Not to beat a dead horse

[Jamie_B]

[quote]I think that the US should once again become an isolationist country.[/quote]

Go read up on the WW2 and how we didnt get involved at 1st untill we were attacked by Japan. Others ask for our help both Military wise and other wise all the time. Go read up on Malosivic and tell me we should be an an isolationist country. Not every war is unjustified.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 11 2005, 07:18 PM']Go read up on the WW2 and how we didnt get involved at 1st untill we were attacked by Japan. Others ask for our help both Military wise and other wise all the time. Go read up on Malosivic and tell me we should be an an isolationist country. Not every war is unjustified.
[right][post="91151"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

b/c we decided only to help after we had to, france was totally taken over and who knows what they endured... not to mention polland and a host of other countries...

when we say that if we didn't go into the war, the french would be speaking german, they aren't kidding... although if we would have tried to help these people before it came to that, it could have been a much different and easier war...

badass, in case you didn't notice, we still are fighting in afghanastan... we just don't hear about it as much as iraq b/c the media is still beating the vietnam drum... and in iraq, we are fighting mostly syrians, saudis, and egyptians that are terrorists... there are some saddam loyalists left, but most are not from iraq... in other words, the iraq and afghanistan wars are the same war... [b]the war on terrorism[/b]

and i'm baffled that you would say that democracy isn't the best form of gov't... do you think absolute monarchy, communism, socialism or facism is the best then? just curious

homer... i just heard the main guy from the "new republic", who is extremely left wing, come out and say that bush has to be given some credit for the transformation that is taking place in the middle east... of course he also said something right after wards that bashed him again, but the fact is he said he deserves some credit... are you willing to give bush even that? i still feel very strong about the war, and feel that we are doing the right thing... if we were pushing our will on them, they wouldn't have risked their lives, to vote in unbelievable numbers... did you also see the reception bush got in the Georgia? not everyone hates what we're doing...

[Guest BadassBengal]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 11 2005, 07:18 PM']Go read up on the WW2 and how we didnt get involved at 1st untill we were attacked by Japan. Others ask for our help both Military wise and other wise all the time. Go read up on Malosivic and tell me we should be an an isolationist country. Not every war is unjustified.
[right][post="91151"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Japan knew we were supplying the British with supplies to fight Germany more than we were supplying Germany. They get pissed. They know that Pearl Harbor is our top base in the Pacific. They knew with the German subs constantly attaching US merchant ships, that we would intervene soon, and they didn't want us to be as dominant of a force in the Pacific. We were basically supporting Britain, and so the Germans attacked us. We weren't complete isolationists. Kinda just stupid.

[Guest BlackJesus]

Also FDR knew about Pearl Harbor but let it happen.... knowing that it would be a rallying cry for Americans to go to War.

many great books and literature on the topic if interested.

[Guest BengalBacker]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='May 11 2005, 06:46 PM']<wistful>
Old salt sits back and wishes that people were interested in the pursuit of truth, instead of winning their side of the argument.
</wistful>
[right][post="91136"][/post][/right][/quote]


I'm sure most of us would be interested in hearing Old Salt's take, unless he starts it with something like; " now pay attention children, I'll say this real slow", and as long as Old Salt realizes no matter how much he knows, he doesn't know everything. Realize that your opinions, like everyone else's aren't completely objective. Whatever your opinion is, I'm sure that someone with just as much knowledge and intelligence as you might disagree with your conclusions.

I'm always in pursuit of the truth. I don't have a "side of the argument" other than what I see as the truth. We all come at things with different perspectives though. Even you, no matter how much you might think you can separate your preconceived notions of reality from the truth.

Do I think I'm right about everything? Of course. Everyone thinks they're right, otherwise they'd change their opinion. Am I probably wrong about some things? Of course. But so are you.





Carry on.

[jza10304]

Let's see if anything comes out of this:
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/index.html"]cnn.com[/url]

[quote]Bush asked to explain UK war memo
Thursday, May 12, 2005 Posted: 2:49 AM EDT (0649 GMT)

[b]The timing of the memo was well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.[/b]

The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1.

