>
>>
>> What makes you think Bush and others are telling the truth about the
>> invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent debacle there?
>
> What issues of truth are in doubt in your mind? Do you question who
> was behind 9/11? Do you question whether there are still groups out
> there like those that caused 9/11 that are seeking to do "us" harm?
> Do you questions whether the areas being targeted by the US military
> harbor such groups? Or do you question whether we are fighting them
> (or if it is all a grand illusion)? The only debacle is the liberal
> response to our efforts to preserve our way of life.
>
I was asking you "what makes you think xyz" and your response is off the
mark and redirected to asking me questions about 9/11.
But of course it is obvious there are people, and small groups that would
love to do harm to the US. So what?
I ask so what because if your immigration/travel system worked as it was
supposed to, most of the people who carried out 9/11 would have been
arrested at the airport on arrival and either arrested or deported.
I really can't find a rational sane reason for declaring a "war on terror"
or invading Iraq because of flaws in your arrivals security system due to
incompetence and flaws.
Furthermore, the UN sec council had declared the Taliban in breach of
resolutions for harbouring Osama Bin Laden in Jan 2001, calling for him and
al queda to be turned over to authorities [ those being the USA promarily
due the Cole and African bombings.
There was a prima facie international legal option for the USA to act in
Afghanistan with military force to capture Bin laden etc. From Jan 2001 the
USA failed to act in any way. It's quite possible that from this the
resulting outcome of that "incompetence" was 9/11.
What happened instead was that the Bush administration was giving US$ to the
Taliban, and negotiating deals with Oil companies to build pipelines thru
Afghanistan. Wasn't Osama bin Laden a bigger more pressing issue than
financially supporting the Taliban regime who was listed as a Nation that
supported and gave safety to KNOWN terrorists, namely Al Queda?????
Any idea why the Bush administration wasn't totally Impeached for
consciously supporting and trading with a known terrorist supporting Nation
whio harboured those responsible for the Cole attack, and USA Embassy
bombings as well as the previous bomb attack on the WTC in New York a decade
earlier?
Bush was President then. None of the above negates any responsibilty upon
those who perpetrated 9/11, but what of the "authorities" responsibilities
re lack of action/competence. Why did you and others continue to believe
what he told you then, as well as now?
Just doesn't make rational sense to me, so I'm wondering why does it make
rational sense to you?
>>
>> What makes you think Bush and co are telling the whole truth about al
>> queda,
>> and "terrorism" in general?
You please see above.
And maybe do some research on how the UK, Australia, Spain, Germany, France,
Netherlands, Indonesia and many other nations around the world are dealing
with "terrorist" cells [that does not include the invasion of other nations,
or a (ir)rationale that it's best for them to fight them "over there"], and
the approach they have to finding out why terrorists have become terrorists
and the lessons learned about how to stop individuals from doing so.
IOW why always view the issue thru the myopic "they all hate and want to
kill Americans in America because they want to destroy America"?
>>
>> Has it ever occurred to you that maybe matters such as 9/11, Vietnam, and
>> Iraq are more the result of blatant USA incompetence than anything else?
>
> So if a mugger breaks into your house and kills your children and
> steals your stuff, is it your fault that you did not have a good
> enough "deterrent".
The issue isn;t about "fault" Michael, I think it's about responsibility.
Truth is there's nothing I can do about a potential mugger, or any criminal,
what they do is their choice. MY responsibility though is to defend my home
as best as possible.
However, if I knew there a plan to break into my house and kill my children,
and i did nothing [ as is the case with Bush and Co ] then I sure as hell
carry a very heavy responsibility for my lack of action.
BUT, that action needs to be appropriate, specifically targetted to the
relevant criminals, and not just anyone in the neighbour because I'm afraid
of what "might happen" one day.
> Do you consider this as a viable excuse
> for the muggers actions?
No, nothing excuses things like muggers, home invaders, car thieves or even
9/11. But you cannot arrest or kill them PRIOR to the crime being committed
either, no matter what except on the proven grounds of "conspiracy", but if
we live in a civilised world then such matters get handled under the Law,
not by vigilanty mobs, or vigilanty Nation States who cower in fear.
and in my book, nothing excuses flawed incompetent invasions of nations like
Iraq with NO due cause, and without UN Security Council support for a
specific invasion that includes regime change by force.
> And ... what is most
> important ... does the fact that your deterrent was not sufficient in
> the past dictate that you not defend your home from here on out?
>
No, not at all.
There's difference between defending my home though, and terrorising the
whole neighbour because of my own self-importance. Just because I was
attacked by one group of people, doesn't give me the right to go out and
kill all other people who "appear to be the same" when they are NOT. If i
did that in the real world I would be rightly arrested and thrown in jail
......
