You’re right, but admit this… that one shred of honesty would have been very refreshing. As far as the NeoCon ideology, I find the whole damn thing repugnant. I don’t want any “new world order”. I don’t want to be “master of the fucking universe”. I want my country to lead by example and not by force or bullying, by showing what can be done when good people do the right thing, and for others to say “Hey those guys are right”. I want respect, not fear. I want us to be the good guys. Instead, we’ve turned into the things we should oppose. I don’t think I’ll ever see it again. Not in my lifetime.
Red, I just read that Vanity Fair Wolfie “interview” where he kepteither evading, lying, or otherwise saying nothing, all in a seeming random fashion. That fucker makes my skin crawl.
The trouble is, Steve, that this kind of approach would only work in a Leave It To Beaver kind of world. The reality is there are plenty of people in this world who are just plain mean, nasty and cruel, and the kind of approach you are advocating would result in nothing but contempt and ridicule from those kinds of people. You would be thought of as weak and someone to be taken advantage of.
Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, some 5,000 people a week were dying as a result of Hussein’s brutal and uncaring reign. Israelis were being killed as a result of being encouraged to commit suicide bombings by Iraqi payments to ensure their familes would survive. People were routinely being tortured and/or killed. And in the most sadistic ways you can imagine. People were being fed feet first into wood chippers. Young brides were being raped on their wedding night by Uday. People who were no more than suspected of disloyalty were hauled off, never to be seen again. (I’m reminded of the story of the wife of one such person who was granted an audience with Hussein to plead for the return of her husband who had disappeared in such a way. Hussein promised her that her husband would indeed be returned. The next day he was, in pieces in plastic garbage bags.
Do you really think a high-road approach such as you advocate is going to accomplish anything with a guy like that? Like it or not, sometimes people just have to be smashed. It’s been the way of the world as long as the world existed. The good news though, is that nowadays it’s generally the bad guys that get smashed. Hundreds (and even thousands) of years ago, it was the good guys who were getting smashed by the bad ones. Now the good guys hold most of the greatest power around the world, and cruel dictators are slowly becoming a thing of the past. But you can’t fight a war – and you can’t protect yourself from terrorists or others who would like to see you wiped from the face of the Earth – by trying to show people what happens when “good people do the right thing.”
I’ve seen enough of your posts to know you’re a good guy, Steve. And I don’t mean these things as an insult to you or you’re way of thinking. I just don’t believe (and I’ve never seen it work in practice) that peaceful, highminded solutions are effective in dealing with cruel, evil, murderous people.
I happen to think Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush are fine people. I know many on this board are virtually homicidal in their disagreement. But whether you admire them or loathe them, it is due to people like them that we enjoy the safety and freedom that we do. There’s a famous quote attributed to George Orwell that says:
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
No one enjoys safety and freedom anywhere (even in the so-called neutral countries who are actually being protected by the shelter of other, powerful countries) without someone somewhere being ready to do nasty things to protect them. And rough men are just that: rough men! And we need such men at times like these. You should be thankful we have a Cheney and a Rumsfeld and, yes, even a Bush, because whether you agree with them or not they are working feverishly to keep us all safe.
:smack: Sorry, Steve, that first mention of your name should be bolded and not in italics, which makes it look like an insult. My mistake.
Before you start thinking of me as being “too nice”, keep in mind that I do believe in ruthless overwhelming force provided it is justifiable and in response to a real threat. If we were attacked by a country and were defending ourselves in open warfare, I would hold with Gen. Sherman’s theory of Total War, exactly as he outlined it. However, we were not attacked by Iraq, we attacked them and all the reasons for that war are unraveling. No ties to Al Queda. No WMD (separately verified by the UN and our own CIA). No threat from Iraq. We were attacked by a group of terrorists that call no place home. You do not get the support of other countries by attacking and invading them. You do not do it by insulting or turning your past allies and friends into “punching bags” for having the temerity to disagree or question you. You do not deliberately ignore reports from your own commanders (including retired high ranking officers) and intelligence agencies just because they don’t fit your new world order. You do not lie to your own people and then keep changing your story. You don’t send your soldiers off to die because it seemed politically expedient to try and do it “on the cheap” and with grossly inadequate planning. We might have caught Osama, but instead we went on a little family feud in Iraq. Our real enemy slipped away and is laughing at us. Meanwhile we are hellbent to create more enemies because “we” are too stubborn to even consider that we might be wrong.
If it is a choice between being the “light of the world” or the “terror of the world”, I prefer the light. Being good does not necessarily mean weakness.
Cite please.
Half a million children were killed in Iraq before the war as a direct result of US sanctions. What about them, or do you agree with the quote below
I haven’t seen it mentioned here so, first, a bow to Svin, as this thread is dedicated to him, and then, I must point out that luci had it right: when the question of why Saddam never came clean about not having any WMD’s came up, luci said he was bluffing for the benefit of his enemies. Today, the Duelfer report said just that. luci had it right.
Thank you, thank you! I was simply dying to gloat about that, but was constrained by pretense and false modesty. It was killing me!
Yep, that was me, all right, sayin’ that Saddam was trying to bluff out the Iranians. People scorned that, you know. Mocked such silly notions. I don’t hold a grudge, or anything. But their names are: Aardvaark, Anthony A. Abbot, Benjamin A., Abbot, Benjamin C. (no relation)…
I hear you, Steve, and I heartily agree with all you said. I note that you’ve had to write a disclaimer of sorts for Starv – it figures. For it’s people like him that are part of the problem. They’ve become what they hate.
As for not being optimistic, well, the impossible does take a little while. But that doesn’t mean a man can’t dream – quite the opposite actually. For in a myriad of situations that’s the only way to remain alive. But I admit, many times I wonder if humanity has actually made any kind of ethical progress. I mean for all the technological marvels that surround us, for all the science that has tripled our lifespans, we’re so easy to revert back to acting like cavemen.
Don’t have an answer, but what I do know is that killing each other off is not a solution.
Take care.
Say 'luc, have I ever told you how much I admire your modesty? <vbg>
Why, no, as a matter of fact. I’ve a few moments to spare…
He! Best restrain myself. I’ve already been accused of cyber-fellating another Doper on this very thread. OTOH, in the off chance you happen to be a leggy supermodel posing as a witty, middle-aged, liberal scribe, perhaps we can work something out.
Hey, I did say a man can dream…
If that fails, you can always hallucinate…
Hell, I’m tryng really hard to hallucinate that the President of the United States isn’t an enraged chimp, but it’s not working. 
[Note to humor-impaired: That was hyperbole, my pets.]
I know people like you. Art, science, arguments, whatever — it’s serious only if it agrees with you. Frankly, I don’t take you seriously.
My name’s not Art.
Get to know me. I’m a bundle of fun.
Well, I may not know Art, but I know what I like. And …I kinda like snarky comebacks to poorly considered pissy little driveby comments.
xeno sez: Hang in there, sevastopol.
sevastopol’s name is not Art.
But he knows what he likes. An old fart
Making drivebys so pissy,
Ill-considered, hit-or-missy,
Really begs for a snarkasm dart.
sevastopol, you old snopester dog you! Good on ya!
At least, I assume that you were the archangel sevastopol. If not, I had you confused with another sevastopol, and I apologize.
Shouldn’t you be proving gods somewhere?