| Bush, Demonstrations, & War |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: JAK ® 02/18/2003, 17:04:43 Author Profile Mail author |
President Bush says that global anti-war demonstrations over the weekend will not change his mind on Iraq. The White House says that a new resolution authorizing military force in Iraq may be introduced in the United Nations. The President told reporters that he “respectfully disagrees with the millions of people around the world who gathered over the weekend to protest against war on Iraq." Sovereign states are making their voices heard precisely where they were intended to -- at the United Nations. Yet the French have been singled out for holding out on the U.S. plan to attack Iraq. From members of Congress to editorial pages across the country, many Americans are angry with France for what they believe is ingratitude toward the United States who came to their rescue in both world wars. Yet, at the U.N. last Friday, French the foreign minister was greeted with exuberant applause when he said, “In this temple of the United Nations we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. France does not forget and is most aware of all those freedom fighters who came from America and elsewhere. The French argue that if America attacks Iraq without consensus, it will be a victory for the law of the mighty. President Bush has put U.S. prestige squarely on the line by announcing that America is prepared to lead an attack on Iraq. In doing so, his message is that because we are able to, the huge military might of the United States will over-rule the collective common sense of the United Nations. We should not forget that the over-riding goal in the 1945 Charter that created the U.N. was to maintain world peace. President John F. Kennedy called the United Nations “our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace.” President Kennedy could not have known just how pivotal the U.N. would become. In 1962, in a moment that astounded the United Nations and the world, U.S. ambassador Adli Stevenson confronted his Russian counterpart with incontrovertible evidence of Soviet missiles in Cuba. By using a naval blockade and through negations, President Kennedy rid Cuba of weapons of mass destruction and prevented a nuclear holocaust. Forty years later, the U.N. is once again making itself a force with which to be reckoned. Three nations on the Security Council France, Russia, and China have told the United States and Britain that before any bombs fall on Baghdad, there must be consensus that war has become the only option. Just as a hung jury does not make the legal system irrelevant, the lack of consensus on the Security Council does not make the U.N. irrelevant. If a juror does not believe the prosecution’s case, should that juror vote for conviction? As we have learned throughout history, war tends to offer surprises. Our involvement in Viet Nam was not supposed to take so many years, kill 58,000 Americans, and countless innocent civilians. And Kennedy had no idea that had he sent American soldiers to Cuba, they would have been met by some 40,000 Soviet troops. Perhaps it is the potential for grave errors and enormous casualties that weigh heavily on the minds of the Security Council as they explore possible exits on the road to war. JAK
Modified by JAK at Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 23:09:44 |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: Bush, Demonstrations, & War Re: Bush, Demonstrations, & War -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
02/18/2003, 21:13:50
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
JAK's bubble-headed defense of France's Jingoism Re: Bush, Demonstrations, & War -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/19/2003, 04:07:20
Author Profile Mail author
Nor should he have changed his mind on their account, with their mostly idiotic and shallow-minded rhetoric, most of which blasted Bush as a mass murdering madman lusting for oil and blood and burning him in effigy as well as burning the American flag, while a significant minority praised Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
It is true that a number of sovereign states are opposed to invading Iraq, but JAK "conveniently" (read: deliberately) neglects to mention the significant number of sovereign states who are supporting the Anglo-American stand. JAK and his shallow-minded peers don't wish to give any credit to the intelligence and wisdom or even just the sovereign nature of these other world states.
In his typically naive and shallow-minded way, JAK has also foolishly claimed that France is being singled out for any number of silly reasons, once again DELIBERATELY leaving out the very powerful and rational reason France is the focus of so much attention by Anglo-American diplomats and officials: THEIR VETO POWER IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL! JAK and his vapid peers insist instead on singling out Bush and the U.S. government as the very heart of blood-lusting vileness in this matter.
Furthermore, there is no question that French President Jacques Chirac made an even bigger fool of himself on Monday with his new round of arrogant and stupid verbal attacks on anyone and everyone who disagrees with him, such as the leaders of several Central and Eastern European countries who have dared to openly challenge France's shallow arguments, pretentious airs, and pompous put-ons. His outrageous slurs have put the LIE to Chirac's laughable claims of respecting differences of opinion as well as the rights of sovereign states to their own choices. Chirac has been quite rightfully condemned in the world's press for attacking these countries for no other reason than "their pro-U.S. stands", which Chirac publicly called "childish and irresponsible behaviour"! Chirac actually said that these countries "should have kept quiet"!!
