacit consent. Any truth to this? ~Maru Gautam Mukunda wrote: Why would they be that? If Michael Dukakis had been President of the United States in 1990 - hardly an unlikely outcome - Saddam Hussein would be ruling Kuwait, along with Iraq, right now. The overwhelming majority of Democratic Senators voted against the war. The Democratic Party had majorities in both the Senate and House of the Congress. Why was it unreasonable to think that we would do nothing to reverse the invasion? It was in no way clear at the time that we were going to do something about the invasion, and had we not, Iraq would be the most powerful (non-Israel) country in the Middle East right now, would have nuclear weapons (the UN reported that Iraq was ~1 year from getting nuclear weapons in 1991), and would be a major world power. Given what Saddam Hussein knew, forget about insane, it wasn't even dumb. If invading Kuwait had worked, he would have been the greatest hero in the Arab world since Nasser. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 03:40:18PM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Gee, Erik, if someone came in and read this list, whose criticisms of Bush do you think they'd take seriously, mine or yours? Gee, Gautam, whose do you think they'd see? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: God Is With Us L3
Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda something along the lines of (I'm not using quotation marks because I don't have the exact words): Don't misunderstand me, I was in Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion and I saw the hospital where the Iraqis stole incubators for premature babies. Saddam Hussein was a monster and anyone who was there at the time knew it and thought he had to go. There is a huge difference between stealing incubators (however tragic that might be) and leaving babies to die on the cold, cold floor. This statement doesn't even imply that babies were left to die on the floor, which is what caused the outrage at the time. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraqi Attacks and Violations Re: God Is With Us L3
Behalf Of JDG Also, I would include Iraqi Scud missile strikes on US barracks in Saudi Arabia before Gulf War I as attacks on our country. Um, John, I'm fairly certain this was *after* the air war started against Iraq. Remember the phrase the liberation of Kuwait has begun. I do. I remember *exactly* where I was when I heard those words. It doesn't help your argument to make this sort of exageration. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 6:59 PM Subject: RE: God Is With Us L3 Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda something along the lines of (I'm not using quotation marks because I don't have the exact words): Don't misunderstand me, I was in Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion and I saw the hospital where the Iraqis stole incubators for premature babies. Saddam Hussein was a monster and anyone who was there at the time knew it and thought he had to go. There is a huge difference between stealing incubators (however tragic that might be) and leaving babies to die on the cold, cold floor. This statement doesn't even imply that babies were left to die on the floor, which is what caused the outrage at the time. I think that is a critical unspoken disagreement, going back through the thread. There is a good reason that the infant mortality rate in Iraq was higher than it was in Kuwait in 1991standard care was at a far lower level. If the incubators are gone, premature babies who need them die. I thought the essence of the question was whether incubators needed by premature infants were stolen, so premature infants died; not the details of the theft. Others may have thought the details (like leaving the babies on the floor instead of with a nurse) were essential. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
Gautam Mukunda wrote: I hope this all doesn't seem hopelessly pedantic. I believe that language is one of the most important tools for peacemaking. Geez, Nick, then stop using it as a tool to hinder communication. What's the antecedent of it in that sentence? Are you saying that it appears to you that I'm using language to hinder communication? If I'm ever President, I'd hire you as my press secretary. I really don't think you would. And I wouldn't take the job, at least if things are the way they are. My brief time in the West Wing left me with no honest desire to be involved in that. The glamor is attractive, but not the reality. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
On Dec 18, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: If you don't want to be seen as sanctimonious, stop being such a jerk every time someone disagrees with you. You're heading for Brin levels, for God's sake, and he may be the most obnoxious human being I've ever communicated with for any period of time. Jesus Howard Christ. I think it's spectacularly poor form to insult the person whose list a given group nominally is. If you really feel that Nick is sanctimonious and arrogant or behaves like a jerk with those who disagree with him (pot/kettle if ever I saw it) and particularly that Dr. Brin is so obnoxious, well, I know of no earthly agency that's forcing you to stick around. So why do you do it? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
Warren Ockrassa wrote: Jesus Howard Christ. I think it's spectacularly poor form to insult the person whose list a given group nominally is. If you really feel that Nick is sanctimonious and arrogant or behaves like a jerk with those who disagree with him (pot/kettle if ever I saw it) and particularly that Dr. Brin is so obnoxious, well, I know of no earthly agency that's forcing you to stick around. So why do you do it? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf Perhaps he does it for our own good, hoping one day we all will finally see the light. Or maybe he's just a masochist. ~Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 5:24 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 --- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We keep our own house clean, do we not? xponent No Monopoly On Goodness Maru rob We do, which is what makes us _better_ than them. I would phrase that a bit differently. We are not inherently better than any them on the planet, but we do things in a better way (for the most part) and overall we *do* better than most because of it. Which is why when you see people consistently making excuses (usually false ones) for someone like Hussein, it's inexcusable. The war may or may not have been justified. Given, however, that I've had to defend on this list the validity of the splended work Indict did on human rights under Iraq, but Our Distinguished Namesake (irony very much intended) will routinely accuse the President, and anyone else who has the temerity to disagree with him of being bribed or traitors, and no one even bats an eye, the double standards are pretty damn apparent, and pretty damn shameful, too. It is no secret that I dislike Bush and that in general I oppose him. But that stems from his record before he ever entered politics. Texas newspapers were filled with criticism of his business dealings before he became a conservative darling. IMO Bush should be ineligable for office due to felonies he has commited and a lack of ethics in his business dealings. He has done nothing as President to convince me that he is any better than any other white collar criminal. Say that a mass genocidal mass murderer is responsible for human rights violations, and even eyewitness testimony isn't good enough. Accuse the Presidnet, and by God anything is good enough. Saddam is known to have killed thousands of Iraqis and Iranians and a good number of Kuwaitis. He is known to have committed human rights abuses on large scales. Do we need fictional crimes to levy against him? IMO what we know to be factual is more than enough to convict him of crimes against humanity. No matter how you slice it, anything Bush has none is small potatoes when compared to Saddam. If indeed the Iraq war is wrong, it still pales in comparison to Saddams crimes. But I don't see anyone disagreeing with that. What I see disagreement over is that Bush's record should not be overlooked as some seem to think it should. xponent House Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
At 09:44 AM 12/14/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote: Bill Clinton got a blow job. Funny how commiting perjury rather than give testimony that is compelled by a law that you signed with your hand managed to slip your mind. George Bush lied to congress and the citizens of the United States to go to war against a country that had never attacked us. This is ridiculous. Never attacked us?Tell that George Bush Senior.Tell that to the families of the hundreds of Americans who died in Iraq and Saudi Arabia over the previous 12 years. JDG - You're not lying when you really believe something to be true, Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
JDG wrote: Never attacked us?Tell that George Bush Senior.Tell that to the families of the hundreds of Americans who died in Iraq and Saudi Arabia over the previous 12 years. I'm confused -- surely you're not saying that we invaded them in response to the attacks they made on our troops after we went to war with them? (Let's attack them because when do do, those SOBs will fight back?) When did Iraq attack the United States or our citizens *before* we went to war? Or are you saying something I don't understand yet? I'm in one of those families. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
Nick Arnett wrote: I'm in one of those families. And to be a little clearer, I'll speak for our family -- please don't presume. I don't think our loss gives us special rights to justify or criticize this war, so I sure don't think it gives anyone else any. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 7:18 AM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 At 09:44 AM 12/14/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote: Bill Clinton got a blow job. Funny how commiting perjury rather than give testimony that is compelled by a law that you signed with your hand managed to slip your mind. That was a complicated mess. It's true that the Republicans guessed right, that Bill wouldn't keep his pants zipped and that his wife didn't know. He committed perjury rather than confess to all. But, it's also true that they spent tens of millions of dollars on trying to set him up. Yes, he gave them the rope to hang him with, but they had a lynch party out. A much simplier case was the perjury by Bush Sr., which no one worried about too much. He even pardoned folks who's testimony could have been damaging. George Bush lied to congress and the citizens of the United States to go to war against a country that had never attacked us. This is ridiculous. Never attacked us?Tell that George Bush Senior.Tell that to the families of the hundreds of Americans who died in Iraq and Saudi Arabia over the previous 12 years. That doesn't mean that they attacked the United States. They attacked Kuwait, and we attacked them in return. They didn't actually attack Bush Sr., although it is reasonable to state that they were planning on doing that. That would have been an act of war, and Clinton would probably have had to respond. But, since it didn't happen, it's hard to say that they attacked us. This doesn't mean automatically that the second Gulf war wasn't justified...just that it wasn't a war on a country that attacked the US. JDG - You're not lying when you really believe something to be true, Maru. Unless, of course, you are lying to yourself. They selectively accepted and rejected reports, based on whether they were consistant with what they knew a priori. In many ways, that's the most dangerous form of lying. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
