Originally posted by vvv
as it is, you are asking for arguments for a presupposition whose validity has in no way been established.
I'll try to keep this brief. Please read the opening of this thread. Please do not patch, paste and cut here unless it is about a book/article that you personally have written. I am not interested in your opinions about the Bush/democratic/outside ideas. But I am interested in your concise explanations of your stances. I can find the other crap myself. I have the Internet.
If you don't choose to expound on YOUR IDEAS based on YOUR LOGIC, then I really don't find the pastes interesting enough to discuss. That is being done enough on many other threads here at Chit Chat. I am looking for innovation and open discussions here, not rehashing.
Your War Policy Please...Draw You Plans
- Thread starter canyonman00
- Start date
Originally posted by canyonman00
Originally posted by vvv
as it is, you are asking for arguments for a presupposition whose validity has in no way been established.
I'll try to keep this brief. Please read the opening of this thread. Please do not patch, paste and cut here unless it is about a book/article that you personally have written. I am not interested in your opinions about the Bush/democratic/outside ideas. But I am interested in your concise explanations of your stances. I can find the other crap myself. I have the Internet.
If you don't choose to expound on YOUR IDEAS based on YOUR LOGIC, then I really don't find the pastes interesting enough to discuss. That is being done enough on many other threads here at Chit Chat. I am looking for innovation and open discussions here, not rehashing.
oh my, showing your real colors, are you, hehe.
just a question of time, a mere inevitability, really.
look, you're the one, just like your great hero, dubya, who's mightily in favor of an imbecilic war that has us isolated internationally, for which we have no money, and that has no merits that are presentable.
so, pray, pretend you know how these things work, think back to your university days, if indeed you attended, which doesn't seem very likely going by your dislike for finding and quoting sources, anyway, go back there, and remember:
you're the one selling the theory, so you're the one who actually, oh dear, has to back it up with facts and not just hyped up sound bites.
of course, that is hard to do when one doesn't have any facts, hehe.
after all, you don't have any because your hero has up to this day never managed to come up with even a single piece of conclusive evidence linking saddam to terror or 9/11.
too bad.
tough luck, so to speak.
happily, that is exactly why your moron in chief has increasingly fewer followers willing to support his incompetent policies as time goes by, and as more and more are waking up and starting to use their brains.
brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133
Originally posted by vvv
oh, canyon, are you serious?? really looks like all you're doing here is attempting to play the game bush is playing, trying, with very happily ever decreasing success, to pull wool over the eyes of american citizens, by pretending, contrary to all evidence and even mere common sense, that a strike against saddam is legitimate and necessary, by trying to make those who opposes such tomfoolery be made out as unpatriotic, through ministry of propaganda slogans such as, if you're not with us, you're against us, wanted dead or alive, and similar nonsense.
No, what I am trying to do here is find a comprehensive way of determining what I would do if I were in charge. That has nothing to do with Bush, Scowcroft, congress, the U.N., etc. This is MY personal attempt at being able to state my opinion and not a paste and cut approach at diplomacy as has been practiced by the governments of the past.
And since I have not made up my mind as to what I would do overall, I don't see how you can know. But that has been what Americans have been accused of in the past. You know, knowing what is best for everyone else without knowing much at all about the people that they are claiming to be helping. Rather than continue that practice, I'll take this opportunity to learn a little more first. I'll come to my own determinations without a need to fit within a nice package. And I'll do so from checking through my own sources.
Hopefully this will help you to understand my interest here. If not, oh well.
Originally posted by canyonman00
Originally posted by vvv
No, what I am trying to do here is find a comprehensive way of determining what I would do if I were in charge. And I'll do so from checking through my own sources.