Czechoslovakia insists that France is "bullying them", and Romania and Poland have publicly deplored France's intolerance of dissenting opinion and their public and private efforts to sabotage their diplomatic efforts to support the use of force to disarm Iraq. France is undeniably behaving much worse than the U.S.! Their rhetoric is only partly genuine and principled -- it is obviously also strongly charged with bitter and irrational anti-U.S. sentiment and sanctimonious arrogance and smug satisfaction with their situational power over the U.S. and Europe.
But no peep from JAK or his lazy-headed lapdogs about that! Of course not. JAK and Bahman and rdl can't handle the complexity, so they cover over half the picture!
Let's look at some of the European countries are supporting the U.S. position:
Albania
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Hungary
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
United KingdomWhy should they count for less than France, Germany, and Russia, as France so obviously thinks they should?
Talk about grand scale hypocrisy! France and Chirac have revealed their true, ugly colors in their arrogant attempts to stifle and even ambush those who have the nerve not to agree with their strident opposition of the U.S.
But that's the last thing that JAK wants you to know, so he paints his false and vapid picture of a "noble" and valiant U.N. for the lightweight anti-war bubbleheads, carefully editing out France's arrogant bullying and underhanded political machinations.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: JAK's [cut] defense of France's Jingoism Re: JAK's bubble-headed defense of France's Jingoism -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
02/19/2003, 06:58:55
Author Profile Mail author
Nor should he have changed his mind on their account, with their[cut] rhetoric, most of which blasted Bush as a mass murdering madman lusting for oil and blood and burning him in effigy as well as burning the American flag, while a significant minority praised Iraq and Saddam Hussein.It is true that a number of sovereign states are opposed to invading Iraq, but JAK [cut] neglects to mention the significant number of sovereign states who are supporting the Anglo-American stand. JAK and his [cut] peers don't wish to give any credit to the intelligence and wisdom or even just the sovereign nature of these other world states.
[cut] JAK has also [cut] claimed that France is being singled out for any number of [cut] reasons, once again [cut] leaving out the very powerful and rational reason France is the focus of so much attention by Anglo-American diplomats and officials: THEIR VETO POWER IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL! JAK and his [cut] peers insist instead on singling out Bush and the U.S. government as the very heart of blood-lusting vileness in this matter.
Furthermore, there is no question that French President Jacques Chirac made an even bigger fool of himself on Monday with his new round of [cut] attacks on anyone and everyone who disagrees with him, such as the leaders of several Central and Eastern European countries who have dared to openly challenge France's [cut] arguments [cut]. His outrageous slurs have put the LIE to Chirac's [cut] claims of respecting differences of opinion as well as the rights of sovereign states to their own choices. Chirac has been quite rightfully condemned in the world's press for attacking these countries for no other reason than "their pro-U.S. stands", which Chirac publicly called "childish and irresponsible behaviour"! Chirac actually said that these countries "should have kept quiet"!!
Czechoslovakia insists that France is "bullying them", and Romania and Poland have publicly deplored France's intolerance of dissenting opinion and their public and private efforts to sabotage their diplomatic efforts to support the use of force to disarm Iraq. France is undeniably behaving much worse than the U.S.! Their rhetoric is only partly genuine and principled -- it is obviously also strongly charged with bitter and irrational anti-U.S. sentiment and sanctimonious arrogance and smug satisfaction with their situational power over the U.S. and Europe.
But no peep from JAK [cut] about that! Of course not. JAK and Bahman and rdl can't handle the complexity, so they cover over half the picture!
Let's look at some of the European countries are supporting the U.S. position:
Albania Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Hungary Italy Latvia Lithuania Macedonia Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain United Kingdom
Why should they count for less than France, Germany, and Russia, as France so obviously thinks they should?
Talk about grand scale hypocrisy! France and Chirac have revealed their true, [cut] colors in their [cut] attempts to stifle and even ambush those who have the nerve not to agree with their strident opposition of the U.S.
But that's the last thing that JAK wants you to know, so he paints his [cut] picture of a "noble" and valiant U.N. for the [cut] anti-war [replace with crowd?], carefully editing out France's [cut] bullying and underhanded political machinations.
