At least they had a vast country we could pepper with MIRVs! "Rational" does not necessarily imply "decent" or "just." They were rational in the sense that they understood that an attack on us meant their destruction. So if not for these "continuous mistakes in our foreign policy", the world would be bright & rosy? Are ALL the ills of mankind to be laid at the doorstep of the US? Surely you must give SOME credit to the rest of the world at large! I mean, you surely cannot suggest that the US should be held accountable for the ethnic, tribal, and socio-economic divisions that have existed for centuries and have been the root cause of some of the worst conflicts the world has ever seen. Well, we can try the appeasist approach and ask Osama, Saddam, and the other psychos to pretty-please-with-a-cherry-on-top leave us alone...yeah, I'm sure they'll go for that.
"We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when" Favorite all time movie. Surprised it would register with you. One of the great ANTI-WAR movies ever! Thought you liked war!?!?! Peace, rs7
I would recommend that mocking another's view is not conducive to persuasion. Perhaps it indicates a strength of conviction in one's own argument. I note that you did not say WHY we should not ask the Iranians. Perhaps it is because they are all fanatics, as you said above. (wonder whether that would be 'racist' if said about a non-media-approved group) Are articles linked to from 'pacifist/appeasist' websites less credible? how are the administration-generated facts you refer to more credible? on what basis? is the Washington Post a 'pacifist/appeasist' website? What is 'appeasist'? Is acknowledging that there are many sides to this story 'appeasing' anyone? Wouldn't waging a preemptive war on a people 8000 miles away without any evidence of past or future threat to the US be 'appeasing' the warmongers? As to what to do - there are some things that could be done that are so obvious that to not see them amounts to either denial or gross stupidity. Start with Josh_B's post above - he has listed quite a few good ones.
RS7, nobody likes war. However, sometimes it is a necessity. Can you name a successful culture that warred for the sake of it? As far as anti-war, that movie had some other themes. I think Strangelove was more toward showing that nuclear proliferation as well as the very existence of WMD, is madness. However, the proverbial rock and a hard place, if one side has it, then you must have parity. I found the CSN&Y lyrics to their classic antiwar anthem "Find The Cost of Freedom" to be actually pro-war: "Find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground;" that's right boys, that's exactly where you'll find it.
Although we need to go to War sometimes Max...the question I ask; is going to war with Saddam, the WAR we really need to wage???? Have they attacked us?? Just as vietnam certainly was not a War we needed...just asking....North Korea is a far greater threat, wouldnt you agree????
Vietnam, I think, was considered another Korea. However, it was completely and totally mismanaged from the original goal to the final chopper flight. You had that idiot McNamara, a former bean counter from Ford, running everything on a cost basis and bombing commitees based on a PC like strategy. Collosal mistakes were made and it was guaranteed failure. You guys bad mouth ol' tricky Dick Nixon, but one thing he did was get us out and not an extraction forced by liberals; he planned it and implemented it. As far as Iraq, I think it is a preemptive strike. Is it necessary? Hard to tell, the inspectors haven't come up with jack, yet. We have been posturing for an invasion, but that's part of the strategy, isn't it? If I was SH, I would have gotten rid of every possible WMD a long time ago and then would be laughing my ass off at this immediate moment. Perfect revenge. And if played right, the only way he can win; but if I thought of it, so has the administration. Do you think N. Korea has the balls to go ahead with a nuke program? Their economy is already in shambles, this action, if carried out, will isolate them and doom them for a decade or more.
For anyone really interested in this and into reading a long (but interesting) historical study of US nuclear strategy from the 40's to the late 80's, I recommend "The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy" by Freedman. He presents some excellent perspective and rationale behind the decisions on Korea and Viet Nam vis-a-vis the USSR, in light of the state of nuclear strategy at the time. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/103-7961043-7463866?v=glance&s=books
Believe it or not, I'm not trying to persuade you. It is obviously apparent that I will have zero success in persuading you and the other appeasers to my point of view. The reverse is just as true. I did not say WHY because the very idea of asking the Iranians, the Saudis, and especially Al Queda is so ridiculous. It would be like Frodo asking Saruman and Sauron to help him destroy the Ring. The Washington Post stopped being a wholly objective newspaper sometime ago...as for the whole issue of credibility and "facts" please see my response to Josh_B. If you honestly believe there is no future threat to the US then you are even more blind than I thought. 9/11 must have never happened, Saddam is a peaceful guy who loves us, and this can all be solved with an apology from the US and hugs all around, right? Again, see my response to Josh B - I thought most of his points were not only wishful thinking but incredibly unrealisic. Gross stupidity and denial? Heh, well that's exactly how I see you and your ilk. Your The-US-is-at-fault-for-everything-we-should-apologize-to-the-world-then-they'll-leave-us-alone doctrine is to me the height of ignorance. You undoubtedly think the same of me. To you and some others I'm probably coming off as a warmonger. In my view, our very existence is threatened and we must act forcefully to ensure our very survival. If that makes me a warmonger in your eyes, so be it. I am not naive enough to believe that our government has always acted the "right" way, but I do believe that as a nation we have made greater contributions to the world at large, indeed we have been its savior at times, than we have made mistakes. I believe that the fundamental character of this country is noble and great, and that there are those individuals and nation-states abroad that seek our destruction precisely because that character is a threat to their ideals of dictatorship or religious fundamentalism. To me you, Candle, and others are hopelessly naive appeasers and nation-haters who are blind to the threat that faces our country and ungrateful for the sacrifices our uniformed men and women have made over this past century to keep the world free and our way of life preserved. I see in your points of view a dangerous denial of the character of our enemy and a hatred of your own government that chills me. You seem to view the world through rose-tinted glasses, oblivious of the realities and dangers we face. Again, you no doubt feel I am the hopeless, naive, and blind one here. We're never going to agree on this issue, and our tone may get strong at times, but I'm not taking any of this personally. I love a good argument and all in all I'm having a darned good time. Si vis pacem, para bellum - If you want peace, prepare for war. Good trading!