Archive through April 16, 2002
The ClubHouse: Archives: NY Times Tells Bush to get overhimself:
Archive through April 16, 2002
Ocean_Islands | Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 07:17 pm     April 13, 2002 The Bush Doctrine, R.I.P. By FRANK RICH s a statement of principle set forth by an American chief executive, the now defunct Bush Doctrine may have had a shelf life even shorter than Kenny Boy's Enron code of ethics. As a statement of presidential intent, it may land in the history books alongside such magisterial moments as Lyndon Johnson's 1964 pledge not to send American boys to Vietnam and Richard Nixon's 1968 promise to "bring us together." It was in September that the president told Congress that "from this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." It was in November that he told the United Nations that "there is no such thing as a good terrorist." Now the president is being assailed even within his own political camp for not only refusing to label Yasir Arafat a terrorist but judging him good enough to be a potential partner in our desperate effort to tamp down the flames of the Middle East. Yet the administration's double standard for Mr. Arafat is hardly the first, or only, breach of the Bush Doctrine. As Tina Fey explained with only faint comic exaggeration on "Saturday Night Live" last weekend, the U.S. also does business of state with nations that both "fund all the terrorism in the world" (Saudi Arabia, where the royal family on Thursday joined in a telethon supporting Palestinian "martyrs") and are "100 percent with the terrorists except for one little guy in charge" (Pakistan). President Bush, who once spoke of rigid lines drawn between "good" men and "evildoers," has now been so overrun by fresh hellish events and situational geopolitical bargaining that his old formulations — "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" — have been rendered meaningless. But even as he fudges his good/evil categorizations when it comes to Mr. Arafat and other players he suddenly may need in the Middle East, it's not clear that Mr. Bush knows that he can no longer look at the world as if it were Major League Baseball, with every team clearly delineated in its particular division. "Look, my job isn't to try to nuance," he told a British interviewer a week after the Passover massacre in Netanya. "My job is to tell people what I think. . . . I think moral clarity is important." Mr. Bush doesn't seem to realize that nuances are what his own administration is belatedly trying to master — and must — if Colin Powell is going to hasten a cease-fire in the Middle East. Mr. Bush doesn't seem to know that since the routing of the Taliban his moral clarity has atrophied into simplistic, often hypocritical sloganeering. He has let his infatuation with his own rectitude metastasize into hubris. The result — the catastrophe of the administration's handling of the Middle East — is clear: 15 months of procrastination and conflict avoidance followed by a baffling barrage of mixed messages that have made Mr. Bush's use of the phrase "without delay" the most elastically parsed presidential words since his predecessor's definition of sex. It takes some kind of perverse genius to simultaneously earn the defiance of the Israelis, the Palestinians and our Arab "allies" alike and turn the United States into an impotent bystander. The ensuing mess should be a wake-up call for Mr. Bush to examine his own failings and those of his administration rather than try (as he did a week ago) to shift the blame to Bill Clinton's failed Camp David summit talks (and then backpedal after being called on it). While the conventional wisdom has always had it that this president can be bailed out of foreign-policy jams by his seasoned brain trust, the competing axes of power in the left (State) and right (Defense) halves of that surrogate brain have instead sent him bouncing between conflicting policies like a yo-yo, sometimes within the same day. Speaking to The Los Angeles Times this week about Mr. Bush's floundering, the Reagan administration policy honcho for the Mideast, Geoffrey Kemp, said: "A two-year-old could have seen this crisis coming. And the idea that it could be brushed under the carpet as the administration focused on either Afghanistan or Iraq reflects either appalling arrogance or ignorance." The administration of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell is hardly ignorant. But arrogance is another matter. "We shouldn't think of American involvement for the sake of American involvement" is how Condoleezza Rice defined the administration's intention to butt out of the Middle East only a couple of weeks after her boss's inauguration, thereby codifying the early Bush decision not to send a negotiator to a last-ditch peace summit in Egypt. Since then, even as Sept. 11 came and went, we've been at best reluctantly and passingly engaged, culminating with our recall of the envoy Anthony Zinni in December, after which we sat idly by during three months of horror. Not until Dick Cheney returned from his humiliating tour of the Arab world in late March did he state the obvious: "There isn't anybody but us" to bring about a hiatus in the worst war the region has seen in 20 years. Even then, the 180-degree reversal from the administration's previous inertia was not motivated by the bloody imperatives of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians but by their inconvenient disruption of Mr. Bush's plans to finish his father's job in Iraq. A cynic might go so far