Hopefully this will help you to understand my interest here. If not, oh well.
why, are you actually dissembling here? wagging the dog at me?
earlier you wrote:
You're now advising and I need a plan to start this whole thing into motion. Articulate your plan to me as though I had to now convince the powers that be. Talk to me! We have to stop this Sadam in power thing and I don't think sitting still with sanctions for another ten years is an acceptable solution. How do we go about the action at hand?
funny, as containment and deterrence do not need active action in the sense i presume you meant action there, and as you are against sanctions, presumably also weapons inspectors, as otherwise you wouldn't need a whole new action plan, the latter being the model of choice for the world at large with an action plan pretty much lying on the table, just waiting to be picked up and implemented, after all, hehe, most anybody would take that as a pretty clear statement that you are in favor of military action, reason or no reason, i mean, dubya said so, right?
as, indeed, you have also stated numerous times in other posts and other threads, making it somewhat hard to believe that all of a sudden you're engaged in an objective little fact finding mission for the true good of this country.
brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133
Originally posted by vvv
so, pray, pretend you know how these things work, think back to your university days, if indeed you attended, which doesn't seem very likely going by your dislike for finding and quoting sources, anyway, go back there, and remember:
Hmm, during my university days, dear boy, what I did learn was that for every action there was an opposite reaction. So for every bit of positive crap you can find for your position, so to can I for mine. So for the purposes of humoring you here. I have responded.
---------------------------------
you're the one selling the theory, so you're the one who actually, oh dear, has to back it up with facts and not just totally brainless hype.
I have yet to develop a theory past the fact that Sadam needs to be removed. How, when (although I do opt for sooner rather than later), and what means is to be used is still on the table in my mind. I have no hype, no sound bites, nor any presumed filtered party endorsed opinions. Sarcasm aside, jabs undesired or needed, hard decisions made based on my own factors forthcoming.
To that extent sir, I bid you to have a great day!
Originally posted by canyonman00
I have yet to develop a theory past the fact that Sadam needs to be removed. How, when (although I do opt for sooner rather than later), and what means is to be used is still on the table in my mind. I have no hype, no sound bites, nor any presumed filtered party endorsed opinions. Sarcasm aside, jabs undesired or needed, hard decisions made based on my own factors forthcoming.
To that extent sir, I bid you to have a great day!
but, you still have it the wrong way round.
if you are the one wanting action of the described sort, taking out saddam, as he's spelled, btw, then you are the one who needs to bring up facts that would support that and give it meaning, purpose and context.
to give you a picture, as they apparently say more than a thousand words: if dubya were a used car salesman, one of the few jobs he might actually be able to accomplish with at least a modicum of success, i should imagine, and he were to make the claim that i should buy a tattered old lemon because it's actually a lambo (alternatively, feel free to insert your vehicle of choice) in disguise, he would have to be the one who proves that to me with facts and not fiction, and not the other way around.
but, apart from that little technicality, i also wish you the best and most successful of days.
brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133
Originally posted by canyonman00
Because?
[in reference to those in power having done a cost/benefit analysis]
Because, imo, implicit in most cost/benefit analyses performed by politicians and those in power is that they are designed to compute a benefit to THEMSELVES, and a cost to OTHERS (i.e., you and I). The list of examples is near endless and outside this topic...
What would I do about Iraq? Honestly, I can't say - I simply don't know what is true and what is not.
Taking what Bush says at face value, his policy seems sound. But given the irrationality of what he describes, coupled with the obvious motives of various powerful parties and the litany of deceit and abuse apparent in every single other governmental endeavor, one may be skeptical that, for some reason, this time, we should trust them to tell the truth and to do what is best for the people.
Originally posted by vvv
earlier you wrote:
You're now advising and I need a plan to start this whole thing into motion. Articulate your plan to me as though I had to now convince the powers that be. Talk to me! We have to stop this Sadam in power thing and I don't think sitting still with sanctions for another ten years is an acceptable solution. How do we go about the action at hand?
Please don't remove the context. This was written as a query to the other party as to the questions as they would be posed. It was done for the other party to SUPPOSE that I was advising and I needed to defend their position. It outlined the question stance that might arise from taking such a position. Again, not my position to support, but the person who initially wrote to me.