Do you follow these analogies you offered and how they don't actually stand
up to the most basic rational analysis and life in a civilised society?
> Certainly their have been issues with US foreign policy that have
> fostered some of the conditions that we see today (the entire Jimmy
> Carter fiasco in handling Iran comes to mind),
any reason why you don't also mention Iran-Contra in this?
Carter was not responsible for the Iranian Revolution, many factors there
which included both UK, Europe and US foriegn policy, but more
repsonsibility lays with the Shah, and the Iranians themselves.
Just like Bush II isn't responsible for 50 years of Middle-east policy, but
he IS responsible for his actions and decisions as President during his
term, as are the American people collectively because he "represents" them,
and they voted him in, twice.
So when the really bad blow-back from invading and screwing up in Iraq comes
"home to roost" yet again, remember that when you point the finger of blame,
there are three fingers pointing back at yourself [ collectively ]. Up to
you then, what you chose to do about it, but that too will have
consequences, either positive or negative. Such things are always up to YOU
and not any potential villian in the shadows.
Criminals, terrorists, and all manner of folks do NOT operate in a vacume
but infact respond to what they are confronted with, or believe they are
confronted with.
These beliefs are best based as close to reality, and the whole truth as
possible, or further errors cannot help but be made repeatedly.
Here's another tip ..... look very closely at Vietnam .... in all it;s glory
with the WSDOM of hindsight, especially from people like McNamara who have
"seen the light" ..... and then , have a really good look at Iraq and the
excuses, and the spin, and the blatant lies, and the sheer incompetence of
the handling of the post invasion senario there, and remember to count the
"body bags" and the casualty lists both US and Iraqi. ALL are real people,
with family and friends.
> but unless you belong
> to the lunatic fringe that thinks the Jews/US were behind 9/11 that
> does not mean we should role over and just give in to those who would
> use terror against us.
Why do you so quickly jump to assumptions and get so distracted from the
topic at hand?
I never said anything about 9/11 or the Jews, or suggested that the USA
should "roll over" in any way shape or form. I asked you to maybe
re-consider YOUR thinking, and your beliefs, and asked why is that after all
that has happened people like you still choose to "believe" Bush and Co and
the Policy approach they are still following?
Because given the experience to date in Iraq, given that both Johnson and
Nixon lied thru their teeth to the American people about Vietnam, and given
the senario is so similar re "screw ups" all over the place, and moving goal
posts, and claims of winning followed by more death and destruction and
limited real progress.
Does anyone in America now realise why Suddam ruled the Iraqi people with a
rifle in his hand? Has anyone worked out that the Bush admin had NO CLUE
about anything about Iraq, and it;s people before they invaded?
Have you not seen any documentaries or detailed books etc about what's
unfolded in Iraq and therefore not been able to connect the dots of
incompetance that mirror just what happened in Vietnam all those years ago?
> Primarily for two reasons: 1) they wont stop
> just because we tell them we agree with them and 2) whether right or
> wrong our political leaders need to protect American interests today
> irregardless of the past.
>
Yes. OK. The question is ARE yoiur leaders actually protecting your American
interests or is it just a load of bullshit like what happened in Vietnam? Is
it not just a pattern repeat of a lesson America failed to realise 50 years
ago?
Why do you keep believing that what Bush has done, and is still doing
equates to a safe and protected America? No one saw 9/11 coming? It was
surprise?
Are you all that naive still 7 years after that event?
>>
>> I mean, even as a minute possibility, that you and many others might be
>> actually totally wrong about what you believe because of what you've been
>> told [sold]?
>
> It appears that your argument is that your distrust of the current
> political environment is greater then your fear of the what the
> terrorist would do to the US. The view point assumes that our current
> political leaders hate us and wish us harm (what other motives would
> they have). You may believe that but I do not. It does not match
> their previous actions.
>
Jumping to assumptions again Michael, and totally mis-reading and
mis-representing what I was asking/saying and then totally avoid my question
above.
But in a way you do tell it correctly. I do distrust the "current" politicos
in the White House far greater than I fear what a terrorist would do, namely
because I do not live in fear of terrorists like you and others apparently
do.
I choose freedom, not fear as a way of life. Why you persist in choosing
fear is your problem, not mine. Why you persist in following along with
flawed policies that can only lead to an increase in people choosing terror
as weapon against Americans is beyond my capacity to rationally hold such
faulty thinking within my head.
If I were you, then I would would be more concerned about your current crop
of politicos and the Agencies that work for them because of their recent and
ongoing proven history of sheer incompetence both in regard to 9/11 and
especially everything connected with Iraq & Afghanistan from the get go,
than any immeditate threat of terror in America, or some drama out of Iran.
It simply beggars belief that so many people like you, depsite all the
available evidence and information out there now, that you still choose to
support the bs rhetoric of Bush, Cheney and Co.