as to say that "Saddam Hussein is driving U.S. foreign policy" — which, as it happens, is what Benjamin Netanyahu did tell The New York Post on Tuesday. The goal of stopping Saddam, worthy as it is, cannot be separated from the conflict of the Jews and the Palestinians and never could be. But even now Mr. Bush seems less than engaged in the Middle East. It took him a week after the Passover massacre to decide to send Colin Powell to the region. The president has yet to speak publicly about the spillover of the hostilities into Europe, where each day brings news of some of the ugliest anti-Semitic violence seen there since World War II. He continues to resist the idea that American peacekeepers will be needed to keep the Middle East (not to mention Afghanistan) from tumbling back into the chaos that could once again upend his plans to take on Saddam. Peacekeepers, of course, are to Mr. Bush a synonym for nation-building, which he regards as a no-no. If there's a consistent pattern to the administration's arrogance, it's that when the president has an idée fixe of almost any sort on any subject — from the Bush Doctrine on down — it remains fixed in perpetuity, not open to question, even as a world as complex and fast-changing as ours calls out for rethinking. Never mind that Sept. 11 was the most graphic demonstration imaginable that a missile shield may not be the most useful vessel for our ever more precious defense dollars; it's still full speed ahead. Nor has the bursting of the stock-market bubble dampened Mr. Bush's conviction that Americans should entrust their Social Security savings to his campaign contributors from Wall Street's investment houses. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, once pitched as a quick fix to the (fleeting) California energy crisis, is now being sold as an antidote to our Middle Eastern woes (because some 10 years from now it may reduce our oil imports by 4 or 5 percent). The Bush tax cut, conceived at a time of endless surpluses and peace, is still touted as the perfect economic plan even now that the surpluses are shot and we are at war. In this administration, one size idea, however slender or dubious, fits all. To Mr. Bush, these immutable policies are no doubt all doctrines, principles, testaments to his moral clarity. In fact, many of them have more to do with ideology than morality. Only history can determine whether they will be any more lasting than the Bush doctrine on terrorism. Meanwhile, we should be grateful that the administration did abandon its stubborn 15-month disengagement from the Middle East to make an effort, however confused, hasty and perilous, to halt the bloodshed and (one imagines) lead the search for a political solution. "This is a world with a lot of gray," said Chuck Hagel, the Republican from Nebraska, to The Washington Post late this week. "We can choose either to live in an abstract world or choose to engage in the real world. . . . The reality of that has started to set in with this administration." We must hope that Senator Hagel is right. While it is far too late for an Arafat or a Sharon to change, it is not too late for a young president still in a young administration to get over himself. At this tragic juncture, the world depends on it, because, as his own vice president put it, there isn't anybody else to do the job. |
Squaredsc | Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 07:26 am     ok, someone please break this down to it's simplest(sp) terms, this is way to wordy for little ole me to understand.  |
Labmouse | Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 10:17 am     I agree with you Squaredsc. My brain almost melted after the 3rd paragraph. I definitely think he could have said all that with a lot less words. |
Faerygdds | Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 11:57 am     Ocean!!!!!!!!! What a fabulous article!!!!! For those of you that don't understand it, please don't take this this badly, but please.. take the time to read it. He has added the players in parethesis to help those who do not have the historical references. If you have questions about it after you have read it, that's one thing, but to just ask for a summary because it's too long... well.. that's just plain lazy and comes straight to the point of the article. Arrogance and ignorance... they seem to be the keystones of this country right now and the foundation of it's problems. This article really points that out by looking at "the representive of the people" and HIS ignorance and arrogance. Think about it... (flames by those who have not read the article in it's entirety will be ignored) |
Oregonfire | Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 12:31 pm     I can't believe that I'm going to say this, but...I don't envy Bush and his administration in trying to to deal with the mess that is the Middle East. Better, brighter, and more experienced statesmen than Bush haven't been able to solve it--is it any surprise that Bush can't either? Although the U.S contributes a good deal to that mess (in the way of funneling money to Israel), I'm pretty sure that a lot of conflict would go on regardless of our involvement or lack thereof. These countries (Iran, Suadi Arabia, Etc.) have an agenda and grudges of their own: the only thing that seems to unite them is their mutual hatred of the United States and Israel. And what are we supposed to do--alienate Saudi Arabia and have our oil supply cut off? The sad fact is that we need them, even though their actions are morally outrageous. This is any extremely