News The Grand Deception: 'Kerry, War Hero,' Is a Myth

[megashawn]

so you have nothing to add to the discussion
nothing to refute
no point to make
and no stance on the issue

Why comment at all?

 

[Hurkyl]

Why comment at all?

If the question was worth asking, then is it not worth answering?

 

[megashawn]

uhm, ok, that makes no sense.

All I'm trying to say is before you go around preaching the gospel, try to make sure you examined the whole story, not just the parts you agree with.

have a good night.

 

[kat]

I gave you a link once before Kat. And to think I have sent people to this forum, referencing things you've posted.

But this is sad. I've given you a link, in a different thread about this same, exact subject. I will now copy and paste portions of this link, since it seems your clicking finger has a rather selective ability.

I would think that past experience in debating issues with me (on the religious forum in particular) you would have at least realized that I try to educate myself thoroughly on any subject I'm interested in. I've also, numerous times stated that I am unsure of something I've posted If I didn't feel that I've researched enough to make an educated statement about it. So, I think you can save the uppity holier then though speachisms.
On your snopes link,... I had checked snopes in regards to this subject...BEFORE it was ever discussed on this forum and certainly before you posted your link. The first time I checked it I noticed it had not been updated since February, so I gave it the benefit of doubt. After you posted your link, I did return to Snopes again and noticed it had been updated but little content had been changed. It was still erroneous and misleading. It still had used only Kerry biased sources which are already known to have faulty/conflicting statements and information within them.
So, what's sad is that YOU have not done anywhere near the research I have on this subject (of this I am ABSOLUTELY sure unless you have spent hours pouring over records and Kerry's own ON THE RECORD statements, muddled through DU, KOS, along with right wing sites, Naval records, old newspaper articles etc. etc.).
As for the rest of your post, I will gladly go over it...line by line through the rest of the week. I cannot tonight as I'm up in less then 5 hours and have a long drive ahead of me.
So, in the meantime...maybe you should get your debate materials together...

 

[JohnDubYa]

megashawn, did John Kerry spend Christmas Eve in Cambodia? I want to see if he belongs on the list of Swift Boat Liars.

 

[plover]

1) If Kerry had never received a single medal for his service and injuries, what would you have to pick on?

I imagine exactly the same thing as if Kerry hadn't made his service a central part of his campaign.

I am saying that questioning Kerry's record is more than fair game, since he raised it himself; I think it was rather disingenious of Megashawn to criticize Kat for doing so.

I don't have a real opinion either way, though I think those defending Kerry have put forth arguments of lesser quality. (Though not necessarily less factual value)

I only said what I had to say; my post was not intended to address Megashawn's post in its entirety.

I'm still puzzled. By "not intended to address Megashawn's post in its entirety", are you saying that the original comment was only applicable to megashawn's question 1?

But you also maintain that the comment was intended to imply that megashawn was disingenuous, at least as regards his question 1. However, the question, as I read it, is intended to mean: Suppose Kerry had never received any medals, and therefore everything that the Swift Boat people are saying about them would not exist, how then would you attack Kerry's record? In other words, it would remain true that Kerry had volunteered for duty in Vietnam. How is this disingenuous in the sense you say?

My impression is that your comments are usually sensible, and that you usually take pains to remain more or less neutral. I asked about the original comment you made because I couldn't come up with a reading that seemed 'in character'. Your further comments have appeared inconsistent and confusing to me. My guess is the most likely reason for this is that we're talking past each other somehow. Or is there something else I'm missing here?

 

[Hurkyl]

Over the years, I seem to have acquired a knack for saying a lot less than people think.


I read Megashawn as asserting Kerry's war record isn't really a valid subject of debate, and one of his reasons for that assertion is that it is an "irrelevant question".

One of my bigger pet peeves is when one side raises a topic, the other side addresses the topic, and then the first side both holds their ground and suggests that the topic isn't worth addressing... that is what prompted me to respond rather than continue to lurk as I have been doing.