Never attacked us?Tell that George Bush Senior.Tell that to the families of the hundreds of Americans who died in Iraq and Saudi Arabia over the previous 12 years. edit This doesn't mean automatically that the second Gulf war wasn't justified...just that it wasn't a war on a country that attacked the US. I believe John was referring to both the Bush assasination plot as well as the occasional saber rattling with regards to the No-fly Zones. So technically, the Iraqis have breached the cease-fire several times when they tried to take shots at US aircraft, and the US responded in kind. Not that I think the occasional bombing campaigns were less than what were needed, but technically Iraq has been in breach of the cease-fire agreement several times in the last 12 years. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Revell Germany's M60A3 __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 10:02 AM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 Never attacked us?Tell that George Bush Senior.Tell that to the families of the hundreds of Americans who died in Iraq and Saudi Arabia over the previous 12 years. edit This doesn't mean automatically that the second Gulf war wasn't justified...just that it wasn't a war on a country that attacked the US. I believe John was referring to both the Bush assasination plot as well as the occasional saber rattling with regards to the No-fly Zones. So technically, the Iraqis have breached the cease-fire several times when they tried to take shots at US aircraft, and the US responded in kind. Not that I think the occasional bombing campaigns were less than what were needed, but technically Iraq has been in breach of the cease-fire agreement several times in the last 12 years. Damon. I won't argue with that. I don't think that constitutes attacking the United States, though. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Dec 17, 2004, at 8:02 AM, Damon Agretto wrote: Never attacked us? Tell that George Bush Senior. Tell that to the families of the hundreds of Americans who died in Iraq and Saudi Arabia over the previous 12 years. I believe John was referring to both the Bush assasination plot as well as the occasional saber rattling with regards to the No-fly Zones. So technically, the Iraqis have breached the cease-fire several times when they tried to take shots at US aircraft, and the US responded in kind. Next we'll be hearing me about Iraqis taking babies out of incubators in hospitals in Kuwait -- part of a long Bush family tradition of telling lies to justify war in Iraq. Honestly, I am not sure what John was referring to, originally, but I must accept that he sincerely believes that Iraq's unwillingness to be kept under the boot of the United States (my language) was sufficient cause for this latest war. John, I wonder whether you half-hoped that sloppier readers might think that you meant that Iraq had some sort of connection to 9/11? I'm not accusing you of it, just wondering aloud, so to speak, and hoping you'll clarify. Not that I think the occasional bombing campaigns were less than what were needed, but technically Iraq has been in breach of the cease-fire agreement several times in the last 12 years. Does every message to this thread have to end with a disclaimer that says, in effect, Yeah, Iraq didn't attack the US , but I still support the war? Dave Well, mine doesn't Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Dec 17, 2004, at 11:10 AM, Dave Land wrote: Does every message to this thread have to end with a disclaimer that says, in effect, Yeah, Iraq didn't attack the US , but I still support the war? No. The war was unjustified, is unjust, and is a result of criminal irresponsibility on the part of the Bush administration. Every senior official involved in getting us tangled into this mess should be facing charges. It was wrong to invade, the assault was predicated on lies, and only nationalistic hubris is preventing us from confessing to a fuck-up of truly monumental -- and unjustifiably lethal -- proportions. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 12:10 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 Honestly, I am not sure what John was referring to, originally, but I must accept that he sincerely believes that Iraq's unwillingness to be kept under the boot of the United States (my language) was sufficient cause for this latest war. So you supported an end to sactions? An end to the no fly zones? Were those immoral? Does every message to this thread have to end with a disclaimer that says, in effect, Yeah, Iraq didn't attack the US , but I still support the war? Well, it makes sense if one does not believe that the only justification for the US to use military force is an attack on the US. I don't want to put words in your mouth, is this what you believe? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
Not that I think the occasional bombing campaigns were less than what were needed, but technically Iraq has been in breach of the cease-fire agreement several times in the last 12 years. Does every message to this thread have to end with a disclaimer that says, in effect, Yeah, Iraq didn't attack the US , but I still support the war? Dunno, Dave. But if you've been following along with my posts over the last several months, you would know that I'm not really a War supporter. The difference, however, is that I try to be balanced with regards to my posts. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Revell of Germany's M60A3 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Next we'll be hearing me about Iraqis taking babies out of incubators in hospitals in Kuwait -- part of a long Bush family tradition of telling lies to justify war in Iraq. You know, I spoke to someone on the US embassy staff in Kuwait at the time who saw what was left of the hospital where that happened. The numbers might have been exaggerated, that's about it. Next we'll see Dave telling us about how Saddam wasn't that bad - part of a long leftist tradition of excusing any totalitarian barbarity as long as it's committed by an enemy of the United States. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Dec 17, 2004, at 2:49 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Next we'll be hearing me about Iraqis taking babies out of incubators in hospitals in Kuwait -- part of a long Bush family tradition of telling lies to justify war in Iraq. You know, I spoke to someone on the US embassy staff in Kuwait at the time who saw what was left of the hospital where that happened. The numbers might have been exaggerated, that's about it. Next we'll see Dave telling us about how Saddam wasn't that bad - part of a long leftist tradition of excusing any totalitarian barbarity as long as it's committed by an enemy of the United States. Ridiculous prediction, Gautam, but not unexpected from the hopelessly blindered, but then again, that's part of a long rightist tradition of accusing anyone who shows the slightest sign of an open mind as proof of moral depravity. You will never hear me say any such thing about Saddam: he is and was a ruthless mass-murderer who deserves to be held accountable for his nefarious actions. You will hear me say that we need to base our decisions on truth, not lies. Considering the success of the Hill Knowlton PR effort behind Nayirah's testimony, I'm not surprised that your embassy staffer believes that s/he saw what s/he believes was evidence of what has been quite thoroughly debunked. Perhaps s/he actually went to a hospital. Perhaps it was a disaster area after the war. Then again, perhaps, like the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter, she hadn't been in the hospital herself, but that a friend who had been there had told her about it. (Quote from the Christian Science Monitor's September, 2002 story When contemplating war, beware of babies in incubators: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.htm Please refrain from personal attacks. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 5:14 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 Considering the success of the Hill Knowlton PR effort behind Nayirah's testimony, I'm not surprised that your embassy staffer believes that s/he saw what s/he believes was evidence of what has been quite thoroughly debunked. It might be worthwhile to see exactly what an eyewitness saw soon after Kuwait was liberated instead of stating with certainty that what she thought she saw was debunked. Looking at the condition the hospital was left in after the Iraq troops had left does afford one the ability to obtain information that can thereafter be interpreted by a number of folks. I've seen truths about nuclear power, for example, debunked in the popular press. In short, it would seem useful to get more information about what the eye-witness saw and then compare it to the sources of the debunking, than to categorically reject the report of an eye-witness to the aftermath. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 6:07 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 - Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 5:14 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 Considering the success of the Hill Knowlton PR effort behind Nayirah's testimony, I'm not surprised that your embassy staffer believes that s/he saw what s/he believes was evidence of what has been quite thoroughly debunked. It might be worthwhile to see exactly what an eyewitness saw soon after Kuwait was liberated instead of stating with certainty that what she thought she saw was debunked. Looking at the condition the hospital was left in after the Iraq troops had left does afford one the ability to obtain information that can thereafter be interpreted by a number of folks. I've seen truths about nuclear power, for example, debunked in the popular press. In short, it would seem useful to get more information about what the eye-witness saw and then compare it to the sources of the debunking, than to categorically reject the report of an eye-witness to the aftermath. http://www.snopes.com/military/stamp.htm Atrocity rumors are never new; they are merely retooled as circumstances change. In the ramp-up days towards the Gulf War, we were told Iraqi soldiers had rampaged through a Kuwaiti hospital, grabbing premature babies up out of incubators and tossing them to the floor to meet their deaths on the cold, hard tiles. Never mind that this apocryphal hospital was never pinpointed nor the grieving families of these infants located, the story spread like wildfire, inflaming passions against the Iraqis and stiffening resolve to fight them tooth and nail if it came down to that. [Columbia Journalism Review, 1992] I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns. They took the babies out of the incubators ... and left the children to die on the cold floor. This was the story told by Nayirah, the fifteen-year-old Kuwaiti girl who shocked a public hearing of Congress's Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990. Nayirah's testimony came at a time when Americans were wondering how to respond to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2. Her story was cited frequently in the congressional debate over war authority, which was approved by only five votes in the Senate. President Bush mentioned it often as a reason for taking firm action. It was a major factor in building public backing for war. As many are now aware, the incubator story was the centerpiece of a massive public relations campaign conducted by Hill and Knowlton [a PR firm] on behalf of a group called Citizens for a Free Kuwait, for a fee of $11.5 million. After the war, the group revealed that it was financed almost entirely by the Kuwaiti government. A few babies did die during that conflict, but as a result of needed supplies not reaching hospitals, not because enemy soldiers threw them to the floor and left them to die there. http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html In fact, the most emotionally moving testimony on October 10 came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah. According to the Caucus, Nayirah's full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait. Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital, Nayirah said. While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die.83 Three months passed between Nayirah's testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. Of all the accusations made against the dictator, MacArthur observed, none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City.84 At the Human Rights Caucus, however, Hill Knowlton and Congressman Lantos had failed to reveal that Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father, in fact, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the US, who sat listening in the hearing room during her testimony. The Caucus also failed to reveal that HK vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado had coached Nayirah in what even the Kuwaitis' own investigators later confirmed was false testimony
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Dec 17, 2004, at 4:07 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] Considering the success of the Hill Knowlton PR effort behind Nayirah's testimony, I'm not surprised that your embassy staffer believes that s/he saw what s/he believes was evidence of what has been quite thoroughly debunked. It might be worthwhile to see exactly what an eyewitness saw soon after Kuwait was liberated instead of stating with certainty that what she thought she saw was debunked. Looking at the condition the hospital was left in after the Iraq troops had left does afford one the ability to obtain information that can thereafter be interpreted by a number of folks. I've seen truths about nuclear power, for example, debunked in the popular press. Thank you, Dan, but I chose my words carefully: I am quite sure that the embassy staffer *believed* his/her story, and I don't believe s/he was consciously lying. Memory is astonishingly complex and flexible. Others (thank you, Robert) have dug up plenty more references on the thorough debunking of the incubator baby story. It's debunked, OK? Nonetheless, the staffer saw whatever s/he saw, and told Gautam about it. S/he believed what s/he was saying, Gautam believed what s/he was saying. I don't. So be it. Dave PS: I still think Saddam is a bad guy, Gautam. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 7:25 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 xponent Too many Hits To Bother With Maru I now recall that with a bit more detail. But, having someone on the list who talked to someone was in a hospital after the war is also a reasonable data point. Maybe a story that came out of Kuwait was personalized, in order to better persuade Congress. Maybe they framed a guilty man. Maybe the incubators were removed, but the premature infants were not thrown on the ground...they just did without. And, maybe the person from the US embassy was flim-flammed. I would be curious to see what was the condition of the hospital afterwards...what people who were around there might have said to her, how soon after the war she got there, etc. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem with the original story, I'm saying that when someone on the list has heard eye-witness account, it is worth hearing was said and incorporating it into one's understanding. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
