If I were, I would point out that the goal in Afghanistan was to begin fighting al Qaeda. It is much like a 12 step program - first, you admit you have a problem.
“Capturing” OBL was never a realistic goal. I don’t know anyone who thought that was ever possible, save a few peacniks who mentioned trying him in a world court or something. Keeping him on the run and defensive until we can kill him seems like it’s going fine so far. Destroying the Taliban and the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan were goals which we accomplished.
“Why should they recant?”
Hitchens answers this before you asked. I’ll bold the answer.
I’m not a leftist, I try to call them as I see them, so generally I admit when I make lousy predictions. I am unfamiliar with the wrong-but-heart-was-in-the-right-place defense. Chomsky - not to be confused with our beloved Chumpsky - said that the US was trying to murder millions of innocent Afghanis with a starvation policy.
I’d start there. Recant the insane defamation and grandiose incorrect predictions, Chomsky.
And the two-thirds of the American public who want the US to pursue more diplomatic means to end the conflict with Iraq, and the one-third of all Americans who do not suport military action against Iraq at all under the current circumstances.
I apologize if you misunderestimated the limits of “United We Stand.” It doesn’t mean that we give up our freedom of debate so that our Grand High Poobah can do whatever he wants.
By the way, on freedom, I’m with this side. I’ll defend to the death the anti-war movements right to be wrong. I’m not sold on an Iraqi war myself. If war does not make you nervous, you might not have thought things through.
OTOH, I think Hitchens critique, though scathing, makes some good points.
People are protesting to let the administration know that this is not how we want to be represented. The people who went to Washington, D.C. (I was there; got back yesterday on the bus), had this as their purpose.
The sheer numbers (which are reported differently depending on which site you visit) were meant to deliver a message to the president: many of the people you represent do not want war on Iraq.
I walked with a retired teacher and his wife who carried a sign which said “Grandpas for peace.” I saw one sign that said “Mainstream White guys for peace.” There were many other groups represented who are not extremists. There were many different ages and ethnicities of people. There were some in wheelchairs. There were some wearing preppie-type clothing and Columbia jackets. Two from our group are Benedictine nuns.
This was not a group of flakes, but a whole lot of very ordinary people who want the president to listen to them.
Yes. You have made one true assertion. The point that you seem to lose, however, is that the divisiveness followed the lies, it did not preceed it.
First, the government lied.
In lying, (without any public pressure to do so), they then began to micromanage the war.
And the discovery of those lies led to divided opinions about the war–and ultimately to a loss of trust in government.
Your original claim was that it was the “fault” of the protestors that the nation was torn apart during Vietnam and it will be the “fault” of the protestors if the country is harmed, now.
I submit that it was the unnecessary lies of the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon administrations that harmed the country then and it will be the lies of the Bush administration that will harm the country, now.
Perhaps you should have used the man’s name, rather than obscure initials. It could have been Merle Haggard, Monty Hall, or Mariel Hemmingway, etc. Just a suggestion. While I have enjoyed occasionally the antics of the Stooges, there’s no way I could have known whom you were referencing, nor, from the tone of your previous posts, if it were a joke.
“United We Stand” was, in my opinion only a catch-phrase to try to lift the spirits of a stunned nation. (It was also the name for Ross Perot’s reform party, but that’s another matter.) I think I can say, without any doubt, that we were all united against the people who brought us the horror of 9/11, but when Bush decided to widen the front to include nations whose ties to the terrorists are weak and obscure at best, he lost a great deal of support. But other posters have said it better than I, and I’ll leave it in their capable hands.
You say you do not “like or trust the government,” but dissaprove of those who publicly express the same opinion. No offense, but this seems a bit hypocritical, if not just plain contradictory.
Beyond the sheer numbers of the protestors, there is another significant implication.
When I first saw an anti-war protest, it was 1967. There were something like 10 people there, and I knew every one of them. What media was in attendance was in “smirk” mode. And just about everybody hated our guts. Bob Hope drew gales of laugher with “hippie/bath/soap/job” jokes. The media was not merely the purveyor of propaganda, it was the source and the engine.
With agonizing slowness, the numbers grew, no thanks to the radical meatheads in our midst who simply couldn’t grasp that getting our message to the staid middle class was entirely the point of the excercise. “America” with a “k”, that sort of thing.
It took years, years to arrive at the kind of mass numbers that are turning out now. And here’s the punch line: these numbers are in advance of the reality! These are people protesting a prospective war, not a present fact.
My point, and I do have one, is that if this many people will turn out in advance of an actual war, imagine how many will be there if this ham-fisted excercise becomes a reality. A factor of ten is not unrealistic, in my estimation.
Add my name to the list of people against going to war in Iraq. I can’t help but think Bush’s real agenda in pursuing this war has nothing to do with any “Axis of Evil,” and everything to do with oil and, yes, his dad.
That being said, no soldier deserves to be mocked or insulted. They deserve our admiration and support even if we don’t always see eye to eye.