[b]British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity[/b], and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility.

The White House has not yet responded to queries about the congressional letter, which was released on May 6.

The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said [b]the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration..."[/b]

[b]"While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said.[/b]

But, the letter said, when the document was leaked Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new."

In addition to Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting.

A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials.

[b]"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. [/b]

[b]"The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."[/b]

The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States, along with Britain's possible role.

It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.

[b]"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.[/b]

[b]"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."[/b]

The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance."

Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used.

The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult."

Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

"If the political context were right, people would support regime change," the memo said.

Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the U.S. did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route."[/quote]

Once again, I just mention it in passing.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='jza10304' date='May 12 2005, 11:03 AM']Let's see if anything comes out of this:
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/index.html"]cnn.com[/url]
Once again, I just mention it in passing.
[right][post="91440"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


I fail to see how this changes the "now", we are already there, the job needs to be finished.

[jza10304]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 12 2005, 11:35 AM']I fail to see how this changes the "now", we are already there, the job needs to be finished.
[right][post="91509"][/post][/right][/quote]
It's just another piece of evidence on how things in this administration are run and the kind of people doing it. It was a poorly planned war based on false pretenses. That is disturbing to me. Sure we can't back out now without leaving the country stabilized, but there should have been more thought done on the costs and time it would take to pull off an operation like this. How much of an effect do you think the Iraq war has had on gas prices? What do you think all those planes, tanks, jeeps, and trucks run on? Not to mention the fact that 1,500 American soldiers have died (among countless Iraqi civilians), and thousands of others hurt or maimed. Yet we still find time to talk about Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart .

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='jza10304' date='May 12 2005, 12:54 PM']It's just another piece of evidence on how things in this administration are run and the kind of people doing it.  It was a poorly planned war based on false pretenses.  That is disturbing to me.  Sure we can't back out now without leaving the country stabilized, but there should have been more thought done on the costs and time it would take to pull off an operation like this.  How much of an effect do you think the Iraq war has had on gas prices?  What do you think all those planes, tanks, jeeps, and trucks run on?  Not to mention the fact that 1,500 American soldiers have died (among countless Iraqi civilians), and thousands of others hurt or maimed.  Yet we still find time to talk about Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart    .
[right][post="91524"][/post][/right][/quote]


Here's the rub....these problems in Iraq existed before Bush. I dont like that American soliders have died eiter nor the MANY more that have been injured, or event that Iraqi civilians. But, and I dont say this lighty, that happens in War, it's unavoidable. I wish I could find my previous post but Iraq isnt even one of the top countries we get our oil from (I found a report that showed Canada is the top country we get oil from.) Using that logic, why didnt we just attack Canada?

The Bush administration didnt write up the Iraqi Liberation Act that I posted earlier either.

Backer said something that rings very true, when you have two sides of an arguement most often the truth lies in the middle.... I wish that more would realize that .... neither side of this is 100% right with the things they say. Both could learn from the other, but hubris once again rears its ugly head.

[jza10304]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 12 2005, 12:03 PM']Here's the rub....these problems in Iraq existed before Bush.  I dont like that American soliders have died eiter nor the MANY more that have been injured, or event that Iraqi civilians. But, and I dont say this lighty, that happens in War, it's unavoidable. I wish I could find my previous post but Iraq isnt even one of the top countries we get our oil from (I found a report that showed Canada is the top country we get oil from.) Using that logic, why didnt we just attack Canada?
[right][post="91527"][/post][/right][/quote]
I wasn't mentioning oil as a reason (although a case could be made), but rather referring to the consumption of oil during a war. It is just my opinion, but I still don't see after everything that has come out, how people can still trust these guys (Bush and the rest of his handlers/cronies). I don't post these articles or my feelings to try and change people's minds, just to present another side of the coin. I am all for open discussion (in case you haven't noticed), although sometimes I am a little to sarcastic .