My rationale, of course, is that if the topic wasn't worth addressing, then the first side shouldn't have brought it up in the first place, and shouldn't continue arguing on the topic.


As for the quoted question, I had read it as an implication that Kat doesn't have anything "relevant" to say, because she's chasing this irrelevant topic. I had hoped my answer would both suggest why (I think) it's a valid topic, and that Kat's pursuit is not an indicator that there's nothing else for her to attack. (Of course, I don't mean to suggest there is something else for her to attack either)

 

[russ_watters]

That's my opinion as well, Hurkyl. I don't feel that strongy either way about Kerry's war record (what he did after is another story), but Kerry's the one who made it the centerpiece of his campaign. He gambled that it would help and he lost.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Right wingers keep saying that Kerry made his Viet Nam service the centerpiece of his campaign, but I honestly never saw him do it. He responded to the Swift Boats smear, but I never saw that he discussed his service before that. Of course various left wing bloggers were happy to contrast his service with whatever you want to call what Bush did in the same time frame. But none of that AFAICR came from the Kerry campaign.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Did you listen to his convention speech?

If it isn't about his war record, then what issue is he actually campaigning on? He won't even mention his Senate voting record. He can't make up his mind about the war in Iraq.

And what was "Operation Fortunate Son" all about?

 

[selfAdjoint]

He is perfectly clear on Iraq. He supported the war, and still supports the ouster of Saddam. He says the Bush admministration has made a hash of the occupation and is in dreamland when they say they have brought or are about to bring democracy to Iraq. What's not to understand? What for that matter is not to like?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Who said "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."?

Say what you want, but that does not sound like someone who supports the war. And it isn't the type of rhetoric that produces confident troops.

 

[russ_watters]

Right wingers keep saying that Kerry made his Viet Nam service the centerpiece of his campaign, but I honestly never saw him do it.

Have you ever heard him speak? He's still using it as the centerpiece of his campaign. He talks about it in almost every speech. He mentioned it just today when he compared the war in Iraq with the war in Vietnam when responding to the Iraqi PM's speech in Congress. His first words on the podium at the DNC were "reporting for duty." His bio on his website still has an intro paragraph followed by one paragraph about his birth/parents (with an opening sentence that paraphrases the "reporting for duty" thing), then two paragraphs about vietnam, followed by one paragraph about everything since, followed by the conclusion. Is Vietnam twice as important as everything he's done since?

He is perfectly clear on Iraq. He supported the war, and still supports the ouster of Saddam. He says the Bush admministration has made a hash of the occupation and is in dreamland when they say they have brought or are about to bring democracy to Iraq. What's not to understand? What for that matter is not to like?

I can't remember - was he the one who spoke against it, then voted for it or spoke for it then voted against it?

 

[plover]

It's fair to say that the Democratic Convention used Kerry's war record as an important theme, but equating the convention with Kerry's entire campaign is hardly a meaningful framework.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Kerry has two themes:

1. I'm a hero.

2. I disagree with everything Bush does. (And if I agreed with it in the past, then I don't anymore.)

So let me ask you a question, plover. Why isn't Kerry pounding his Senate voting record to the country? Why isn't he relying on all the great things he did as a Senator? Why isn't he using his Senate voting record to show what kind of leader he is going to be for the country?

 

[plover]

So let me ask you a question, plover. Why isn't Kerry pounding his Senate voting record to the country? Why isn't he relying on all the great things he did as a Senator? Why isn't he using his Senate voting record to show what kind of leader he is going to be for the country?

What's your point? That you think Kerry is a crappy Senator in some fashion that goes beyond supporting positions you disagree with? If you have a specific problem with his record, why not say what it is? (Though if it's only based on misinterpretations of some of Kerry's more awkwardly worded statements, I don't see why I should respond. And anyway I'm no great defender of Kerry per se, I just find Bush et al. lethally incompetent and deluded.)