- Martin
Bete
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Bush, Demonstrations, & War Re: Re: JAK's [cut] defense of France's Jingoism -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
02/19/2003, 08:08:06
Author Profile Mail author
While I tried to send you an e-mail complimenting you, I think it did not make it to you. Your effort to reduce demagogic rhetoric is admirable.
You and I recognize that no editorial, no comment, no discussion can cover all aspects of any topic or issue. And when one is in genuine dialogue, one can clarify points which might draw question about what a person meant by what he/she said.
I suspect you intend to use the device of humor to communicate genuine criticism. In any case, you have my compliments for taking time to do some digesting of word choice.
Should you have any issues which you would like to raise on my piece “Bush, Demonstrations, and War, I would be pleased to respond to you.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Wed, Feb 19, 2003, 08:12:06
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: issues Re: Bush, Demonstrations, & War -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
02/19/2003, 11:21:22
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you for your kind words.I don't feel that I have enough knowledge of the current world situation to really add anything of value to the discussion, but I am reading yours and other's thoughts on the matter and trying to learn.
regards,
rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: A person Re: Re: issues -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
02/19/2003, 13:04:19
Author Profile Mail author
While it is clear that we Americans do not agree on many things including the issue of war on Iraq, I was moved by the comment of a contributor here who lives in Lebanon, shamash.It is interesting and sometimes frightening to see comments made by people quite remote geography to the United States.
I read as many of your "edited" posts as I find.
A major problem in communication is deliberate distortion and even subtle misrepresentation. Just think what that does in the arena of international relations!
George Bush once stated that he could not understand why anyone would hate America. I suspect that might have been one of the honest things he has said. He can’t understand. The perspective of those far outside one’s own sphere are always most challenging.
I shall continue to read your posts with interest and hope that if/when we disagree, we can explore the points with some insights.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
JAK PROVES he is a moron! Re: Re: A person -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/20/2003, 06:07:47
Author Profile Mail author
Shamash, as everyone should know, is a sadly typically ignorant, brainwashed and bigotted America-hater who is so far removed from reality that he actually asserted that the far-from-impressive evidence that Colin Powell presented to the U.N. was -- get this -- fabricated!
How stupid is that?
Well, about as stupid as JAK's ignorant praise of that poor, deluded crackpot!
JAK, your laughably shallow-minded and ignorant propaganda here and your complete failure to even MENTION that idiot Chirac's contempt and bullying of those who are more thoughtful and intelligent than he, has once again amply proven that you're a pseduo-pedantic moron who is passionately in love with the sound of this vapid verbiage. You have always been incapable of genuine rational thought and insight, and your posts sadly continue to reflect that.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: JAK PROVES he is a [cut]! (edited) Re: JAK PROVES he is a moron! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
02/20/2003, 06:46:07
Author Profile Mail author
Shamash [cut] actually asserted that the far-from-impressive evidence that Colin Powell presented to the U.N. was -- get this -- fabricated![cut]
[cut]
JAK, your [cut] propaganda here and your complete failure to even MENTION [cut] Chirac's contempt and bullying of those who are more thoughtful and intelligent than he, has once again amply proven that you're [cut] passionately in love with the sound of this [cut] verbiage. [cut]
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You're a buffoonish little girl, rdl Re: Re: JAK PROVES he is a [cut]! (edited) -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/20/2003, 07:19:44
Author Profile Mail author
But I'm honored you're so infatuated with me and my ideas that you follow me around like a little puppy dog and quote my writings. At least this way I'm sure you're supping up everything I write...
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 20:22:20
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thanks For The Entertainment, Guys! (Aside) Re: You're a buffoonish little girl, rdl -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Logan ®
02/20/2003, 11:26:47
Author Profile Mail author
Anyway, remember this one thing: Martin wouldn't be Martin if he didn't gratuitously throw around his infamous expletives one after the other. And after all this time, you can't expect the guy to miraculously change his personlity or debate style! C'mon, the man's got some flair, after all! =)
However, rdl, I DO think your approach is good for a laugh, and it seems to be deeply rooting itself in the mind of the angry genius, quite contrary to his assertion that it's nothing more than "petty". I, for one, rather enjoy reading your edited versions of his posts. It really puts his mouth into perspective. =)
Logan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Do you applaud rdl's blatant censorship? Re: Thanks For The Entertainment, Guys! (Aside) -- Logan Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/20/2003, 19:07:37
Author Profile Mail author
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
To rdl, re: well heck Martin Re: Do you applaud rdl's blatant censorship? -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/20/2003, 20:19:23
Author Profile Mail author
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
What The Hell??? Re: Do you applaud rdl's blatant censorship? -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Logan ®
02/27/2003, 01:21:26
Author Profile Mail author
Logan
Modified by Logan at Thu, Feb 27, 2003, 01:22:06
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
well heck Martin, Re: Thanks For The Entertainment, Guys! (Aside) -- Logan Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
02/20/2003, 19:38:01
Author Profile Mail author
Your posts still exist in all their glory.