At 03:14 PM 12/17/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote: Next we'll see Dave telling us about how Saddam wasn't that bad - part of a long leftist tradition of excusing any totalitarian barbarity as long as it's committed by an enemy of the United States. Ridiculous prediction, Gautam, but not unexpected from the hopelessly blindered, but then again, that's part of a long rightist tradition of accusing anyone who shows the slightest sign of an open mind as proof of moral depravity. And Dave, how is this any different from accusing supporters of the Iraq War of trying to suggest connections between Iraq and 9/11? I have to say that twice in recent days you have made a wildly baseless accusation against me, so I don't think that you are exactly in a position to get all indignant about this. You have been as guilty as anyone of painting your sparring partners on this List with a broad brush. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Dec 17, 2004, at 8:36 PM, JDG wrote: At 03:14 PM 12/17/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote: Next we'll see Dave telling us about how Saddam wasn't that bad - part of a long leftist tradition of excusing any totalitarian barbarity as long as it's committed by an enemy of the United States. Ridiculous prediction, Gautam, but not unexpected from the hopelessly blindered, but then again, that's part of a long rightist tradition of accusing anyone who shows the slightest sign of an open mind as proof of moral depravity. And Dave, how is this any different from accusing supporters of the Iraq War of trying to suggest connections between Iraq and 9/11? Given that both suggestions are accurate, it doesn't seem like there's any difference at all. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:52 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 7:25 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 xponent Too many Hits To Bother With Maru I now recall that with a bit more detail. But, having someone on the list who talked to someone was in a hospital after the war is also a reasonable data point. I don't think so really. I've talked to plenty of people who swear they have seen flying saucers (people who in other circumstances would be taken as rational and reasonable), but if I were to repeat their stories no one here would take these data points as being anything other than the mistaken impressions that they are. Now if Gautam were to say onlist that he saw this himself at a time when he was at this location in Kuwait it would weigh heavier as a fact. (I do not doubt Gautam an iota myself). But the fact that this gossip (in that it is third hand) is repeated by a government employee gives it less creedence these days considering the way the truth is mangled with regularity by Our Employees. Maybe a story that came out of Kuwait was personalized, in order to better persuade Congress. Maybe they framed a guilty man. Maybe the incubators were removed, but the premature infants were not thrown on the ground...they just did without. And, maybe the person from the US embassy was flim-flammed. Mayhaps the Illuminati or the gray aliens are hiding something in Kuwait.G Fnord This kind of fnord speculation fnord is not very fnord usefull. People lied before congress and I expect conservatives to open up the same can of whoopass they unleashed on Clinton for doing the same, otherwise their glass house is going to have some windows broken.G I would be curious to see what was the condition of the hospital afterwards...what people who were around there might have said to her, how soon after the war she got there, etc. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem with the original story, I'm saying that when someone on the list has heard eye-witness account, it is worth hearing was said and incorporating it into one's understanding. I don't doubt that Iraqi soldiers trashed many buildings and did bodily harm to many people. I don't doubt that American soldiers have done similar things in Iraq. But not every story repeated will have the same component of truth. xponent Fortunes Of Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
At 07:10 AM 12/17/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: JDG wrote: Never attacked us?Tell that George Bush Senior.Tell that to the families of the hundreds of Americans who died in Iraq and Saudi Arabia over the previous 12 years. I'm confused -- surely you're not saying that we invaded them in response to the attacks they made on our troops after we went to war with them? (Let's attack them because when do do, those SOBs will fight back?) You are confusing yourself, in part by presuming that I agree with your assumption.. Dave Land made a factual assertion, that Iraq is a country that had never attacked us. I am objecting to this assertion, (as highlighted by my rhetorical question: Never attacked us?) and indeed feel that I have substantially disproved it. If Dave Land wishes to modify or correct his earlier assertion, I will be happy to deal with that in time. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It might be worthwhile to see exactly what an eyewitness saw soon after Kuwait was liberated instead of stating with certainty that what she thought she saw was debunked. Looking at the condition the hospital was left in after the Iraq troops had left does afford one the ability to obtain information that can thereafter be interpreted by a number of folks. I've seen truths about nuclear power, for example, debunked in the popular press. In short, it would seem useful to get more information about what the eye-witness saw and then compare it to the sources of the debunking, than to categorically reject the report of an eye-witness to the aftermath. Dan M. A former US Ambassador, now retired from the United States Foreign Service, formerly (I believe) the first senior officer in the Foreign Service to be in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam's government, was also stationed in the US embassy. She commented - in the midst of a vicious (and, I think, accurate) demolishing of the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq reconstruction, something along the lines of (I'm not using quotation marks because I don't have the exact words): Don't misunderstand me, I was in Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion and I saw the hospital where the Iraqis stole incubators for premature babies. Saddam Hussein was a monster and anyone who was there at the time knew it and thought he had to go. I'm amused that someone who routinely bashes the Bush Administration in apolcalyptic terms, but has never said anything positive about them and who, in this case, will believe evil of the American government but not of Saddam Hussein, is so narrow-minded and arrogant as to describe me as being blinkered. It's what I've come to expect, so I'm not surprised. It's just amusing - to be called blinkered by the blindfolded is always fun. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lots of stuff about Nariyah She didn't see it. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. Dave is a good orthodox leftist and an apologist for totalitarian dictators, Rob, but I thought better of you. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave PS: I still think Saddam is a bad guy, Gautam. Sure, just not as bad as George Bush, right? It's exactly like leftists with Stalin in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. He was bad, of course - getting them to admit that was like pulling teeth, but most of the time you could do it. Just, well, not as bad as so many other things that were so much more important. You can believe it or not believe it as you wish. I think the evidence is pretty clear that it (and many worse things) happened. The people who reported _seeing_ them may not have seen them at the time, but they did happen. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't doubt that Iraqi soldiers trashed many buildings and did bodily harm to many people. I don't doubt that American soldiers have done similar things in Iraq. But not every story repeated will have the same component of truth. xponent Fortunes Of Maru rob I'm sorry, are you seriously trying to make this moral equivalence here? I'm going to assume it was some sort of a misstatement. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
At 10:10 AM 12/17/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote: Honestly, I am not sure what John was referring to, originally, but I must accept that he sincerely believes that Iraq's unwillingness to be kept under the boot of the United States (my language) was sufficient cause for this latest war. I've posted my justifications for the Iraq War so many times on this List as to be nearly bored of the subject. Your above characterization of the arguments, even if intended to merely be some sort of light mockery leads me to believe that a serious discussion of the justifications for Gulf War II would not be fruitful with you. And that's even before I get too John, I wonder whether you half-hoped that sloppier readers might think that you meant that Iraq had some sort of connection to 9/11? I'm not accusing you of it, just wondering aloud, so to speak, and hoping you'll clarify. I'll have to give you my word that the subject of Iraqi connections to 9/11 could not have been further from my mind. In fact, I can't recall thinking about the subject in probably at least a month (or whenever I last encountered a liberal whinging about some Republican's attempts to suggest such a connection.) But again, this is sort of like saying John, you didn't have an affair with that old flame, did you?I'm not accusing you of it, just wondering aloud, so to speak, and hoping you'll clarify. The damage is done in the accusation. Dave, you've expressed your desire to engage in civil discourse with me... but I have to say that you seem to have an awfully strange way of going about it. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iraqi Attacks and Violations Re: God Is With Us L3
At 08:02 AM 12/17/2004 -0800 Damon Agretto wrote: I believe John was referring to both the Bush assasination plot as well as the occasional saber rattling with regards to the No-fly Zones. I would not describe live ammunition as sabre rattling. Also, I would include Iraqi Scud missile strikes on US barracks in Saudi Arabia before Gulf War I as attacks on our country. but technically Iraq has been in breach of the cease-fire agreement several times in the last 12 years. Actually, it has been in constant violation of the ceasefire, as well as the relevant UN resolutions for every moment of the past 12 years. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:20 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 --- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lots of stuff about Nariyah She didn't see it. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. Dave is a good orthodox leftist and an apologist for totalitarian dictators, Rob, but I thought better of you. That's what I fail to understand about your rhetoric here. I don't see Dave apologizing for dictators and I certainly am not either. Some Americans are bad people. Our jails are full of them. Some bad people make it into the military and do bad things that shame us. I don't see anything that is in any way unpatriotic about pointing that out and sending the bad guys sorry asses to prison. We keep our own house clean, do we not? xponent No Monopoly On Goodness Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
At 11:31 AM 12/17/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: I won't argue with that. I don't think that constitutes attacking the United States, though. So, you would disagree that firing shots with the intent of bringing down a country's aircraft ordinarily constitutes an act of war against said country? Please note that I am not saying Justifies Gulf War II, I am merely trying to determine your definition of attack the United States, and using act of war as a proxy for attacking. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