The last presidential candidate whose main record was in the Senate was Bob Dole. Here's a link to Dole's '96 convention speech. I count one and (possibly) a half mentions of his Senate record. (And I see nothing in the speech that compares as an indication of character to the fact that Kerry chose to serve in Vietnam.) Was Dole's Senate record an embarrassment? If not, why wasn't he talking about it?

 

[Integral]

2. I disagree with everything Bush does. (And if I agreed with it in the past, then I don't anymore.)

What more does he need to say? I am sold!

 

[vanesch]

What more does he need to say? I am sold!

Indeed, I haven't seen a worse president than Bush Jr. The reason is not that he has different political views than mine, or that he made mistakes ; all that can happen. The reason is that he's a liar, in that he knew the truth, and, in order to mislead his friends, he made up stories, and killed thousands of people. The Iraq war has killed more people than Ben Laden and Sadam together. The funny thing is that he has no problem continuing to lie even when the evidence is put in his face (and moreover it works!). I think he has abused severely of true friendship such as the one of Tony Blair (I'm pretty convinced Blair himself, when he engaged into the Irak war, thought he was honestly doing the right thing), and he has been quite nasty with friends who knew he was making a big mistake (such as Chirac).
Everything happened exactly as the opponents of the war predicted - even worse - but on top of that he KNEW there were no weapons of mass destruction. Now everybody knows it, but apparently that doesn't play a role anymore. Now the argument seems to be: I made such a big mess, that we are all in big trouble now, so in such a crisis it is not a good idea to change strategies, so vote for me. And he scares so much hell out of people that it seems to work.
So, to come back to the original question, ANYTHING is better than this guy. However, a totally different question is: how to get out of that mess he made ? I don't think Kerry has an answer. In fact, nobody has an answer. Bush certainly doesn't have an answer. In a way he merits to stay, to be confronted with his own catastrophe. On the other hand, what not else can he do as a damage to the US and the world ?
What I do not understand is that he's rising in the voting intentions of the people of the US. Everybody must know now that he lied intentionally, that he made big mistakes doing so, and that he has created single-handed the biggest threat to world peace ever. And thinking that Bill Clinton was fingerpointed for a very tiny lie about having fun with a girl in his office !

 

[marlon]

The Iraq war has killed more people than Ben Laden and Sadam together.

This is not true. I am not really a Bush fan but i think that he is too often criticized with wrong statements that are totally irrelevant. Iraq is a mess right now, but Saddam is gone. I am convinced that a democratic president would not have been able to solve this problem in another "better" way...

Just look at the actions of Clinton beautifully "demonstrated" and orchestrated in Black Hawk Down...


regards
marlon

 

[Locrian]

I agree that vanesch's statement is rediculous, but I find the one you followed it with to be inaccurate as well. Pres Clinton wasn't even aware the raid shown in Black Hawk Down was going to take place, or had any hand in it. It would have been rather hard for him to orchestrate it.

 

[marlon]

I agree that vanesch's statement is rediculous, but I find the one you followed it with to be inaccurate as well. Pres Clinton wasn't even aware the raid shown in Black Hawk Down was going to take place, or had any hand in it. It would have been rather hard for him to orchestrate it.

Yes that is my point. Clinton had to face a lot of things that he did not controll, just like this condition in Iraq...

Them democrats can "mess up" just as badly as the republicans yet they always pretend to be the "correct" and peace-loving politicians.

marlon

 

[russ_watters]

The president does, however, control the parameters of the overall mission. He decides who goes and what equipment to take with them. When our guys in Somalia had to borrow armored personnel carriers from a 3rd world nation, that was Clinton's fault. Similarly, the lack of MP's and a decent occupation force after the end of major combat in Iraq was a Bush error.

What more does he need to say? I am sold!

Indeed, he'll get a lot of votes for that. But what he's finding out is that only gets you just under the amount of votes necessary to win. To get those extra few undecideds (me) requires that he stand for something.

 

[vanesch]

Iraq is a mess right now, but Saddam is gone. I am convinced that a democratic president would not have been able to solve this problem in another "better" way...