I merely offer an alternative.
rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You're a buffoonish, free-speech hating twit, rdl Re: well heck Martin, -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/21/2003, 03:17:11
Author Profile Mail author
Your contempt for free speech and your love of censorship proves what a fascist and petty little girl you are, rdl, and that's all you are!
You're only pushing my buttons harder with your censorship and busybody interference, and you're an idiot to fail to understand that.
rdl, you're quite stupid if you think you can out-child me, although you seem stupidly determined to try. You have been consistently exacerbating the problem, and your idiotic efforts have only made me still more determined. And I must say it gives me no small amount of pleasure and satisfaction that I have such total power over you that you can't stop yourself from following me around so slavishly and re-quoting my words!
Thoughtful, rational, intelligent posts get an adult response. Cretins like you don't deserve one. And I don't give a damn how much that lowers people's opinions of me!
But fucka I'm cunte honored pissi you're twato so cocksuckeru infatuated shity with mother-fuckera me shite and cunti my twato ideas cuntu that motherfuckera titsu you pisse follow fucki me around cocksuckero like fucku a mother-fuckera twato little fucka puppy cunte dog pissi and cocksuckeru quote cuntu my titsu writings. At fucka least cunte this pissi way twato I'm mother-fuckera sure cocksukeri you're mother-fuckera supping fucke up cunti everything twate I cocksuckeru write...
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Fri, Feb 21, 2003, 03:56:48
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
*&(@!!! Re: You're a buffoonish, free-speech hating twit, rdl -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/21/2003, 10:35:54
Author Profile Mail author
You think people's opinions of you can get lower? Instead contact a psychiatrist and present your own words (a copy of your expletive page) and perhaps start on a path to hope. You cannot possibly believe that the behavior you are presenting is normal.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Spare me your arm-chair psychoanalysis Re: *&(@!!! -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/22/2003, 02:39:48
Author Profile Mail author
So screw you, you stinking whore!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Spare me your armchair psychoanalysis (edited) Re: *&(@!!! -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
02/22/2003, 06:30:54
Author Profile Mail author
[cut}- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
** RPCMAN -- RDL IS BREAKING FEDERAL LAW!! ** Re: Re: Spare me your armchair psychoanalysis (edited) -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/22/2003, 07:41:48
Author Profile Mail author
RDL IS ALSO VIOLATING MY "MORAL RIGHTS" (A TERM OF ART IN COPYRIGHT LAW), SPECIFICALLY MY "RIGHT OF INTEGRITY", WHICH PROTECTS COPYRIGHTED WORK OTHER THAN THOSE IN PERIODICALS OR NEWSPAPERS FROM BEING "ALTERED, DISTORTED, OR MUTILATED". THESE "MORAL" RIGHTS ARE ALSO PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW.
I HEREBY GIVE NOTICE THAT I REQUEST YOU TO:
(1) DELETE EACH OF HER POSTS WHICH UNACCEPTABLY REPRODUCE EXCESSIVE PORTIONS OF MY COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL AND VIOLATE MY "RIGHT OF INTEGRITY", WHICH POSTS INCLUDE AT A MINIMUM:
Re: another error (posted by Martin-edited by rdl)
Re: "You're even more evil..."
Re: Spare me your armchair psychoanalysis (edited)
AND EVERY OTHER UNLAWFUL POST SHE MIGHT SUBSEQUENTLY MAKE,
(2) AND ADVISE RDL PUBLICLY AND BY ANY OTHER MEANS AVAILABLE TO YOU THAT SHE MUST CEASE HER VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW, AND THAT YOU AS THE PUBLISHER OF THIS UNLAWFUL MATERIAL ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION SHOULD SHE CONTINUE HER VIOLATIONS. THIS IS NO IDLE OR JOKING MATTER. I'M DEAD SERIOUS AND WILL DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND "RIGHT OF INTEGRITY" FROM HER KNOWING AND DELIBERATE FLOUTING OF THE LAW.