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='jza10304' date='May 12 2005, 01:12 PM']I wasn't mentioning oil as a reason (although a case could be made), but rather referring to the consumption of oil during a war.  It is just my opinion, but I still don't see after everything that has come out, how people can still trust these guys (Bush and the rest of his handlers/cronies).  I don't post these articles or my feelings to try and change people's minds, just to present another side of the coin.  I am all for open discussion (in case you haven't noticed), although sometimes I am a little to sarcastic  .
[right][post="91529"][/post][/right][/quote]


It's cool I can be sarcastic as well, (why I put the tounge sticking out with the post about the Iraqi Liberation Act...as sort of a stick poke. )

I dont think Bush is a saint, but I do think some of the things going on would have happened whomever was in power.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='BadassBengal' date='May 11 2005, 07:30 PM']Japan knew we were supplying the British with supplies to fight Germany more than we were supplying Germany. They get pissed. They know that Pearl Harbor is our top base in the Pacific. They knew with the German subs constantly attaching US merchant ships, that we would intervene soon, and they didn't want us to be as dominant of a force in the Pacific. We were basically supporting Britain, and so[b] the Germans attacked us[/b]. We weren't complete isolationists. Kinda just stupid.
[right][post="91189"][/post][/right][/quote]
?
For the record, we were FAR more isolationist prior to WWI than we were before WWII....
Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, not the Germans!
That stuff BJ's spewing about "letting Pearl Harbor happen" is pure conjecture, the same as the people who claim we "let" 9-11 happen...
The truth of the matter in BOTH cases is that we perceived potential threats and possible attacks, but the exact nature of them is often impossible to ascertain...you cannot always foresee every angle of a situation...

WMD or no WMD, at least the poor Iraqi people got the freedom and democracy that they had begged us for and so desperately craved...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='May 12 2005, 01:31 PM']?
For the record, we were FAR more isolationist prior to WWI than we were before WWII....
Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, not the Germans!
That stuff BJ's spewing about "letting Pearl Harbor happen" is pure conjecture, the same as the people who claim we "let" 9-11 happen...
The truth of the matter in BOTH cases is that we perceived potential threats and possible attacks, but the exact nature of them is often impossible to ascertain...you cannot always foresee every angle of a situation...

WMD or no WMD, at least the poor Iraqi people got the freedom and democracy that they had begged us for and so desperately craved...
[right][post="91534"][/post][/right][/quote]


[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//41.gif[/img]

[|Bunghole|]

Also for the record, ALL of our armored and mechanized vehicles in our military arsenal run on pure canola oil, with the exhaust being pure, enviro-friendly water vapor.
The barrels of the tanks have also been reconfigured, so now instead of depleted uranium, armor-piercing rounds, they now fire bags of apple seeds, planting orchards wherever their 64-ton masses delicately tread the fertile crescent...

In other news, US soldiers are so confident in the level of security that is now currently maintained that they have shed their body armor and weapons in favor of passing out flowers, pamphlets on the dangers of veneral disease and lollipops to Iraq's war-stricken population.

[|Bunghole|]

In all honesty, the ONLY thing that I can be relatively sure of is that war in the Middle East will ALWAYS exist as long as Israel exists, and the US continues to support it's existence with our best weaponry and training.

The fundamentalist Islamic countries will stop at nothing less than the eradication of the Israeli nation and the expulsion of infidels (Americans) from their "holy" soil.

So, the war will never truly end and terrorism is really the only effective tool that these ragtag collections of radicals can use to fight us with, since they certainly can't stand toe-to-toe with our military.

Which is why the proliferation of nuclear weapons in this crazy part of the world is literally so frightening--because unlike the Cold War, if I may quote Sting, the Russians loved their children too, but these Islamic radicals have proven they will send their own flesh and blood on suicide bombing missions...and if they obtain ANY type of nuclear device, they WILL USE IT!