There was no problem to be solved. Bush Sr. had confined Saddam as an external threat, and it was a stable, non-religious dictatorship that was just busy with its own internal affairs. He was a wise man. Bush Jr. changed it into the biggest terrorist zone ever, gave a new raison-d'etre for all islamist fundamentalists, and destabilized all non-religious arabic governments. All this in the name of "safety for the world", hahaha. Iraq will be a dangerous mess for a very long time to come, believe me.

cheers,
patrick.

 

[vanesch]

I agree that vanesch's statement is rediculous,

How many people did Ben Laden kill ?
~ 3500 for the twin towers, ~ 500 for the two ambassades.
How many people did Bush kill in the Iraq war ? ~ 1000 allied solders if I'm not mistaking, many times more Iraqi people during the occupation because of lack of protection, and an unqualified number of "people to be liberated", which runs in the several thousand if not the several tens of thousand during the targetted bombing. Nobody cared to count.

It is not so ridiculous what I said.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[marlon]

A

There was no problem to be solved. Bush Sr. had confined Saddam as an external threat, and it was a stable, non-religious dictatorship that was just busy with its own internal affairs. He was a wise man. Bush Jr. changed it into the biggest terrorist zone ever, gave a new raison-d'etre for all islamist fundamentalists, and destabilized all non-religious arabic governments. All this in the name of "safety for the world", hahaha. Iraq will be a dangerous mess for a very long time to come, believe me.

cheers,
patrick.

that is just wrong man,... this is the typical hypocrite view of the average European citizen who hardly know the difference between democrats and republicans. terrorism is as old as the human kind. Just look at where Bin Laden came from.

It disturbs me very much that we Europeans always criticize the US for being the police force of the world. We proclaim to be the diplomats of the world, but i don't see how diplomacy can achieve something when you are "talking" to fundamentalists who are ready to die for their cause.

Why do we see the US as the aggressor here? they are just doing a job that we could never execute with our "fantastic" military capabilities. What do you think would happen if Saddam or Bin Laden would have the same power as Bush ? I think the world is better of with Bush having this amount of international influence.

Besides, in Europe there is a fundamental fear for islam, let's be honest and admit that. Just look at the success of right wing parties in Belgium, The Netherlands, France and recently Germany... These are not just right wong parties but extreme right-wing parties. Look at the growing popularity of the neonazis in Germany or Le Penn in France. In my country, Belgium, The extreme right-wing party called the Vlaams Blok is the BIGGEST party in Flanders (The dutch speaking part of Belgium...)
This happens not without some reason. We need to open our eyes, the world is deeply divided here and we keep on wining about how to solves everything with just words. Diplomacy is worth nothing without a military "spine" backing it up, but i admit it is the best "reasonable" solution.


The only solution to terrorism is EDUCATION and humor...people need to see that everything is relative. Maybe the solution may come from the work of Einstein applied onto social structures...

regards
marlon

 

[marlon]

How many people did Ben Laden kill ?
~ 3500 for the twin towers, ~ 500 for the two ambassades.
How many people did Bush kill in the Iraq war ? ~ 1000 allied solders if I'm not mistaking, many times more Iraqi people during the occupation because of lack of protection, and an unqualified number of "people to be liberated", which runs in the several thousand if not the several tens of thousand during the targetted bombing. Nobody cared to count.

It is not so ridiculous what I said.

cheers,
Patrick.

?
and how many people did al Quada kill
how many people did Saddam kill ?

this is just crazy man...this is childish and naive... I think there is a "little" difference between nature of the intentions of these killings, wouldn't you say.

I do not think that Bush is going to whipe out the entire city of LA with chemical weapons

 

[vanesch]

Yes that is my point. Clinton had to face a lot of things that he did not controll, just like this condition in Iraq...
Them democrats can "mess up" just as badly as the republicans yet they always pretend to be the "correct" and peace-loving politicians.