At 11:39 PM 12/17/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: Lots of stuff about Nariyah She didn't see it. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. Dave is a good orthodox leftist and an apologist for totalitarian dictators, Rob, but I thought better of you. That's what I fail to understand about your rhetoric here. I don't see Dave apologizing for dictators and I certainly am not either. Some Americans are bad people. Our jails are full of them. Some bad people make it into the military and do bad things that shame us. I don't see anything that is in any way unpatriotic about pointing that out and sending the bad guys sorry asses to prison. We keep our own house clean, do we not? xponent No Monopoly On Goodness Maru rob Rob, I think that one key reason that you fail to understand Gautam's rhetoric here is that you just made Gautam's point for him. JDG -Gautam 1 Rob 0, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Lying Re: God Is With Us L3
At 09:35 AM 12/17/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: JDG - You're not lying when you really believe something to be true, Maru. Unless, of course, you are lying to yourself. They selectively accepted and rejected reports, based on whether they were consistant with what they knew a priori. In many ways, that's the most dangerous form of lying. While I disagree with the aboe, let me accept your premises for a moment. Would you also agree that there is a huge difference in moral culpability between lying to others and lying to yourself? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraqi Attacks and Violations Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:18 PM Subject: Iraqi Attacks and Violations Re: God Is With Us L3 At 08:02 AM 12/17/2004 -0800 Damon Agretto wrote: I believe John was referring to both the Bush assasination plot as well as the occasional saber rattling with regards to the No-fly Zones. I would not describe live ammunition as sabre rattling. Were they able to shoot down any planes? I don't recall them being able to do that over the last decade. Also, I would include Iraqi Scud missile strikes on US barracks in Saudi Arabia before Gulf War I as attacks on our country. I recall that during the first Gulf War it was said that the scuds were all blind shots and could not be aimed with any degree of accuracy, any hits being a matter of pure luck. I can't see such a hit being defined as an intentional attack any more than when one of our errant missiles hitting a schoolhouse or a hospital could be. but technically Iraq has been in breach of the cease-fire agreement several times in the last 12 years. Actually, it has been in constant violation of the ceasefire, as well as the relevant UN resolutions for every moment of the past 12 years. That, I agree with completely. xponent Opinions Vary Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:24 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 --- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't doubt that Iraqi soldiers trashed many buildings and did bodily harm to many people. I don't doubt that American soldiers have done similar things in Iraq. But not every story repeated will have the same component of truth. xponent Fortunes Of Maru rob I'm sorry, are you seriously trying to make this moral equivalence here? No, not at all. I think we are in general agreement in that regard. I'm going to assume it was some sort of a misstatement. Actually, the point is that the truth will be regarded differently depending on *who* is hearing the truth. It is a matter of a humans inability to rise above his/her subjectivity. Our opinions form dependent of what we accept and what we reject, but people almost never take the truth in it's entirety because try as we might we are simply unable to. Statistically, if you take any group of people, a certain number of them are going to be assholes (morally or ethically deficient or perhaps unjustifiably selfish). There are assholes on this list and everyone can name one or two. (I have no doubts I makes someone's list entirely) Why would anyone think that being soldiers exempts all soldiers from even being potentially an asshole? I support our military people and am glad that they do the job for the rest of us whether they or I agree with the job or not. But I do not harbor any illusions that they hover above the rest of humanity in some scintillating aura of saintliness. To pretend that they are more than mere mortals diminishes their every accomplishment because those feats come at great cost. xponent I Know A Guy I Wouldn't Piss On If He Were On Fire, But Actually I Would Piss On Him If He Were On Fire Just So He Would Be Grateful That I Pissed On Him Maru rob, the pisser G ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:45 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 At 11:39 PM 12/17/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: Lots of stuff about Nariyah She didn't see it. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. Dave is a good orthodox leftist and an apologist for totalitarian dictators, Rob, but I thought better of you. That's what I fail to understand about your rhetoric here. I don't see Dave apologizing for dictators and I certainly am not either. Some Americans are bad people. Our jails are full of them. Some bad people make it into the military and do bad things that shame us. I don't see anything that is in any way unpatriotic about pointing that out and sending the bad guys sorry asses to prison. We keep our own house clean, do we not? xponent No Monopoly On Goodness Maru rob Rob, I think that one key reason that you fail to understand Gautam's rhetoric here is that you just made Gautam's point for him. JDG -Gautam 1 Rob 0, Maru Silly of me to not think of everything in terms of winners and losers, eh? xponent More To Life Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acts of War Re: God Is With Us L3
JDG wrote: So, you would disagree that firing shots with the intent of bringing down a country's aircraft ordinarily constitutes an act of war against said country? It now seems inescapable that you are saying the very thing I imagined: We invaded Iraq. They shot at our airplanes that were flying over *their* country. And now you say that *they* attacked *us*? Unbelievable. What did you think, that *Saddam* would greet us with flowers? You're talking newspeak, absolute newspeak. Where I come from, Saddam's reaction is called fighting back, not attacking. Did Kuwait attack Iraq when they resisted Iraq's invasion? Did we attack Japan at Pearl Harbor? I'm not siding with our enemies, but I feel disgusted when I read this sort of language coming from our side. I find no honor in such rationalization. My country, may she always be right, is still my country, right or wrong. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you think about FDR's lies? Were they immoral, or was secretly protecting British ships justified...given the likelihood that we would eventually have had to face the winner of the German/Soviet war? Did he well represent (or did he actually realize) that he was forcing Japan into a corner by prohibiting the sale of oil to Japan. Japan needed oil to keep its industrial base going, it needed to either conquer Indochina or get the US to start shipping again. What were the US's demands for restarting the oil shipment, or was oil included in the boycott unintentionally or without fully thinking through the consequences. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743201299/ Is it that LBJ and GWB et. al. also lied to themselves? Is it that history has judges that the maneuvering of FDR was moral, given the outcome? __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
Warren wrote (?) Boldly proclaiming certainty? Oh really? I thought all I did was suggest that the current admin had to be fairly dim not to have learned from history. Dan wrote (?) To the earlier exchange, I think the question's pretty clear: How is it that so many people seem not to have learned from history? Before learning from history, it's worthwhile to understand just what the lessons of history are. Um, that *is* learning from history. What you basically just said is that in order to learn from history you have to learn from history. I won't disagree with the tautology, but as arguments go it's not the best. ;) The lessons we can learn from Viet Nam would be a facinating source of discussion. I think it is also a field where honest, reasonable people can still differ greatly. Later someone said Are you arguing that there is no such thing as scholarship in history, foreign affairs, and political science? A bit of stream of consciousness helped me to recall a bit of info, I don't know if it will help the discussion... The War College may be the best place to learn military lessons from Vietnam. I would tend to think the political lessons are more varied and discussed in academia throughout the country. While they are related historical lessons, they may not always be one in the same, as there is rarely a single question or goal, but a campaign. Dee ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
--- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please bear in mind that in World War II Germany declared war on the US first, not vice-versa. Weinberg's a great historian, but there's been lots of work on the topic since then. Marc Trachtenberg has a book forthcoming on it, for example. Even then, though, we knew Germany declared war on the US at least in part because FDR was doing everything he possibly could to provoke such a war, including using the US Navy to protect British convoys that were being attacked by Germany (a level of deception, btw, that vastly exceeds that of any subsequent President). Had tensions between the US and Germany not already been so high, it is difficult to imagine Hitler declaring war on Dec. 8th - particularly given that he was under no treaty obligation to do so, as the Axis treaty only required that the countries involved support each other if they were attacked, not if they initiated an attack. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Dec 13, 2004, at 10:18 PM, JDG wrote: At 09:26 PM 12/10/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: The one following that is When will Congress impeach Bush? Never until the people in this country wake up to the fact that they're getting reamed. Which bears a remarkable similarity to right-wingers who similarly waited for the American people to wake up to Clinton's malfeasances. Bill Clinton got a blow job. George Bush lied to congress and the citizens of the United States to go to war against a country that had never attacked us. This is ridiculous. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 11:44 AM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 On Dec 13, 2004, at 10:18 PM, JDG wrote: At 09:26 PM 12/10/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: The one following that is When will Congress impeach Bush? Never until the people in this country wake up to the fact that they're getting reamed. Which bears a remarkable similarity to right-wingers who similarly waited for the American people to wake up to Clinton's malfeasances. Bill Clinton got a blow job. George Bush lied to congress and the citizens of the United States to go to war against a country that had never attacked us. This is ridiculous. What do you think about FDR's lies? Were they immoral, or was secretly protecting British ships justified...given the likelihood that we would eventually have had to face the winner of the German/Soviet war? Did he well represent (or did he actually realize) that he was forcing Japan into a corner by prohibiting the sale of oil to Japan. Japan needed oil to keep its industrial base going, it needed to either conquer Indochina or get the US to start shipping again. What were the US's demands for restarting the oil shipment, or was oil included in the boycott unintentionally or without fully thinking through the consequences. It's easy for me as well as you to see why lying about the progress in 'Nam and the intelligence about Iraq was wrong. But, I think Gautam's question about FDR is worth considering. In short, was there an important difference between FDR's lies and those of LBJ and GWB, or were all wrong? Is it that LBJ and GWB et. al. also lied to themselves? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: kerri miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 12:25 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you think about FDR's lies? Were they immoral, or was secretly protecting British ships justified...given the likelihood that we would eventually have had to face the winner of the German/Soviet war? Did he well represent (or did he actually realize) that he was forcing Japan into a corner by prohibiting the sale of oil to Japan. Japan needed oil to keep its industrial base going, it needed to either conquer Indochina or get the US to start shipping again. What were the US's demands for restarting the oil shipment, or was oil included in the boycott unintentionally or without fully thinking through the consequences. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743201299/ Is it that LBJ and GWB et. al. also lied to themselves? Is it that history has judges that the maneuvering of FDR was moral, given the outcome? That's another good question...do we justly punish LBJ and GWB for failure and reward FDR for success? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 12:41 AM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 --- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 12, 2004, at 8:44 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Yes, interpretation of historical events is at least partly objective. Given that I can see how some things that might be clear to me may not be to others. Or, alternately, why things you think are clear are very clearly wrong to others. Nothing about them specifically is a lesson from Nam, but I listed more than their names as lessons. I brought *them* up to point out that once-failed leadership was in charge of this second debacle, and that should have been a point of concern before the invasion of Iraq. It wasn't. Well, first, Cheney was part of the Nixon Adminstration for about a week, since he was on Gerald Ford's staff. I'm not sure Rumsfeld was _ever_ part of the Nixon Administration. I didn't realize it either, but he was. According to: http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html From 1969 to 1970, he served as Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and Assistant to the President. From 1971 to 1972, he was Counsellor to the President and Director of the Economic Stabilization Program. In 1973, he left Washington, DC, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium (1973-1974). I rather suspect that Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity or the Director of the Economic Stabilization Program had virtually nothing to do with running the Viet Nam war, though. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 08:27:45AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: From 1969 to 1970, he served as Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and Assistant to the President. From 1971 to 1972, he was Counsellor to the President and Director of the Economic Stabilization Program. In 1973, he left Washington, DC, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium (1973-1974). I rather suspect that Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity or the Director of the Economic Stabilization Program had virtually nothing to do with running the Viet Nam war, though. :-) Surely he was well aware of it, if he was qualified to be Ambassador to NATO. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 11:10 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 That wasn't the question. It wasn't? Nope. If you want, I can quote the exchange, but it was the when you referred to the lessons of Viet Nam. Gautam questioned your ability to determine something that has eluded a number of people who have been intensely studying the field. When a foreign policy graduate student at MIT, who received a degree in government from Harvard states that your point differs from historians and political scientists who are studying the period, then it is highly likely that you hold such an opinion. Hold such a what of an opinion? That you are much more capable than they are. Why else would something be obvious to you on casual observation yet elude professionals who have made the study of this and similar questions their life's work. I'd lay odds that he is reasonable familiar with the general scholarship in these fields. So, the question is how do you know that they are all wrong and you are right? First off, who precisely are these they all to which you refer? The folks that Gautam was referring to in his origional post. Since both poly sci. and history are scholarly fields, thought in these fields are represented by journal articles, books written by people who've established some credentials in the field through previous work, etc. One would expect a student at Harvard in government to have at least a general awareness of the work in that area. It was apparent to me that when Gautam talked about political scientists and historians, he was referring to people who worked in this area...so the they seemed obvious from the start. What is arrogant and belligerant about this? Personally, a sweeping statement that those bright folks who work in the field have missed the obvious which you clearly know, sounds arrogant and pompous to me. But, YMMV. I don't think you read my initial statement too closely, and I have to wonder if you saw Gautam's response. I thought you called my response arrogant, but that there was an underlying good question under it...not that you were comparing my version of the question to Gautam's. I just didn't catch what you intended, sorry. Here's how Gautam responded: Wow, Warren, political scientists, historians, and just about everyone else have been discussing Vietnam for thirty years, trying to figure out exactly what the lessons of Vietnam are - and you know for sure what we can learn from that war? Pray tell, do share them with us. Please show me which sentence in that note was not pompous and arrogant. There is no doubt that Gautam was rather sarcastic, but that's a bit different than arrogant. But, from my perspective, indicating that you know something that the scholars in the field concede that they don't know is rather arrogant. That has a reasonable liklyhood of being trueonly if: 1) One happened upon a brand new explaination or 2) One is several sigma brighter than the mean intelligence in the field. By contrast your query was quite reasonable. I tend to respond a lot more reasonably to questions that aren't asked in a belittling, condescending or otherwise snotty tone. I don't think I need to explain why. Sure, few people like negative tones. Sarcasm, while making make one's point should be used _very_ sparaingly IMHO. I can understand why you don't like it. But, you also led with your chin, thereboldly proclaiming certainty in an area in which scholars tend to put forth their ideas in more measured tones. Look, I also go boldly where angels fear to tread...because I debate foreign policy, government, ecconomics, with professionals. I get by pretty easily, all things considered, because work very hard at using measured tones when arguing with people in the field. To the earlier exchange, I think the question's pretty clear: How is it that so many people seem not to have learned from history? Before learning from history, it's worthwhile to understand just what the lessons of history are. The lessons we can learn from Viet Nam would be a facinating source of discussion. I think it is also a field where honest, reasonable people can still differ greatly. I don't know what question you think I was asking, but it doesn't seem to be whatever it was you were responding to. The question that Gautam raised How can Warren know what the lessons of Viet Nam are when they are still considered very much up in the air by the community of scholars. Well, if you read his posts, you would have some familiarity. How? By reading the side notes when he writes. Many of us do that from time to time. In particular, he mentioned it when DB was writing about how clear and obvious the right actions the lessons of history are. I know certain things about you from reading your side notes. For example, I'd guess you
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:58:03 -0600, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 11:10 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 That wasn't the question. It wasn't? Nope. If you want, I can quote the exchange, but it was the when you referred to the lessons of Viet Nam. Gautam questioned your ability to determine something that has eluded a number of people who have been intensely studying the field. When a foreign policy graduate student at MIT, who received a degree in government from Harvard states that your point differs from historians and political scientists who are studying the period, then it is highly likely that you hold such an opinion. extensive snip The lessons of Vietnam are far more universally accepted than Gautam believes. There is a small dispute fueled by those with an agenda that the Vietnam War does not reflect well on. Military lessons. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/etc/lessons.html Political lessons (from the left) http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/chomskyin1282.html The major article agreeing with Gautam (from 1985): http://tinyurl.com/5c427 (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19850301faessay8426/david-fromkin-james-chace/vietnam-the-retrospect-what-are-the-lessons-of-vietnam.html?mode=print) Those whose idealogy prevents them from learning the lessons of Vietnam are repeating the mistakes and making even larger ones in Iraq. Thanks to the internet we can get a citizen's eye view of the Iraq lessons as American policy converts a militant secular dictatorship to a police state ruled by corrupt religious parties and tribal sheikhs. http://tinyurl.com/59rrq Gary D. http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 2:16 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:58:03 -0600, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 11:10 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 That wasn't the question. It wasn't? Nope. If you want, I can quote the exchange, but it was the when you referred to the lessons of Viet Nam. Gautam questioned your ability to determine something that has eluded a number of people who have been intensely studying the field. When a foreign policy graduate student at MIT, who received a degree in government from Harvard states that your point differs from historians and political scientists who are studying the period, then it is highly likely that you hold such an opinion. extensive snip The lessons of Vietnam are far more universally accepted than Gautam believes. There is a small dispute fueled by those with an agenda that the Vietnam War does not reflect well on. Out of curiosity, how have you established this? I've heard all sorts of differning explainations for the lessons of Viet Nam, many of them being at odds. Two of your sites represent, to me, reasonable contributions to the dialogbut not definitive works. The third, Chomskyin, has been fairly well discredited by his own writings, in my eyes. He insisted, for a long time, that the the US killed far more than Pot Pol, for example...and that they were doing as best they could undoing the damage by the UShe stayed with this line long after the evidence to the contrary was overwhelming. Military lessons. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/etc/lessons.html Political lessons (from the left) http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/chomskyin1282.html The major article agreeing with Gautam (from 1985): http://tinyurl.com/5c427 (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19850301faessay8426/david-fromkin-james-chac e/vietnam-the-retrospect-what-are-the-lessons-of-vietnam.html?mode=print) Those whose idealogy prevents them from learning the lessons of Vietnam are repeating the mistakes and making even larger ones in Iraq. Thanks to the internet we can get a citizen's eye view of the Iraq lessons as American policy converts a militant secular dictatorship to a police state ruled by corrupt religious parties and tribal sheikhs. http://tinyurl.com/59rrq Gary D. http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:16:29 -0600, Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Those whose idealogy prevents them from learning the lessons of Vietnam are repeating the mistakes and making even larger ones in Iraq. Thanks to the internet we can get a citizen's eye view of the Iraq lessons as American policy converts a militant secular dictatorship to a police state ruled by corrupt religious parties and tribal sheikhs. http://tinyurl.com/59rrq Gary D. http://elemming2.blogspot.com In thinking about the above post I should mention I had read the favorite right Iraq bloggers Iraq the Model before concluding they were recieving funding from the large media relations office (i.e. CIA) in Baghdad. There reports are so out of line with what most Iraqis believe as revealed by our own polling and reflects an American neocon view instead of an independent voice. What has been so sad is reading Riverbend from the beginning and seeing an Iraqi family welcoming the Americans as finally freeing them from Saddam's cruel rule to becoming another family condemning America for what its policies bring. I see Juan Cole has come to a similar conclusion on Iraq the model partially based on their hosting company. . http://www.juancole.com/2004/12/manipulation-of-blogging-world-on-iraq.html Gary Denton -- #2 on google for liberal news http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 12:10 PM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 In a sense, one could say that Rumsfeld mis-applied a lesson from Viet Nam by overrunning the basic philosophy of the military in a way that McNamara didn't question Westmoreland's failed strategy. This wasn't written clearly, let me retry. In a sense, one could say that Rumsfeld misapplied a lesson from Viet Nam. He did overrule the military judgement, in a way that McNamara didn't. McNamara didn't question Westmoreland's failed strategy as much as he should have. In a real sense, Rumsfeld overcorrected for McNamara's mistake and made the oppose mistake. Dan M. One could certainly fault Kissinger and Laird for 'Nam, a lot of the war was on their watch, but I think that Nixon's team's actions needs to be understood in terms of their relatively complex set of goals. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