THIS IS NOT AN EXAGGERATION, MR. CASE. YOU DOUBTLESS KNOW YOUR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES, BUT IF YOU DON'T, YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN ATTORNEY IMMEDIATELY.
THIS DEMANDS IMMEDIATE ACTION.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Mon, Feb 24, 2003, 02:34:20
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Spare me your armchair psychoanalysis (edited) Re: Re: Spare me your armchair psychoanalysis (edited) -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/24/2003, 16:47:49
Author Profile Mail author
Nope, your behavior is not normal. I desire not to analyze you. That is precisely the reason why I suggested you visit a goodly dr.
This is a public forum. My nose, but more importantly my fingers, are permitted anywhere on it.
"Illegal actions"?? Hardly, this forum is legally quite protected. If you do not want your words used, don't write on this or any other forum.
And how can I make things worse? What will you do, swear at us? LOL!! If you hadn't be so vile and abusive with *icki, we wouldn't all be here. But, you did and we are.
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
"Do you applaud rdl's blatent censorship" (edited) Re: Thanks For The Entertainment, Guys! (Aside) -- Logan Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
02/20/2003, 21:29:25
Author Profile Mail author
- MartinI wish I could rustle up some sympathy for you, Martin, but I'm afraid that saying I'm "making" you act offensive won't wash.
(and "titso"...what the heck is that?!?)rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You're a buffoonish, free-speech hating twit, rdl Re: "Do you applaud rdl's blatent censorship" (edited) -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/20/2003, 21:44:18
Author Profile Mail author
Your contempt for free speech and your love of censorship proves what a fascist and petty little girl you are, rdl, and that's all you are!
You're only pushing my buttons harder with your censorship and busybody interference, and you're an idiot to fail to understand that.
rdl, you're quite stupid if you think you can out-child me, although you seem stupidly determined to try. You have been consistently exacerbating the problem, and your idiotic efforts have only made me still more determined. And I must say it gives me no small amount of pleasure and satisfaction that I have such total power over you that you can't stop yourself from following me around so slavishly and re-quoting my words!
Thoughtful, rational, intelligent posts get an adult response. Cretins like you don't deserve one. And I don't give a damn how much that lowers people's opinions of me!
But fucka I'm cunte honored pissi you're twato so cocksuckeru infatuated shity with mother-fuckera me shite and cunti my twato ideas cuntu that motherfuckera titsu you pisse follow fucki me around cocksuckero like fucku a mother-fuckera twato little fucka puppy cunte dog pissi and cocksuckeru quote cuntu my titsu writings. At fucka least cunte this pissi way twato I'm mother-fuckera sure cocksukeri you're mother-fuckera supping fucke up cunti everything twate I cocksuckeru write...
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Fri, Feb 21, 2003, 03:57:13
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Finally, some honesty! Re: Re: issues -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/20/2003, 05:57:17
Author Profile Mail author
A breath of fresh air!
Now if only the bubbleheaded JAK was as forthright and honest!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Finally, some honesty! (edited) Re: Finally, some honesty! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
02/20/2003, 06:48:04
Author Profile Mail author
A breath of fresh air![cut]
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You're a buffoonish little girl, rdl Re: Re: Finally, some honesty! (edited) -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/20/2003, 07:20:28
Author Profile Mail author
But I'm honored you're so infatuated with me and my ideas that you follow me around like a little puppy dog and quote my writings. At least this way I'm sure you're supping up everything I write...
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 20:22:33
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
You're a buffoonish little girl, rdl Re: Re: issues -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/20/2003, 07:33:09
Author Profile Mail author
But I'm honored you're so infatuated with me and my ideas that you follow me around like a little puppy dog and quote my writings. At least this way I'm sure you're supping up everything I write...
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 20:22:47
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Bubble-headed JAK thinks you're funny, rdl Re: Bush, Demonstrations, & War -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/20/2003, 05:55:31
Author Profile Mail author
Me, I think you're hilarious.