Bush Jr. pushed the button when THE WHOLE WORLD told him not to do so ; he was in full control there. This is not messing up a mission. It is far worse, it was working out the wrong strategy, for the wrong reasons, with the wrong means. Especially because he did so for reasons he knew very well were false. And, indeed, he also messed up the mission! But it was difficult NOT to do so, was it ? Was he serious when he thought that the Iraqi people would wave with american flags ? You don't have to be a bright politician to see you're going to have a small problem there.
So you have there in the most powerful seat in the world a liar who messes up, and has no idea where he's going. Can't think of anything worse, honestly.
This has nothing to do with democrats or republicans. This is mean stupidity of the worst kind.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Locrian]

How many people did Ben Laden kill ?

You didn't say Bin Laden. You said Bin Laden and Saddam together. Saddam was certainly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, which the Iraq war and occupation cannot be said to have caused. Therefore I find your statement to be a gross exaggeration.

 

[marlon]

Bush Jr. pushed the button when THE WHOLE WORLD told him not to do so ; he was in full control there. This is not messing up a mission. It is far worse, it was working out the wrong strategy, for the wrong reasons, with the wrong means. Especially because he did so for reasons he knew very well were false. And, indeed, he also messed up the mission! But it was difficult NOT to do so, was it ? Was he serious when he thought that the Iraqi people would wave with american flags ? You don't have to be a bright politician to see you're going to have a small problem there.
So you have there in the most powerful seat in the world a liar who messes up, and has no idea where he's going. Can't think of anything worse, honestly.
This has nothing to do with democrats or republicans. This is mean stupidity of the worst kind.

cheers,
Patrick.

First of all it is a lie to say that the whole world was against the actions in Iraq. Now, we can discuss about the reasons for starting such a military action but i think that is useless right now. I think that in the US many people may say publically that they are against Bush but between the safe walls of their houses they are glad that Saddam is gone. Just like here in Europe where everybody is opposed against right-wing parties, yet they keep growing and growing, this is one of the many aspects of the hypocrisy i was referring to.

i am just saying that a democratic president would not have done a better job with trying to fight terrorism.

marlon

 

[vanesch]

how many people did Saddam kill ?

I do not think that Bush is going to whipe out the entire city of LA with chemical weapons

This was all internal affairs to Iraq. The outside world didn't have anything to do with it. Outside of his own country, Saddam didn't kill so many people, and he didn't claim to do so for the safety of the world, no ?

As I said, Ben Laden killed probably about 4000 people.

cheers,
patrick.

 

[marlon]

This was all internal affairs to Iraq. The outside world didn't have anything to do with it. Outside of his own country, Saddam didn't kill so many people, and he didn't claim to do so for the safety of the world, no ?

As I said, Ben Laden killed probably about 4000 people.

cheers,
patrick.

ohh come on man, you must be joking here.

The people Saddam killed in Iraq were not even regarded as being real equal citizens of Iraq. He literally called them dogs. And how about the actions in Cuwait or the chemical war in Iran ?


And this not just about Bin Laden, you need to talk about al quaeda in total...
You might as well speak about Hitler without mentioning the entire holocaust. That is illegal, you know...
marlon

 

[vanesch]

I think that in the US many people may say publically that they are against Bush but between the safe walls of their houses they are glad that Saddam is gone.

Saddam was no thread AT ALL. As I said, it was a stable dictatorship, occupied with killing his own people in his own backyard. He was no external thread. This was the Big Lie of Bush Jr. His father had already solved the problem. In the mean time, Bin Laden is still happily walking his way, isn't he ? So their walls aren't so safe. And they are a lot less safe (just as ours in Europe) since Bush Jr. had his Bright Idea.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[vanesch]

ohh come on man, you must be joking here.

The people Saddam killed in Iraq were not even regarded as being real equal citizens of Iraq. He literally called them dogs. And how about the actions in Cuwait or the chemical war in Iran ?