We could, after all, have just pounded Japan after Pearl Harbor and left Germany alone. I'm not sure how. Germany and Japan were at least loosely allied. Pounding Japan would have left us with the undealt-with problem of the Nazis. Please bear in mind that in World War II Germany declared war on the US first, not vice-versa. In his book, `Germany, Hitler and World War II', Gerhard L. Weinberg says that Hitler figured that Americans would be poor soldiers because the country was `mongrel', that he expected to conquor the US at some point (but not in any near future), and was waiting for a blue water navy on his side. (His program to build a blue water navy for the Third Reich kept getting delayed by higher priority actions, like invading Poland.) So after the Japanese attacked the US and appeared to have vicerated its navy, Hitler made sure that Germany declared war first. That means that the anti-German animus of a great many people in the Roosevelt administration was irrelevent. The US was in a German-American war whatever its leaders desired. Their then choices were to surrender, negotiate, or win. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
--- Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The lessons of Vietnam are far more universally accepted than Gautam believes. There is a small dispute fueled by those with an agenda that the Vietnam War does not reflect well on. Nonsense. In my Sources of American Foreign Policy course, for example, we had two directly opposite articles assigned on the lessons of Vietnam. In no sense are they universally agreed on. Maybe if you ignore half the debate on the topic, sure, otherwise, no way. They could be: Don't fight insurgents Don't try to intervene in civil wars Don't fight in Asia Don't fight Communists On the other hand, they could be: Don't fight wars with one hand tied behind your back Pursue insurgents to their sources of support, don't just fight them in theatre Don't trust the left to support American foreign policy or pursue the interests of the United States I would point out that the vast majority of the American military establishment would agree with every one of the second group of points. Most people in the humanities would agree with those in the first. People in the social sciences (of which political science is one) would say that both are bullshit. Since I'm a political scientist, I go with that option. But to argue that there's any sort of consensus on any but a few points is absurd. The fact that you think an article by Chomsky is in some way definitive pretty much speaks for itself. Furthermore, your ability to say which article agrees with me is pretty remarkable. My point was that the lessons are debatable. From that you are able to extrapolate what I think the lessons are? That's impressive. Probably the two best short pieces on the lessons of Vietnam in a broader diplomatic sense are: Sol W. Sanders William Henderson, The Consequences of 'Vietnam', Orbis, vol. 21, no. 1 (Spring 1977), pp. 61-76 A short but excellent article making the case (quite convincingly, actually) that the hawks were right, and the loss of the Vietnam War did have serious and deleterious consequences. On the other side, there's: Clark Clifford with Richard Holbrooke, Counsel to the President (NY: Random House, 1991), pp. 612-614. The best diplomatic history of the war is _America's Longest War_ by Herring, which has a solid, middle-of-the-road perspective. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Dec 12, 2004, at 11:41 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Nothing about them specifically is a lesson from Nam, but I listed more than their names as lessons. I brought *them* up to point out that once-failed leadership was in charge of this second debacle, and that should have been a point of concern before the invasion of Iraq. It wasn't. Well, first, Cheney was part of the Nixon Adminstration for about a week, since he was on Gerald Ford's staff. Sorry, but that's not entirely correct. He was on Ford's staff, yes, but he started at the WH in 1969: http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/vpbio.html Excerpt: His career in public service began in 1969 when he joined the Nixon Administration, serving in a number of positions at the Cost of Living Council, at the Office of Economic Opportunity, and within the White House. I'm not sure Rumsfeld was _ever_ part of the Nixon Administration. As Dan pointed out, that's not correct either. I'm glad he did the digging. It surely hurt less coming from him than it would have from me. Both men were on the Nixon administration and both men knew each other. IIRC it was Rumsfeld who recommended Cheney initially in '69. He was, again, Ford's SecDef. Beyond that, however, Nixon got us _out_ of Vietnam. You keep talking about once-failed leadership, but _this doesn't make any sense_. Unless you want to point out how Cheney and Rumsfeld failed during Vietnam - and I'm pretty sure you can't - it's just a nonsense statement. For starters, you need to acquire a thesaurus and look up synonyms for nonsense. You're far too young to sound so cantankerous. Second, since Cheney and Rummy were present while the history that we refer to was the present day, it's hardly nonsense to assert that they were (1) closer to the action in the WH than most people alive at the time; and (2) apparently didn't learn very much from watching the Nam fiasco self-destruct. Viet Nam was about trying to resist or overthrow the Communist government of North Viet Nam. That's conquest. (Show me any war, by the way, that is not about conquest.) South Viet Nam as an independent country with at least two political factions at odds within it. And it was in danger of not being independent much longer. I'm sorry, this is just nonsense. If Vietnam was about overthrowing the government of North Vietnam, _we would have invaded North Vietnam_. That might even have been a good idea - Vietnam might be a free state today if we had. Whether it was a good idea or not, though, we _didn't do it_ because that _wasn't our goal_. So ... what, thousands of troops and millions of dollars committed over years for a goal that was not the overthrow of the N. Viet Nam government? Who's uttering the nonsense now? By your standard, I point out that _World War 2_ was about nothing but conquest, as it too was about liberating the people of the natoins of Europe and Asia. All wars are about conquest. I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of your point here. Well, they're usually about conquest _by one side_. The side that's trying to prevent itself from being conquered is not usually described as fighting for conquest. I'm not sure what spin doctors would put it that way; whether one is on the offensive or defensive is immaterial. If one is not engaged in war with the sole purpose in mind of conquering one's enemy, one is doomed to lose. My point was that if you believe what you write, then you oppose the American involvement in the Second World War as well. After all all wars are about conquest. I don't know how you draw a line from my statement of a fact to my feelings about the ethical validity of US involvement of WWII. That's like saying that if I assert gravity is a universally-attractive force, I must find it unethical that people perform stunts on the trapeze. Sure, there's a relationship, but it's tenuous and entirely spurious. Maybe. Certainly we were a thorn in their side. But they would have been foolish to overlook us; they would eventually have got tired of having Europe, Asia and Africa all to themselves, don't you think? I don't know. My point is that it was a good thing we got involved - because we weren't fighting to conquer anybody, any more than we were in Vietnam. Yes we were. We were fighting to conquer the Nazis, the Fascists and the yellow menace. It's only you who is making the nonsensical statement of claiming that we _were_ trying to conquer people in Vietnam. Well, by the standards you have suggested, if we were conquering people in Vietnam, we were doing it in the Second World War as well. That is precisely what we were doing. Most historians of the Cold War think that the American reaction was _defensive_ - that's why our strategy was called Containment. You've heard of it? We were trying to stop them from conquering us. I've not only heard of it; I was around for part of it. Then, since the lessons of history are immediately apparent to you, Warren, tell me how you
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Dec 13, 2004, at 11:58 AM, Dan Minette wrote: When a foreign policy graduate student at MIT, who received a degree in government from Harvard states that your point differs from historians and political scientists who are studying the period, then it is highly likely that you hold such an opinion. Hold such a what of an opinion? That you are much more capable than they are. Ah. I don't believe I ever claimed I was much more capable than they were to understand anything. That doesn't mean my insight is incorrect, though. First off, who precisely are these they all to which you refer? The folks that Gautam was referring to in his origional post. These folks have not been listed. This is a little like a journalist saying sources claim that... when not naming who the sources are. It's just not enough. It's not a citation. It's barely even hearsay. By contrast your query was quite reasonable. I tend to respond a lot more reasonably to questions that aren't asked in a belittling, condescending or otherwise snotty tone. I don't think I need to explain why. Sure, few people like negative tones. Sarcasm, while making make one's point should be used _very_ sparaingly IMHO. I can understand why you don't like it. But, you also led with your chin, thereboldly proclaiming certainty in an area in which scholars tend to put forth their ideas in more measured tones. Boldly proclaiming certainty? Oh really? I thought all I did was suggest that the current admin had to be fairly dim not to have learned from history. To the earlier exchange, I think the question's pretty clear: How is it that so many people seem not to have learned from history? Before learning from history, it's worthwhile to understand just what the lessons of history are. Um, that *is* learning from history. What you basically just said is that in order to learn from history you have to learn from history. I won't disagree with the tautology, but as arguments go it's not the best. ;) The lessons we can learn from Viet Nam would be a facinating source of discussion. I think it is also a field where honest, reasonable people can still differ greatly. I'll agree on both points. However, I think there are probably some points that are pretty clearly indisputable. I thought I did a pretty good job, way back when, of listing what those points were. Well, if you read his posts, you would have some familiarity. How? By reading the side notes when he writes. Many of us do that from time to time. In particular, he mentioned it when DB was writing about how clear and obvious the right actions the lessons of history are. I know certain things about you from reading your side notes. For example, I'd guess you don't teach electrical engineering at your college. :-) That's true. It's actually origami as meditation. On a more serious tack, the reading of sidenotes about a person would suggest I read everything a given individual posts, and I don't. I skim, but if it looks like a noteful of vitriol and bombast I tend to move on rather quickly. (Contrarily if the subject is not one of interest to me in some other way, I again won't read it.) I believe it's unreasonable in the extreme to expect me to know even partial bios about anyone I've never met in person. To have knowledge of the academic background of a not-every-day poster in a forum where diverse topics are brought up and there's often more pushed out than can easily be taken in is more than I believe I can be fairly expected to do. Are you arguing that there is no such thing as scholarship in history, foreign affairs, and political science? Course not. Where did I say I was? Well, you stated, on several occasions, that your opionon was right and those folks who worked in the area clearly missed the lessons. I never said any such thing. I said I think there are some lessons that are more or less indisputable. That's quite different from what you claim I said. If scholarship does exist, on what basis would you say that? Why is your casual observation right, and their scholarship wrong? What casual observation? I took plenty of history classes over the years, even though it was not in my major or minor lines of study; and I have paid attention to it and to social changes over the years partly out of hobbyist interest and partly because such areas are of interest to me as a writer. As has been pointed out, there is not a consensus on many elements of history. There are, however, some things that are not really up for rational dispute. Underestimating one's enemy is foolish; that's not arguable. Viet Nam was one example of what happens when one's enemy is underestimated. That's not in dispute either. I don't think it's my assertion that triggered anyone's objections; I think what hit a nerve was the next logical conclusion: That the current administration is incompetent at best, and can and should be held directly responsible for the disaster in