And what then? Armaggeddon? Do we turn the entire Middle East into glass with nuclear fire?

Frankly, the pessimist/realist in me sees no way out of this other than a prolonged war that will really never end....

[Homer_Rice]

[quote]homer... i just heard the main guy from the "new republic", who is extremely left wing, come out and say that bush has to be given some credit for the transformation that is taking place in the middle east... of course he also said something right after wards that bashed him again, but the fact is he said he deserves some credit... are you willing to give bush even that? i still feel very strong about the war, and feel that we are doing the right thing... if we were pushing our will on them, they wouldn't have risked their lives, to vote in unbelievable numbers... did you also see the reception bush got in the Georgia? not everyone hates what we're doing...[/quote]

Bengalrick;

I'm not sure whom you refer to, but I did hear Daniel Schorr make an argument for that possibility. I agree to this extent, this admin has certainly changed the political dynamic of the middle east. I'm not certain it is for the better, in fact, I'm reasonably worried that it is for worse. What people do over the next few years, will tell.

I opposed this war before it started and oppose it now. Without getting contentious, I think it's fair to say that we assess the evidence differently.

[Guest bengalrick]

giving a person that you don't support at all, any credit at all, tells me about your character (whether you care or not is another story...) just seeing if you give any credit where i feel it is due...

me saying this is all a good thing is solely my opinion... like you said, the next couple of years are key...

btw, it wasn't that guy that said it... can't remember his name, but he appears on fox and other news stations often to give his views...

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='May 12 2005, 12:39 PM']Also for the record, ALL of our armored and mechanized vehicles in our military arsenal run on pure canola oil, with the exhaust being pure, enviro-friendly water vapor.
The barrels of the tanks have also been reconfigured, so now instead of depleted uranium, armor-piercing rounds, they now fire bags of apple seeds, planting orchards wherever their 64-ton masses delicately tread the fertile crescent...

In other news, US soldiers are so confident in the level of security that is now currently maintained that they have shed their body armor and weapons in favor of passing out flowers, pamphlets on the dangers of veneral disease and lollipops to Iraq's war-stricken population.
[right][post="91537"][/post][/right][/quote]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]

Finally Rumsfeld took my suggestions seriously, I truly believe this is the only way the war on terror can be won.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='May 12 2005, 02:55 PM'] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]

Finally Rumsfeld took my suggestions seriously, I truly believe this is the only way the war on terror can be won.

[right][post="91558"][/post][/right][/quote]


[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='BengalBacker' date='May 11 2005, 11:34 PM']I'm sure most of us would be interested in hearing Old Salt's take, unless he starts it with something like; " now pay attention children, I'll say this real slow", and as long as Old Salt realizes no matter how much he knows, he doesn't know everything. Realize that your opinions, like everyone else's aren't completely objective. Whatever your opinion is, I'm sure that someone with just as much knowledge and intelligence as you might disagree with your conclusions.

I'm always in pursuit of the truth. I don't have a "side of the argument" other than what I see as the truth. We all come at things with different perspectives though. Even you, no matter how much you might think you can separate your preconceived notions of reality from the truth.

Do I think I'm right about everything? Of course. Everyone thinks they're right, otherwise they'd change their opinion. Am I probably wrong about some things? Of course. But so are you.
Carry on.
[right][post="91319"][/post][/right][/quote]

Now pay attention, Mr. Omnipotent Dictator, I'll say this real slow.

Despite the utter banality of your epistemology 101 lecture, I do believe you think you are pursuing the truth. Yet, until you understand that there is a difference between opinion and truth, and are able to coherently distinguish between the two, you just won't be very good at pursuing the truth.

That's an opinion, based on a kernel of truth.

This is not the sort of thing I was being wistful about in my earlier post. This board has hashed this out any number of times, and it is clear to me that minds are made up. I consider that to be wistful, because there is plenty of evidence out there to shake the foundations of any person's belief (or opinion) with respect to this war, if only they would take the time to honestly assess it. This pertains to both sides, btw.