I agree that Saddam was dangerous BEFORE the first Gulf War, and Bush Sr. was a wise man. He knew exactly what to do and what not. He broke Saddams external military power, and was wise enough to let the dictatorship exist so that it was stable and confined. But sonnyboy couldn't hear reason.
I don't count the people Saddam killed in Iraq. That is the internal affair of the Iraq people ; as long as they don't start a revolution themselves, and ask for external help, it is not up to the initiative of an outside force to interfere.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[marlon]

Saddam was no thread AT ALL. As I said, it was a stable dictatorship, occupied with killing his own people in his own backyard. He was no external thread. This was the Big Lie of Bush Jr. His father had already solved the problem. In the mean time, Bin Laden is still happily walking his way, isn't he ? So their walls aren't so safe. And they are a lot less safe (just as ours in Europe) since Bush Jr. had his Bright Idea.

cheers,
Patrick.

Father Bush did NOT solve the question of Iraq, he solved the invasion of Saddam in Kuwait. he left Iraq after he urged thousands of people to stand up against saddam with his support (of the military) and then just walked away leaving these people to die. They were slaughtered by Saddam once the US was gone.

And what is this nonsense about a stable dictatorship? You are forgetting all the embargo's against Iraq because Saddam would not allow foreign investigations into the country he stole...leaving his own people to starve on the streets

saddam did fought war abroad, why do you deny that ? have you forgotten about Iran and the very reason for Gulf War one?

saddam was definitely an external threat. I know they never found no WMD's but he would never hesitate to use one if he had the option. He used chemical weapons for christ's sake... OPEN YOUR EYES MAN...


regards
marlon

 

[vanesch]

Now, we can discuss about the reasons for starting such a military action but i think that is useless right now.

No, it is the main point, to me. If Bush Jr. would have started the war for the right reasons (imagine that there WERE weapons of mass destruction ready), and it turned into a mess, then I wouldn't be so virulent. Then he might have messed up the mission, but the strategy was right and he was a honest man taking the courageous and right decisions (but made a few unfortunate mistakes). He would have been telling the truth.
But there was none of all that. He just USED the fear of the american people to implement a neo-liberal viewpoint, and he lied to everybody in order to get them going with him. I don't think one single second he really thought himself that Saddam was any kind of threat.

On the other hand, you're right. What has been done, has been done. The mess is there. And indeed, from a practical point of view, I haven't got any idea who can clean it up. But the idiot who made it in the first place does deserve spanking, no ?

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Locrian]

This was all internal affairs to Iraq. The outside world didn't have anything to do with it.

So Iraqi lives mean so little to you? I find that disturbing. As someone who isn't a fan of the war in Iraq, I wish you would take a more reasonable line of argument. Overexaggerations and moral miscalculations do little to promote good critical examinations of what has occured.

 

[marlon]

No, it is the main point, to me. If Bush Jr. would have started the war for the right reasons (imagine that there WERE weapons of mass destruction ready), and it turned into a mess, then I wouldn't be so virulent. Then he might have messed up the mission, but the strategy was right and he was a honest man taking the courageous and right decisions (but made a few unfortunate mistakes). He would have been telling the truth.
But there was none of all that. He just USED the fear of the american people to implement a neo-liberal viewpoint, and he lied to everybody in order to get them going with him. I don't think one single second he really thought himself that Saddam was any kind of threat.

On the other hand, you're right. What has been done, has been done. The mess is there. And indeed, from a practical point of view, I haven't got any idea who can clean it up. But the idiot who made it in the first place does deserve spanking, no ?

cheers,
Patrick.

a spanking ? hmmm? depends on where exactly ??

On a more serious note though, there were facilities found in Iraq that were used in order to construct WMD's. Yet indeed they never found WMD's.