Re: God Is With Us L3
Warren Ockrassa wrote: Well, they're usually about conquest _by one side_. The side that's trying to prevent itself from being conquered is not usually described as fighting for conquest. I'm not sure what spin doctors would put it that way; whether one is on the offensive or defensive is immaterial. If one is not engaged in war with the sole purpose in mind of conquering one's enemy, one is doomed to lose. Having watched this debate rage backwards and forwards, this one response probably sums up the whole topic - Iraq, lessons of the Vietnam war, culpability of the politicians involved in both, etc. To be fair, the US did spend most of its time just securing the south against invasion, not trying to overwhelm the north, so you're both right. Cheers Russell C. --- This email (including any attachments) is confidential and copyright. The School makes no warranty about the content of this email. Unless expressly stated, this email does not bind the School and does not necessarily constitute the opinion of the School. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify the sender. --- GWAVAsig ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
--- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Warren asked (Yahoo truncated it) what they are teaching me in Poli. Sci. courses. The obvious answer is history and english, among other things. You would profit from taking them, Warren. For starters, you are doomed to lose if you don't fight a war of conquest? Really? So when the Israelis fought the 1967 and 1973 wars they were trying to conquer Syria, Egypt, and Jordan? Funny how most people think they won. The US was trying to conquer Iraq in 1991? We won that one pretty decisively. The US was trying to conquer Serbia in 1998? Hmm, I'm pretty sure we won that one. This is barely worth responding to, Warren. Conquest is when you try to take over another country. If you're not trying to conquer another country, you can win a war without doing it. That's the whole point of fighting limited wars. If you can't get basic, on the level of 2+2 things about history right, you might try not being snotty about pretty sophisticated questions. You might even try learning about them, instead of lecturing on them. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
You, sir, are free to autocopulate at a time and place of your choosing. I will not bandy words further with you. On Dec 13, 2004, at 9:37 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Warren asked (Yahoo truncated it) what they are teaching me in Poli. Sci. courses. The obvious answer is history and english, among other things. You would profit from taking them, Warren. For starters, you are doomed to lose if you don't fight a war of conquest? Really? So when the Israelis fought the 1967 and 1973 wars they were trying to conquer Syria, Egypt, and Jordan? Funny how most people think they won. The US was trying to conquer Iraq in 1991? We won that one pretty decisively. The US was trying to conquer Serbia in 1998? Hmm, I'm pretty sure we won that one. This is barely worth responding to, Warren. Conquest is when you try to take over another country. If you're not trying to conquer another country, you can win a war without doing it. That's the whole point of fighting limited wars. If you can't get basic, on the level of 2+2 things about history right, you might try not being snotty about pretty sophisticated questions. You might even try learning about them, instead of lecturing on them. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
At 09:26 PM 12/10/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: The one following that is When will Congress impeach Bush? Never until the people in this country wake up to the fact that they're getting reamed. Which bears a remarkable similarity to right-wingers who similarly waited for the American people to wake up to Clinton's malfeasances. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
South Vietnam wasn't an independent country? No, under American law, it was not. Nor was North Vietnam. The US considered South Vietnam a `protocol state' meaning that its president would be given honors as if he were president of an independent country. However, the US could and did turn over prisoners to the South Vietnamese even though US commanders believed that the prisoners would not be treated according to the Geneva Conventions that would apply if the country were independent. That is because the war within North and South Vietnam was considered legally by the US to be a civil war. At the time, this was a very important legal consideration, as important as the legality, under mandatory UN resolutions, of the current US fight with Iraq. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
In both cases the US was the occupying force, in both cases the US met much heavier resistance than anticipated, and in both cases the US was caught off guard. Well, among other things, because your first statement is false and your third statement is questionable. As far as I know, many pro-Vietnamese nationalists did see the US as the successors to the French, which is to say, as an occupying force. In any event enough Vietnamese (in both the North and the South) thought badly of the US to organize the supply of armies and to inspire or coerce others to enter those armies. (Obviously, most people were simply intimidated by one side or the other. Incidentally, I remember that a stated US reason for the war was to protect Seattle and San Francisco from invasion by Russian or Chinese Reds.) Also, it is true that the US met heavier resistance than anticipated. I remember quite vividly calculating in 1962 or 1963 that the US would need several hundred thousand troops to defeat an enemy of 20,000. (The rule of thumb was that 10 conventional soldiers would be required to defeat 1 guerilla. My unstated presumption was that the pro-American South Vietnamese soldiers would be little use, possibly because they were already being defeated.) This was at a time when the US government was saying it would require far fewer soldiers. Possibly people in the US government knew that more soldiers would be needed; in that case, they did not anticipate the resistance to lying. I am sure they were caught off guard by the `credibility gap'. (Bear in mind this was a war. In war, it is important to anticipate or deal with rapidly every kind of resistance, whether among the enemy or among potential supporters. A failure to deal with rapidly or anticipate resistance to a technique of war, lying, is as dangerous as failure to anticipate resistance to soldiers.) As for catching the US government off guard: I remember being told there was `a light at the end of the tunnel' (and it was not meant as the later joke, `the light is the headlamp of the oncoming train'). I really do not think President Johnson or Defense Secretary McNamara expected their anti-Soviet action to be so difficult. I also do not think that in 1968 to-be-elected President Nixon thought the US would eventually lose. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Dec 12, 2004, at 9:32 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] I honestly don't know why the lessons of history manage to go unlearned, Dan. I only know that they do. That wasn't the question. It wasn't? When a foreign policy graduate student at MIT, who received a degree in government from Harvard states that your point differs from historians and political scientists who are studying the period, then it is highly likely that you hold such an opinion. Hold such a what of an opinion? I'd lay odds that he is reasonable familiar with the general scholarship in these fields. So, the question is how do you know that they are all wrong and you are right? First off, who precisely are these they all to which you refer? What is arrogant and belligerant about this? Personally, a sweeping statement that those bright folks who work in the field have missed the obvious which you clearly know, sounds arrogant and pompous to me. But, YMMV. I don't think you read my initial statement too closely, and I have to wonder if you saw Gautam's response. == Here's what Damon said: Which reinforces my contention that the current administration has not learned from Vietnam. Here's what I said: Which is even more disgusting, since half of them were AROUND when Viet Nam was taking place. How pig-stupid ass-backwards do you have to be to not even recall the lessons of history you've lived through? == Here's how Gautam responded: Wow, Warren, political scientists, historians, and just about everyone else have been discussing Vietnam for thirty years, trying to figure out exactly what the lessons of Vietnam are - and you know for sure what we can learn from that war? Pray tell, do share them with us. == Please show me which sentence in that note was not pompous and arrogant. By contrast your query was quite reasonable. I tend to respond a lot more reasonably to questions that aren't asked in a belittling, condescending or otherwise snotty tone. I don't think I need to explain why. To the earlier exchange, I think the question's pretty clear: How is it that so many people seem not to have learned from history? I don't know what question you think I was asking, but it doesn't seem to be whatever it was you were responding to. Given that I don't know any of Gautam's academic background, I'm not sure what degree he might hold nor what significance it carries in this discussion. Well, if you read his posts, you would have some familiarity. How? Is there a resume posted somewhere? Do listers put CVs online so they can be read from time to time? Or are we simply supposed to guess? I'm sorry but I don't buy it. I can't know someone's credentials if they're not available to me. This is a little too much like ignorance of the law is no excuse. It's just not my responsibility to research Gautam's academic credentials. Are you arguing that there is no such thing as scholarship in history, foreign affairs, and political science? Course not. Where did I say I was? I know, for example, that he had Stanley Hoffmann as his senior thesis advisor and has Dr. Hoffmann's professional respect. Gee, since my Psychic Friends TeleHelmet is in the shop this week, I guess I have to cry mea culpa for not knowing that particular datum. How shocking, utterly shocking of me to overlook this blatantly obvious piece of information. And going through your points, I'm not sure how many of them could possibly be lessons from Viet Nam. For example, how could one call Robert McNamara an old war dog? I didn't, and wasn't referring to him anyway. I referred specifically to Rummy and Cheney. Then what in the world was the lesson that should have been learned from Viet Nam. It would seem you chose to overlook the other items I listed. And it would seem you chose to overlook the context I later gave for mentioning Rummy and Cheney. This, Dan, is why I don't particularly have a lot of patience sometimes when discussing things with you. I have to restate things I said in earlier posts on the same thread. That gets frustrating. Both Nam and Iraq are about nothing but conquest. 30 years ago it was about overthrowing Communism; now it's about a war on terror; but the subtests of BOTH conflicts were liberating the people of those nations, whether they wanted to be liberated or not. What Communist government was overthrown in South Viet Nam? None. That's kind of the point, man. The propaganda for Nam was domino theory -- and the effects were nil. All that action, and to what end? I don't assume anyone's an idiot without some evidence to support the determination. I'm aware that others who came before me were not stupid. That's why it's utterly baffling to me that we are getting some serious national deja vu out of Iraq now. Because there is a general tendency to see any war in terms of the war of one's formative year and see parallels that do not bear up under scholarship. I have no conscious recollection of Viet
Re: God Is With Us L3