There's a reason why all the top Military brass quit soon after the Iraq
invasion was successful. Do you know what that is? It wasn't because they
preferred going fishing in their old age.
There's a reason why there was NO workable post-invasion plan for Iraq.
There's a reason why Rumsfelt finally was pushed out of office, I'd say that
happened 6 years too late.
There's a reason why Powell quit and didn't return after Bush's re-election.
There's a method in the madness of the neo-cons, but it's still madness.
There's a number of reasons why Iraq has been such a total disaster from
start to finish, but primarily it's because Bush was President, and the
American people voted him and his crowd into office twice.
You seem to not have noticed that the USA is in the biggest mess of it's
existence since the Civil War, but the reasons for this isn't because Muslim
terrorists hate America, and nor is it because 9/11 happened. I think the
trouble may lay in an inability to connect all the dots and clearly see how
various things are connected.
>>
>> Think about it. Maybe even dig a little deeper and challenge yourself to
>> question "on what basis of fact/knowledge are you basing your beliefs
>> upon"?
>
> Do you even see the world events that are happening. Do you see what
> is happening in Europe, Asia, the Middle East. Their are forces at
> work which hate western culture and that seek power. They are more
> then willing to kill anyone that stands in their way and use the
> religion of Islam to accomplish their goals. Do you somehow not see
> this? Do you think the 9/11 bogeyman does not exist? If you do see
> this, what is your plan to combat this evil?
>
SANITY & AWARENESS OF WHAT IS!!!
Works for me.
PS Please do yourself a favour and contemplate the following two lists VERY
carefully:::
The 11 Lessons from Vietnam [ All repeated in Iraq fiasco, bar none ]
The origin of the film's lesson concept is the eleven lessons in McNamara's
1996 book In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam:
1.. We misjudged then - and we have since - the geopolitical intentions of
our adversaries . and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of
their actions.
2.. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own
experience . We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
3.. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to
fight and die for their beliefs and values.
4.. Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance
of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the
personalities and habits of their leaders.
5.. We failed then - and have since - to recognize the limitations of
modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine.
6.. We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning
the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
7.. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and
frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military
involvement . before we initiated the action.
8.. After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off
our planned course . we did not fully explain what was happening and why we
were doing what we did.
9.. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are
omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best
interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international
forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our
image or as we choose.
10.. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action . should
be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully
(and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
11.. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other
aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate
solutions . At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons
of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex
range of political and military issues.
--------------------------------------------------------
McNamara's additional ten lessons
These were written as a companion to the film and are included in the
Special Features of the DVD.
1.. The human race will not eliminate war in this century but we can
reduce war, the level of killing, by adhering to the principles of a just
war, in particular of proportionality.
2.. The indefinite combinations of human fallibility and nuclear weapons
will lead to the destruction of nations.
3.. We are the most powerful nation in the world - economically,
politically, and militarily - and we are likely to remain so for decades
ahead. But we are not omniscient. If we cannot persuade other nations with
similar interests and similar values of the merits of the proposed use of
that power, we should not proceed unilaterally except in the unlikely
requirement to defend the continental US, Alaska and Hawaii.
4.. Moral principles are often ambiguous guides to foreign policy and
defense policy, but surely we can agree that we should establish as a major
goal of U.S. foreign policy and, indeed, of foreign policy across the globe
: the avoidance in this century of the carnage - 160 million dead - caused
by conflict in the 20th century.
5.. We, the richest nation in the world, have failed in our responsibility
to our own poor and to the disadvantaged across the world to help them
advance their welfare in the most fundamental terms of nutrition, literacy,
health, and employment.
6.. Corporate executives must recognize there is no contradiction between
a soft heart and a hard head. Of course, they have responsibilities to their
employees, their customers and to society as a whole.
7.. President Kennedy believed a primary responsibility of a president -
indeed "the" primary responsibility of a president - is to keep the nation
out of war, if at all possible.
8.. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or
within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we
should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court -
that the U.S. has refused to support - which would hold individuals
responsible for crimes against humanity.
9.. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we
must develop a sense of empathy - I don't mean "sympathy" but rather
"understanding" to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.
10.. One of the greatest dangers we face today is the risk that terrorists
will obtain access to weapons of mass destruction as a result of the
breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Regime. We in the U.S. are contributing
to that breakdown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War#The_film.27s_eleven_lessons
Now, think about it some and especially before being such an eager but naive
spokesperson for incompetents and their flawed policies and the shortcomings
in personal abilities relative to the positions of responsibilty they hold.
IOW seek wisdom. There's no future in fear, except even more fear. It's no
way to live. At least, that's how I see it today.
So thanks for the opportunity to present what I have. I hope it helps.
Goodnight, and Good Luck!