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. "
Originally posted by Blown & Injected
The man could tell the people, the protesters anything either way and does not alter the effectiveness of the fighting.
Rrrrr! it’s the lies, the lies. the lies cause the rules of engagement to be stupid!!!
Do you have any sort of valid point? Perhaps some support other than emoticons for your questionable assertions?
Abe, that is sarcasm. It was in response to some flap that another poster is drawing me in to. It is a different situation, but I guess it is easier for that person to argue on that point
distracting from issues such as corporate governance, erosions of civil liberties, the economy, and the many blunders of Dubya
Oh yeah, Abe, save your BS liberal rant for your own thread - didn’t anybody notice that the economy went south during the last two years of the Clinton admn?
Well, first all this flap is not just about 9/11 - remember that the world including Iraq, agreed to do certain things. The military may just be there to check things out and ensure compliance - but we should know what Saddam is capable of - it is him that might force the hand.
It was Saddam that was firing scuds at American’s - but I guess you don’t call that an attack
You’re the one making the absurd suggestions that expressing disapproval of government actions with which one does not agree is the equivalent of yelling “Fire!” in a theatre and then re-writing history to support your position.
It appears, however, that your entire position is simply an emotional one that, for some obscure reason, no one should criticize the government. I can certainly understand why you would not want to attempt to defend that position with facts or logic.
Well, probably not, since it only got soft–without ever “heading south”–in the last six months of his term. (The economy was going to suffer in 2001, regardless who was president, and 9/11 certainly exacerbated that situation, but none of Bush’s actions–such as picking a shooting war that is not necessary or desirable–seem to have done much to improve it.)
Your link did not work for this AOL :rollyeyes: user.
And read this again our President is not just doing what he wants (did you claim that when Clinton sent our troops on more deployments around the world than both President Bush’s)
It is about enforcing a UN resolution, and if you believe that if Saddam is better left alone than I believe you are blind!
Another one jumping on the societal wave trying to hold themselves up with absurd gossip.
While I do not agree with some of what B&I has said, I must say those who think this impending battle with Iraq is because of oil or grandpa-bush are completely missing the reason for getting Saddam out of the global picture. Those who rule by way of torture and savagery need to be dealth with. I do not think the US should be the only nation to have the capability to deal with regimes like this, but surly no one on these boards is condoning what Saddam has done and continues to do?
And for those who are still playing poker without a full deck, try looking at some other news sources besides CNN…
As of this morning the US is hinting about exile over war, and actually giving some thought into what the Saudis are suggesting for a governmental change of underwear in Iraq…
And the lie now? Saddam/UN resolutions? And what war are all these subversives talking about? Iraq is still firing missiles, Saddam is still talking like he has the means to wipeout millions.
Well, we aren’t currently at war with Iraq. The only reasonable time to thrash out whether or not war is necessary is before it starts. I seems to me that you would like to foreclose even that opportunity.
The quotation about “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater” is from Justice Holmes and I’ve seen it roundly criticized. For one thing if there is a fire or, as elucidator wrote, you see someone trying to start one, that isn’t a false warning and one certainly seems called for.
As the case in which Holmes made his famous statement was explained [Alan Dershowitz on Firing Line(?)] to me, it involved the trial and appeal of a man who was advising men on legal ways to avoid the draft in WWI. There was nothing “false” about his methods and the Supreme Court, as it often does in time a war, deferred to the executive and not to the law with Holmes using a false analogy to almost rabble-rouse rather than deliver a considered opinion.
I don’t suppose my aversion will slow down the use of the quote by so much as an iota, but I am sick of hearing it, especially since most quoters omit the “falsely.”
The first lie was the “Axis of Evil” which implied a coherent and allied conspiracy to wage war when the three countries are not allied and two of them are opposed to each other. His next lie was including Iran in that “Axis” when Iran has been making slow steps toward a genuine democracy for over 15 years and bundling them in with their enemies the Iraqis would be more likely to strengthen the authoritarian rule, harming the democratic effort. The lie now is that Bush claims that Iraq is a threat to the U.S.
We have alread demonstrated that we have the will to attack Hussein. He knows that any aggression against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, or Georgia* (or if we even suspected that he supported a terrorist attack on the U.S., since he clearly has no other way to get to us), will bring retaliation from the U.S.
He is quite happy strutting arounds and posturing about how tough he is without actually endangering his little fiefdom.
In exactly the same way that he claimed that the invaders would be destroyed in the “Mother of all battles” in the last war. The “missiles” his is firing are ineffective attempts to shoot at people who are flying over his country. When he does so, he is routinely punished by having his radar and launchers destroyed. He is not threatening any other country with his pathetic posturing.
He is a blowhard who picks on his own people. He is not a threat to the outside world.
On the other hand, Korea, which seems to be run by a guy who really does not care what the ramifications of his actions, and is a threat (at least ot S.Korea and Japan) is being treated with kid gloves.
*(Bush would proabably cheer if Iraq attacked Syria or Iran, following which he would offer to sell them weapons, of course.)