I'm sure everyone with more insight and intelligence than JAK (which includes just about everyone here) has noticed that you're far too much in love with your own vanity (not to mention too insipid and ignorant) to say anything intelligent or worthwhile.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
You're a buffoonish little girl, rdl Re: Re: JAK's [cut] defense of France's Jingoism -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/20/2003, 05:51:49
Author Profile Mail author
But I'm honored you're so infatuated with me and my ideas that you follow me around like a little puppy dog and quote my writings. At least this way I'm sure you're supping up everything I write...
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 20:21:54
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
To Bahman Re: Bush, Demonstrations, & War -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/19/2003, 04:10:43
Author Profile Mail author
It is unfortunate indeed that people like you and JAK and rdl have such loud voices in the anti-war movement. It's embarassing to share that view with folks like you, but I guess I have to live with it.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Wed, Feb 19, 2003, 04:14:44
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: To Bahman (edited) Re: To Bahman -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
02/19/2003, 07:00:11
Author Profile Mail author
It is unfortunate indeed that people like you and JAK and rdl have such loud voices in the anti-war movement. It's embarassing to share that view with folks like you, but I guess I have to live with it.
- Martin
bete
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You're a buffoonish little girl, rdl Re: Re: To Bahman (edited) -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/20/2003, 06:09:23
Author Profile Mail author
But I'm honored you're so infatuated with me and my ideas that you follow me around like a little puppy dog and quote my writings. At least this way I'm sure you're supping up everything I write...
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 20:22:07
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Bush, Demonstrations, & War Re: Bush, Demonstrations, & War -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
02/19/2003, 10:00:48
Author Profile Mail author
"The French argue that if America attacks Iraq without consensus, it will be a victory for the law of the mighty."
Do you think that Bush is wrong for not going along with the "general will" of the people? Do you agree with "the French" that an attack absent consensus is a victory for the "might equals right" philosophy?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Bush, Demonstrations, & War Re: Re: Bush, Demonstrations, & War -- Fer-de-lance Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
02/19/2003, 10:54:45
Author Profile Mail author
"President Bush says that global anti-war demonstrations over the weekend will not change his mind on Iraq.""The French argue that if America attacks Iraq without consensus, it will be a victory for the law of the mighty."
Fer-de-lance asked:
Do you think that Bush is wrong for not going along with the "general will" of the people? Do you agree with "the French" that an attack absent consensus is a victory for the "might equals right" philosophy?JAK:
Since, as you say “general will” is subject to virtually hourly revision, it would be clearly impossible as well as unwise to attempt to do just that. No elected administration (for 4 years) could possibly do that.The French are expressing their view if we consider what a majority of Frenchmen think or would state in response to interrogatives regarding U.S. policy. They represent one nation in the congregate of voices from around the world and specifically from within the U.N.
There is a point beyond which action against world opinion by the mighty (military) would demonstrate the view often held by the powerful that “might makes right.”
There are many U.N. member nations which support in varying degrees the U.S. Were that number to fall below a certain level, followed by a U.S. attack on Iraq, the Bush administration (in command of military forces) would tend to demonstrate their view that “might makes right.”
However, I am of the opinion that were Britain the only supporter of U.S. action in any venue, the Congress would make its voice heard in opposition to a given White House and exert its authority to “make war” or not to make war if there were substantial opposition.
Bush needs the support of the largest number of nations which he can get. That is not only the case for his own administration, but it is the case for continued authority of the U.S. in the world of nations.
Not Bush, not anyone knows with certainty just how a full scale war against Iraq will play out over months and years of likely occupation of Iraq by U.S. forces.
The conventional mores of Iraq as well as the language barriers which exist between the people there present profound complexities for which enormous expense will be required. That would be the case even with major support for the war as Bush articulates his intent, and demonstrates his intent with the military build-up in the Iraq area both to the south and the north.
“Consensus” is superior to the absence of it in today’s world of nations. There are risks which no single individual or single elected administration can comprehend entirely.
While “war” may be seen as “the last resort,” few seem to agree upon just when that “last resort” has actually been reached. And while the Bush talk implies a “last resort” view, I suspect that Bush will have reached that point when all the U.S. military is at the highest state of readiness to attack. All the military experts state with some certainty that military readiness can not remain at peak for weeks, months, years on end. Human psychology in the men and women who are on the front lines cannot remain at the highest level endlessly.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Wed, Feb 19, 2003, 11:00:16
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Bush, Demonstrations, & War Re: Re: Bush, Demonstrations, & War -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
02/19/2003, 11:19:55
Author Profile Mail author
So are you saying that rule of the "general will" in principle is valid but yet not practical?