You further prove my point of why I can not seriously take your cut and paste efforts with full validity status. By taking the snippet to prove YOUR attempt, you misrepresent the whole original text.
-------------------------
funny, as containment and deterrence do not need active action in the sense i presume you meant action there, and as you are against sanctions, presumably also weapons inspectors, as otherwise you wouldn't need a whole new action plan, the latter being the model of choice for the world at large, after all, hehe, most anybody would take that as a pretty clear statement that you are in favor of military action, reason or no reason, i mean, dubya said so, right?
Lack of understanding on your part obviously. To have containment and deterrence you do need active, and proactive, involvement. And where HERE in this thread where I am officially determining my 'TOTAL" stance have I addressed the fact that I am against sanctions of any and all types? Are you possibly make me the party of your ASS-U-ME posture? Please, I choose not to participate.
-----------------------------
as, indeed, you have also stated numerous times in other posts and other threads, making it somewhat hard to believe that all of a sudden you're engaged in an objective little fact finding mission for the true good of this country.
What I have repeatedly (and continue to) stated, is that I have no problem with using force to remove this man as the head of the country. I have also stated that I do not think the current lame posture of "let's just continue sanctions" is a good one. As it is still my opinion, I have decided to see if I can have more to say about it than just another clip and paste job.
Also, my fact finding mission is about developing a personal region strategy position. Not so much as to help with you with your single minded war/ no war echos, but for a more rounded posture for ME. Through the use of folks that have the ability to interact with their ideas and not their cut/pastes approaches.
Any other statements that YOU have determined as my position may have been from a particular query of a writer. Yes I am more supportive of military action, albeit limited, than that crap that I hear from most pundits. But time will tell. I do know that when I finally have my formed opinion, it won't be able to be repeated word for word on a TV interview, or some Internet post from someone else's mind.
Therein lies the quandary for us all. We have done so many things with ulterior motives. For once I'd like to see us operate in full good faith and without economic bias. While that may be an unreal expectation of the current times, we need to strive for it. Truth in statements and actions that is.
While I agree that the Bush posture seems sound, I am thinking that we are not addressing enough of the long term NEW postures that also need to be taken. If we are going to stop this regime, how can we not address (simultaneously) some other terrorist interests. We also need to talk to some of the so-called friends and change things there too. Otherwise, I think most military-only actions in Iraq would in effect be a too small (very temporary) Band-Aid for the upcoming region surgery.
Originally posted by canyonman00
Originally posted by vvv
I do know that when I finally have my formed opinion, it won't be able to be repeated word for word on a TV interview, or some Internet post from someone else's mind.
OK, fair enough. This is what I have done. I have just sort of shot from the hip, and tried to use common sense. Now it seems that no matter what I say, or others say, you (canyonman) seem to disagree pretty much down the line. So the point has come where it is now only fair to ask YOU what your thoughts are. You started this thread asking for input. You have received exactly what you asked for. You have been given ideas ranging from doing essentially nothing, to an immediate strike on Iraq. And quite a few suggestions that fall somewhere in between.
I will grant you the status of being the "conductor" of this assembly. It is your classroom. You have given the quizzes. You have critiqued the answers. But there comes a time when the "teacher" must "teach". Giving teasers is fine for a while. But credibility fades after a time.
Now you have had your "students" turn in their "research". Their "essays". It is time for you to assemble the best and condense the thoughts to match your own. You cannot just keep asking for answers unless you say you have your own. You keep saying you are "working on it". Well in fairness, it is time to reveal at least an OUTLINE of your "solution". Like I have said, except for Mondo and his "big guns" and bloodlust, no one seems to think there is a simple solution. Not us, not Bush, not anyone. Yet you seem to believe you can formulate a plan. Either with or without the input of others.
What is it?
Peace,