In North Korea there are WMD's, do you feel there needs to be an invasion over there when this "nation" does not follow the interantional rule of the VN ?

marlon

 

[marlon]

So Iraqi lives mean so little to you? I find that disturbing. As someone who isn't a fan of the war in Iraq, I wish you would take a more reasonable line of argument. Overexaggerations and moral miscalculations do little to promote good critical examinations of what has occured.

you read my mind , Locrian

marlon

 

[vanesch]

So Iraqi lives mean so little to you?

It is just that it isn't our business, as long as there is no danger for it to devellop into a thread to us. And let us be honest, there are A LOT of dictators in the world who kill A LOT of people. Yet, nobody cares. So this cannot be the argument. What I see is that the non-existing threat of Saddam was used as an lie to turn it into a REAL threat. You have to be damn stupid, no ?
And that's where I admire the wisdom of Bush Sr. and see the stupidity of Bush Jr.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[vanesch]

In North Korea there are WMD's, do you feel there needs to be an invasion over there when this "nation" does not follow the interantional rule of the VN ?

That's up to the VN to decide. Just as it was in Iraq, no ?
In the US too, there are WMD. In Russia, China and Pakistan, too. In France and the UK, too. In Israel too. As long as they are in the hands of democracies who care for themselves, or in the hands of non-religious dictators who play power games, there is no problem, because the rational power calculation will always refrain them from using them. So they are rather useless toys to show off with, no big deal. The real danger is when WMD are in the hands of religious fanatics. North Korea is no issue.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[marlon]

North Korea is no issue.

hahahaha, really ?

Why do you think the light in that country is only used for illuminating pictures and statures of the leader over there. Why do you think there are concentration camps out there?

Why do you think they are best friends with the world?

OOOhhh, yes i forgot, that is not our business since this involves stuff that is going on inside this "nation".

If I follow your "deep" way of thinking we would probably still be under the supremacy of the nazi-regime. Are you a real European Vanesch, or just a loner in this world minding his own futile business...just wondering

regards
marlon

 

[kawikdx225]

It is just that it isn't our business, as long as there is no danger for it to devellop into a thread to us.

That is the French way, not the American way.

 

[vanesch]

That is the French way, not the American way.

Probably (although it hasn't always been that way :-).
I prefer it that way. By large. Only mix in with others if you are concerned yourself.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[vanesch]

If I follow your "deep" way of thinking we would probably still be under the supremacy of the nazi-regime.

No, because that was an external agression. Just as the agression of Kuwait was. So intervention to help a friend is no problem. What I have a problem with is declaring an uninvited war for an ungrounded reason of which the one who declares it knows very well that it is ungrounded.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I prefer it that way. By large. Only mix in with others if you are concerned yourself.

As someone else has said, that selfish, cowardly attitude is not American. In this country, we feel obligated to help when we can. Sure it may bite us on occassion, but our concern for the lives of others should never be ridiculed. There are a lot of free South Koreans that can thank us for not being so self-centered.

 

[marlon]

No, because that was an external agression. Just as the agression of Kuwait was. So intervention to help a friend is no problem. What I have a problem with is declaring an uninvited war for an ungrounded reason of which the one who declares it knows very well that it is ungrounded.

cheers,
Patrick.

Well, i see your point here and i agree. But then in this case the war in Iraq would be justified since Saddam committed crimes against virtually every population that lives at the borders of Iraq. Look at what happened in southern Turkey and Syria...

Besides in this case, making the analogy with the second world war, Bush sr should have eliminated the regime of Saddam in the first place just as was done with the nazis here...I mean, Germany and italy and Spain,... were no allies of the US back then yet they were all liberated by the US and Canada. father Bush should have eliminated the regime of Saddam, he failed to do so. Now his son is cleaning up his mess. Thus the War in Iraq is justified, no ?

marlon

 

[plover]

As someone else has said, that selfish, cowardly attitude is not American. In this country, we feel obligated to help when we can. Sure it may bite us on occassion, but our concern for the lives of others should never be ridiculed. There are a lot of free South Koreans that can thank us for not being so self-centered.