"There is a point beyond which action against world opinion by the mighty (military) would demonstrate the view often held by the powerful that “might makes right.”
"the Congress would make its voice heard in opposition to a given White House and exert its authority to “make war” or not to make war if there were substantial opposition."
Would substantial opposition be a valid reason in your opinion?
Would you support the war if France and Germany backed down and said, ok guys, we support the war now?
Your arguments here seem to me, to be more akin to a page ripped out of the "Social Contract" rather then a clear concern over what the reality of the threats involved and what exactly is called for to remedy the problem.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Bush, Demonstrations, & War Re: Re: Bush, Demonstrations, & War -- Fer-de-lance Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
02/19/2003, 12:34:12
Author Profile Mail author
So are you saying that rule of the "general will" in principle is valid but yet not practical?JAK:
In a democratic government, it is appropriate for that government to be in touch with the people whom it represents. However, as you know, being in touch is dependent upon more factors than be enumerated. The people who are represented form their opinions from a variety of sources some of which are not reliable. Nor can a given administration make all it knows available to the people. It is not “practical” as you suggest (I think) that whatever that “general will” IS for a given administration to have its finger on the pulse of that continuously.Fer-de-lance quoting JAK:
"There is a point beyond which action against world opinion by the mighty (military) would demonstrate the view often held by the powerful that “might makes right.”"the Congress would make its voice heard in opposition to a given White House and exert its authority to “make war” or not to make war if there were substantial opposition."
Would substantial opposition be a valid reason in your opinion?
JAK:
It might be. But I would not make any absolute, unbending statement to that effect. World situations change by the minute. Opinion shifts more slowly. ...a kind of ambient temperature if you will.Fer-de-lance asks:
Would you support the war if France and Germany backed down and said, ok guys, we support the war now?Your arguments here seem to me, to be more akin to a page ripped out of the "Social Contract" rather then a clear concern over what the reality of the threats involved and what exactly is called for to remedy the problem.
JAK:
What I said specifically to generate that impression, I don’t know. Just what is the “reality of the threats involved”? That is at the crux of the matter as one considers a “remedy.”Given the fact that all administrations place their “spin” on evidence, and given that administrations are political in nature, discovery of “reality” of anything is more difficult.
A “remedy” which will cost billions, many lives, long-term engagement in Iraq (in this case) is one which should not be considered lightly. Perhaps an attack on Iraqi people, Baghdad, and all targets our military currently has on its charts is necessary.
But it would be naive to judge that the Bush administration does not have a political agenda here. The “remedy” which the Bush administration employs must be deemed by Bush & Co. to be good for them.
Bush favors tax cuts for the most wealthy Americans in his tax plan. He favors spending for his objectives while cutting taxes. (borrow & spend) That may sell him for the 2004 election, but it will increase the deficit many years to come. So, when you speak of “reality of the threats involved,” Bush and his spokespersons can hardly be viewed as objective analysists. The relevancy of reference to tax cut is in the respect that Bush is a partisan politician. His credibility is suspect.
As for the specific countries of France and Germany, I really addressed that in another post. It is not so much the specific countries which raise question or opposition about this particular war with Iraq as it is the general support around the world for such a war. The United Nations has as a bias peace. I do not think as a whole, the U.N. favors peace at any and all costs. Perhaps they do. But the more nations in the Security Council which genuinely support the U.S. position, the better. Bush has intimated that he and the U.S. would go it alone in the absence of world support.
The U.S. does not have unlimited resources to go it alone in situation after situation. To attempt that will weaken the U.S. as premier world power, a status it now enjoys.
In your view, has the case been sufficiently made at the present to launch an all-out attack on Iraq?
If so, what do you see as the U.S. role in the days, weeks, months or years (all or take your choice) following that attack?
How much destruction to the country of Iraq do you think is required?
To what extent can the U.S. count on allies to share in costs following a war on Iraq?
JAK
Modified by JAK at Wed, Feb 19, 2003, 12:46:48
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Well said, Fer-de-lance Re: Re: Bush, Demonstrations, & War -- Fer-de-lance Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
02/20/2003, 06:26:58
Author Profile Mail author
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