What interests me now, bb, is your frame of mind. You clearly resent my earlier comments on the capital punishment thread, yet you respond in ways which lend credence to the point I made then.

I guess I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. In any case, thank you for the permission to carry on, otherwise I might have been intimidated about expressing my views.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='May 12 2005, 03:12 PM']Now pay attention, Mr. Omnipotent Dictator, I'll say this real slow.

Despite the utter banality of your epistemology 101 lecture, I do believe you think you are pursuing the truth. Yet, until you understand that there is a difference between opinion and truth, and are able to coherently distinguish between the two, you just won't be very good at pursuing the truth.

That's an opinion, based on a kernel of truth.

This is not the sort of thing I was being wistful about in my earlier post. This board has hashed this out any number of times, and it is clear to me that minds are made up. I consider that to be wistful, because there is plenty of evidence out there to shake the foundations of any person's belief (or opinion) with respect to this war, if only they would take the time to honestly assess it. This pertains to both sides, btw.

What interests me now, bb, is your frame of mind. You clearly resent my earlier comments on the capital punishment thread, yet you respond in ways which lend credence to the point I made then.

I guess I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.  In any case, thank you for the permission to carry on, otherwise I might have been intimidated about expressing my views.
[right][post="91568"][/post][/right][/quote]


Homer I think what Backer was saying is that he'd like to know your take on what you believe that truth to be, without being vague or condescending.

[Guest bengaljet]

oh, Homer you do it so well. Minds are set and nothing can change a set mind until the truth hits them in the face. I'm the same way-someone tells me W is smart,knows what he's doing--I just can't buy it,SHOW ME more than once .
I personally love it when people talk about LIBERALS and then go out and defend the most LIBERAL SPENDING Administration in the history of America.Last count $3.5+ trillion in debt for the last 4 yrs. and tell me what do we have to show for it.Fight the good fight ,Homer and let the cards fall where they may.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='May 12 2005, 03:26 PM']oh, Homer you do it so well. Minds are set and nothing can change a set mind until the truth hits them in the face. I'm the same way-someone tells me W is smart,knows what he's doing--I just can't buy it,SHOW ME more than once .
  I personally love it when people talk about LIBERALS and then go out and defend the most LIBERAL SPENDING Administration in the history of America.Last count #3.5+ trillion in debt for the last 4 yrs. and tell me what do we have to show for it.Fight the good fight ,Homer and let the cards fall where they may.
[right][post="91571"][/post][/right][/quote]




Or condescending. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//3.gif[/img]

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 12 2005, 02:25 PM']Homer I think what Backer was saying is that he'd like to know your take on what you believe that truth to be, without being vague or condescending.
[right][post="91570"][/post][/right][/quote]

No, Jamie, I think bb wanted to take a shot primarily, and what you suggest secondarily. Insofar as the war goes, I've given my take on that; insofar as the pursuit of truth goes, emphasis on pursuit as a verb. I know that's vague, but do you really want to hear about neo-platonic epistemological warfare?

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='May 12 2005, 02:26 PM']oh, Homer you do it so well. Minds are set and nothing can change a set mind until the truth hits them in the face. I'm the same way-someone tells me W is smart,knows what he's doing--I just can't buy it,SHOW ME more than once .
  I personally love it when people talk about LIBERALS and then go out and defend the most LIBERAL SPENDING Administration in the history of America.Last count #3.5+ trillion in debt for the last 4 yrs. and tell me what do we have to show for it.Fight the good fight ,Homer and let the cards fall where they may.
[right][post="91571"][/post][/right][/quote]

i loved this comment that ben posted a while back (paraphrasing): "George W Bush is the only one stupid enough to think that peace in the middle east is possible..."

i don't know who says that bush is particulary smart... that doesn't seem to be his strong suit... what he is is constistant and presistant... being such a hard headed person has won him 2 elections and the war on terror, to this point...

homer, if we all weren't open minded, we wouldn't post our opinions to your comments