As a statement about American foreign policy, this is so a-historical it's funny. Historically the U.S. was isolationist. Americans entered the World Wars out of concern for others? Korea and Vietnam were about the Korean and Vietnamese peoples not fear of communism?

Our concern for the lives of others should never be ridiculed, but traditionally those who thought it was part of foreign policy were "bleeding-heart" liberals...

Maybe things have changed in some fashion, but I have trouble seeing the degree of care, planning, coalition forming, and sophistication applied to actually helping and rebuilding Afghanistan or Iraq (as opposed to just toppling their regimes and introducing political instability) as showing any evidence of "concern for the lives of others" on the part of the administration. And just because there is a detail or two that can be found as a sop to war-supporters consciences doesn't mean that considered from the viewpoint of that concern that the overall effect of Bush's policies is not epically catastrophic.

 

[vanesch]

father Bush should have eliminated the regime of Saddam, he failed to do so. Now his son is cleaning up his mess. Thus the War in Iraq is justified, no ?

Simply speaking, you're right. The problem is that Bush Sr. had a lot of foreign affairs policy experience, while his son didn't even knew where Afghanistan was on the map, and so Bush Sr. realized that when a Western army would do such a thing, all Arab islamists would take it as an occasion to shoot on him, and moreover, than chances were big that Iraq would turn into a second Iran. He thought that, once Saddam's power broken, it was a regional affair ; remember that the other Arab nations DID NOT want the Western armies to invade Iraq: the agreement with the Gulf states was exactly that he could come and be there ONLY TO LIBERATE KUWAIT and then shove off. He kept his promise.
The only way to topple an Arab dictator and not have it turn into an islamist mess, is with consensus and support of other Arab nations and armies. The US, being military much stronger, could do the initial blow, but then it should be to the Arab forces to stabilize the after-war situation. There is no other way (because of feelings of national pride, religious considerations and so on). So it was BECAUSE other Arab nations didn't want Bush Sr. to topple Saddam that he didn't do so, because he knew very well he would be in deep sh*t if he did it on his own.
Bush Jr., thinking that Arabs go on a crusade, didn't realize this at all and went in like an imbecile, with the known result. Show me ONE Arab nation where there has been a non-Arab toppling of the local regime that didn't turn into a long-time islamist terrorist breeding ground.

Again, Saddam's power to be a nuisance to Western countries had been broken, and he wasn't involved in international terrorism. So from that point of view there was no problem for us. Ok, he was a merciless dictator, but there are others in this world, and then this is a problem (especially in this case) which can only be solved locally, and with international concencus. ALL these reasons make it that a war, such as started by Bush Jr, could only make the situation worse, as well for us as locally. And indeed, that is what happened. Moreover, based on lies.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[vanesch]

In this country, we feel obligated to help when we can.

Well, sure. And this happened a few times in the past, and (western) Europe to can thank them. I wasn't criticising the US at all. I'm claiming that Bush Jr. is a patented idiot and a lier, that's all. Coming back to your "help": one can only "help" someone else if that someone else asks for it, no ? Where are the little american flags in the hands of the Iraq children, thanking Bush for his "help" ?
And, remember, the reason for the war was not to go out and help! The reason was that mean Saddam was training members of Al Quaida and had hydrogen bombs ready on intercontinental launchers to plunge right in the heart of Washington, no ? The argument was self-defense based on "very accurate intelligence information", wasn't it ? It would be clear to the world, after the war, that they had to go in, wasn't it ? It was not only wrong, he knew it wasn't true. And things DIDN'T happen the way he thought, as was also clear for everybody else. QED.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[GENIERE]

The opinions of the French government are no longer relevant. France has disgraced itself by providing billions of dollars to Saddam while pretending to honor the sanctions imposed by the UN. For the same reason the UN, as presently organized, as presently corrupted, is useless as a peace making body. France is now losing its influence in the EU; none of its ministers were given positions of importance.

Michel Barnier has replaced the ridiculous foreign minister De Villepin. Barnier has been instructed to “make nice” with the USA. It’s a little too late for that.