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 12:02 AM Subject: Re: God Is With Us L3 On Dec 11, 2004, at 10:33 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let's see. For starters, don't let old hawks like Rummy and Cheney grab the reins. Um, don't assume that US forces will be welcomed by the natives. Never assume you've got a situation in hand before you've completely controlled a territory. Don't EVER assume the entire world wants to be just like the US. Never try to mix conquest with parsimony. That's a start, I think. I find it surprising you've overlooked the above; to me it's glaringly obvious. But, the question is why it is glaringly obvious to you and not the professionals who are working in the fields of political science and history. Wow, when you remove the arrogance, belligerence, fatuousness and pomposity, the question suddenly becomes reasonable. I honestly don't know why the lessons of history manage to go unlearned, Dan. I only know that they do. That wasn't the question. When a foreign policy graduate student at MIT, who received a degree in government from Harvard states that your point differs from historians and political scientists who are studying the period, then it is highly likely that you hold such an opinion. I'd lay odds that he is reasonable familiar with the general scholarship in these fields. So, the question is how do you know that they are all wrong and you are right? What is arrogant and belligerant about this? Personally, a sweeping statement that those bright folks who work in the field have missed the obvious which you clearly know, sounds arrogant and pompous to me. But, YMMV. Given that I don't know any of Gautam's academic background, I'm not sure what degree he might hold nor what significance it carries in this discussion. Well, if you read his posts, you would have some familiarity. Are you arguing that there is no such thing as scholarship in history, foreign affairs, and political science? I know, for example, that he had Stanley Hoffmann as his senior thesis advisor and has Dr. Hoffmann's professional respect. Given Dr. Hoffmann's and Gautam's political leanings, that should indicate something. (a quick google of Stanley Hoffmann should document this...e.g. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17470). At the very least, it should indicate that he has at least a passing acquaintance with the field. And going through your points, I'm not sure how many of them could possibly be lessons from Viet Nam. For example, how could one call Robert McNamara an old war dog? I didn't, and wasn't referring to him anyway. I referred specifically to Rummy and Cheney. Then what in the world was the lesson that should have been learned from Viet Nam. We had a young member of The Best and the Brightest mismanage the Viet Nam war. How does that teach us that we shouldn't let old hawks run the war? He was 44 when he took the job of secretary of Defense, having spent his working life as a professional manager. The context of Viet Nam must be the proxy war with the Soviet Union, and the view that they were trying to win through the sponsorship of wars of national liberation. So, I cannot see why you seem to assume that it was about conquest. Both Nam and Iraq are about nothing but conquest. 30 years ago it was about overthrowing Communism; now it's about a war on terror; but the subtests of BOTH conflicts were liberating the people of those nations, whether they wanted to be liberated or not. What Communist government was overthrown in South Viet Nam? We were not fighting to overthrow Ho Chi Min in the North. With all due respect, your comment is just plain fase. In both cases the US was the occupying force, in both cases the US met much heavier resistance than anticipated, and in both cases the US was caught off guard. I don't know why holders of advanced degrees can't see the parallels. They seem pretty plain to me. Becaue they know that the Viet Nam war was not one of liberation? That they realized that we were there at the invitation of the South Vietnamese government, first as advisors and then as fighters? That the war was between the US and N. Vietnamese troops, not Viet Cong, after Tet? But Dan, for every expert you can mention who was caught flatfooted by Iraq, I'm pretty sure I can find another in the same field who was predicting disaster from the beginning. For instance, we had US armed forces commanders predicting *precisely* the series of events we're seeing now, and these men were ostensibly students of military history to a depth at least as great as anyone you can cite. Right, but they didn't say what you are saying. The one's I saw were quoting the Powell Doctrine, which I fully agree with. If you were to argue that the Powell Doctrine
Re: God Is With Us L3
On Dec 12, 2004, at 8:44 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] I honestly don't know why the lessons of history manage to go unlearned, Dan. I only know that they do. Well, you think that _your_ lessons of history go unlearned. Other people (people who, among other things, _know_ a lot more of the history) might think that those lessons are very different, or that they don't apply in this situation. This, apart from the needless snide aside (you have no way of judging how much of any history I might know), is a good point. If you could have managed to state it without trying to turn it into a personal jab, it would have been well-done. Yes, interpretation of historical events is at least partly objective. Given that I can see how some things that might be clear to me may not be to others. I referred specifically to Rummy and Cheney. Well then, how, exactly is anything about them a lesson from Vietnam? Nothing about them specifically is a lesson from Nam, but I listed more than their names as lessons. I brought *them* up to point out that once-failed leadership was in charge of this second debacle, and that should have been a point of concern before the invasion of Iraq. It wasn't. I wasn't comparing McNamara to them; rather, I was indicating that their hawkish tendencies and failures in previous administrations should dang well have been warnings not to employ them any more. But it seems that, in every level of government employment, nothing succeeds like failure. What failures in previous Administrations, precisely? The failures in Nixon's administration. What other administration was involved in Nam and also had Cheney and Rumsfeld as participants? Both Nam and Iraq are about nothing but conquest. 30 years ago it was about overthrowing Communism; now it's about a war on terror; but the subtests of BOTH conflicts were liberating the people of those nations, whether they wanted to be liberated or not. Vietnam was about nothing but conquest? Really? South Vietnam wasn't an independent country? Viet Nam was about trying to resist or overthrow the Communist government of North Viet Nam. That's conquest. (Show me any war, by the way, that is not about conquest.) South Viet Nam as an independent country with at least two political factions at odds within it. And it was in danger of not being independent much longer. By your standard, I point out that _World War 2_ was about nothing but conquest, as it too was about liberating the people of the natoins of Europe and Asia. All wars are about conquest. I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of your point here. We could, after all, have just pounded Japan after Pearl Harbor and left Germany alone. I'm not sure how. Germany and Japan were at least loosely allied. Pounding Japan would have left us with the undealt-with problem of the Nazis. For that matter, Japan would never have attacked us had we not gone to great efforts to protect China from Japanese conquest. Maybe. Certainly we were a thorn in their side. But they would have been foolish to overlook us; they would eventually have got tired of having Europe, Asia and Africa all to themselves, don't you think? We kind of assumed that they wanted to be liberated from the Nazis, and we were right. They being the European nations that were invaded by the Nazis? Yes. Most historians of the Cold War think that the American reaction was _defensive_ - that's why our strategy was called Containment. You've heard of it? We were trying to stop them from conquering us. I've not only heard of it; I was around for part of it. In both cases the US was the occupying force, in both cases the US met much heavier resistance than anticipated, and in both cases the US was caught off guard. I don't know why holders of advanced degrees can't see the parallels. They seem pretty plain to me. Well, among other things, because your first statement is false and your third statement is questionable. No, and no, respectively. The VC saw the US as an occupier, just like insurgents in Iraq see the US as an occupier now. The US was obviously caught flatfooted by the quantity and nature of guerilla resistance in Nam, just as it is with Iraq. I get true and unquestionable, sorry. How exactly were we caught off guard? By the way the war dragged on and on in the face of resistance that was much heavier than expected? Or by the way US forces ultimately had to retreat and let Saigon fall? Are you saying those events are evidence that the US was *not* caught off guard? Or were you referring to Iraq -- and the way resistance was much heavier than etc. etc.? McNamara was blitheringly incompetent, surely, but he wasn't _surprised_. So he expected to lose to inferior forces? Interesting. In that case he wasn't just incompetent. But Dan, for every expert you can mention who was caught flatfooted by Iraq, I'm pretty sure I can find another in the same field who was predicting
Re: God Is With Us L3
--- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 12, 2004, at 8:44 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Yes, interpretation of historical events is at least partly objective. Given that I can see how some things that might be clear to me may not be to others. Or, alternately, why things you think are clear are very clearly wrong to others. Nothing about them specifically is a lesson from Nam, but I listed more than their names as lessons. I brought *them* up to point out that once-failed leadership was in charge of this second debacle, and that should have been a point of concern before the invasion of Iraq. It wasn't. Well, first, Cheney was part of the Nixon Adminstration for about a week, since he was on Gerald Ford's staff. I'm not sure Rumsfeld was _ever_ part of the Nixon Administration. He was, again, Ford's SecDef. Beyond that, however, Nixon got us _out_ of Vietnam. You keep talking about once-failed leadership, but _this doesn't make any sense_. Unless you want to point out how Cheney and Rumsfeld failed during Vietnam - and I'm pretty sure you can't - it's just a nonsense statement. Viet Nam was about trying to resist or overthrow the Communist government of North Viet Nam. That's conquest. (Show me any war, by the way, that is not about conquest.) South Viet Nam as an independent country with at least two political factions at odds within it. And it was in danger of not being independent much longer. I'm sorry, this is just nonsense. If Vietnam was about overthrowing the government of North Vietnam, _we would have invaded North Vietnam_. That might even have been a good idea - Vietnam might be a free state today if we had. Whether it was a good idea or not, though, we _didn't do it_ because that _wasn't our goal_. By your standard, I point out that _World War 2_ was about nothing but conquest, as it too was about liberating the people of the natoins of Europe and Asia. All wars are about conquest. I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of your point here. Well, they're usually about conquest _by one side_. The side that's trying to prevent itself from being conquered is not usually described as fighting for conquest. My point was that if you believe what you write, then you oppose the American involvement in the Second World War as well. After all all wars are about conquest. I'm not sure how. Germany and Japan were at least loosely allied. Pounding Japan would have left us with the undealt-with problem of the Nazis. So what? They were all the way over there in Europe. Maybe. Certainly we were a thorn in their side. But they would have been foolish to overlook us; they would eventually have got tired of having Europe, Asia and Africa all to themselves, don't you think? I don't know. My point is that it was a good thing we got involved - because we weren't fighting to conquer anybody, any more than we were in Vietnam. It's only you who is making the nonsensical statement of claiming that we _were_ trying to conquer people in Vietnam. Well, by the standards you have suggested, if we were conquering people in Vietnam, we were doing it in the Second World War as well. Most historians of the Cold War think that the American reaction was _defensive_ - that's why our strategy was called Containment. You've heard of it? We were trying to stop them from conquering us. I've not only heard of it; I was around for part of it. Then, since the lessons of history are immediately apparent to you, Warren, tell me how you managed to learn from containment that we were trying to conquer the Communist countries. Words have meanings - that is, actual meanings, not just whatever you want them to mean at this particular moment in time. Conquest has a meaning. There isn't any definition of conquest in which we were trying to conquer North Vietnam - or, for that matter, any part of Vietnam. It does not exist. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