immature and underdeveloped reading of the Middle East situation, I know, but you practically have to have a Ph.D in foriegn policy to understand just what's going on over there. And I'm sorry, giving Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize was a mistake, and it should be taken away. And the U.S. had nothing to do with that--that was Europe's bright idea. Arafat had a good peace offer from the Israelis a few years back, and he walked away from the bargaining table just so he could continue to play the underdog rebel. Which brings me to Europe: sure they criticize the U.S. for its handling of the problem, but what exactly are they doing about it anyway? There wouldn't even be an Israeli state if the EUROPEAN Nazis hadn't created a need for one. And then the English apparently really screwed up the formation of Israel in 1948. THEY were the ones who originally displaced the Palestinis! And crying about the poor Palestinis when so many Third World countries have been colonized by the Europeans in the past--what about India, Rwanda, South Africa--countries which all hugely suffered the devastating effects of colonization? My, we have short memories, don't we? Europe has in effect been neutered of its military might by its internal wars of the past century--and now all they can do is bark ineffectually from the sidelines while the big boys duke it out. Okay, enough with the rant. Usually I don't align myself with conservative thought, but in this case, my sympathies are with the Bush administration. Somebody take a picture, because it's unlikely to ever happen again. |
Yuhuru | Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 12:37 pm     I think that this is an example of history repeating itself. The US has always talked out of both sides of its mouth. Half of what most world leaders say in front of the camera is nothing more than the equivalent to what the head class president/football captain/head cheerleader say at the homecoming pep rally. Basically, it's a bunch of rhetoric. The US is always doing such a balancing act. Alliances are changing constantly, blah, blah, blah. Who the heck really knows what to do? I don't. |
Moondance | Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 01:20 pm     Another Great article Ocean! |
Whowhere | Monday, April 15, 2002 - 11:02 am     Oregon I couldn't agree with you more and couldn't have said it better. |
Squaredsc | Monday, April 15, 2002 - 11:14 am     thanks oregon, good post. faerygdds, i did read the article and like i said above, i need someone to clarify it so i can understand. i read it and my eyes crossed and still crossing. but i enjoyed oregon's post. we are da**ed if we do and da**ed if we don't. but we do need oil and if we support the israeli's we will get cut off and if we support the palestinians(sp) could cause major upheaval(sp) here. so i certainly have no answer. |
Misslibra | Monday, April 15, 2002 - 11:42 am     I think one of the problems with the Bush administration is not wanting to get involved in middle east problems. But he learned very quickly you can't do that as President. I think this is going to be one of the weakness of this Administrations. Also his axis of evil list is a joke as far as I'm concern , because Saudi Arabia should of been at the top of the list. The other day Bush was questioned about the Saudi's Telethon for the homicide bomber's as they are calling them now, he just repeated the line the Saudi's said to him... they are going to help the families of the bombers. He should of asked them is this what it takes to get you to help the Arab people, they have to blow theirselves up? But he didn't dare do that. Wouldn't that fall under the line of supporting terrorist and their families. I thought Bush had declare a war on terrorist all over the world. But when Israel tries to defend itself, one day Bush supports them then the next day he don't. I think this administration waited to late to get invovled in the Middle East crisis. And look at Iraq now, they are santioning us! Sadam turned the tables on us. I say tell Sadam to keep his oil, we don't want it! Ok I'm through ranting on this subject. |
Whowhere | Monday, April 15, 2002 - 01:07 pm     The Middle East Crisis has been around A LOT longer than during this administration. Like Squared said you're darned if you do darned if you don't. No matter what anyone does to try and resolve this issue, someone will have a complaint. Like Oregon posted earlier, "I don't envy Bush and his administration in trying to deal with the mess that is in the Middle East." It is a job that no matter what you do, someone will make an issue of it. Bottom line is, everyone's a critic, but just how well do you think you could fill those shoes? Not only do I know I couldn't, but I wouldn't want to. Check out this article I found and note the date (it is quite long).... Global Intelligence Update Red Alert November 2, 1998 Iraq Moves to End Game on Eight Year Old Confrontation Saddam Hussein has decided to test the United States once again, leaving it to the U.S. to decide whether it wants to have a crisis or not. Saddam's decision to stop cooperating with UN inspectors is not surprising. The United Nations had been scheduled to undertake a comprehensive review of the embargo on Iraq. On Friday, the U.S. blocked efforts by Russia, China and France to begin steps for lifting the embargo, effectively blocking the review and committing the United Nations to continuing the embargo indefinitely. Saddam, sensing a major split developing in the United Nations and feeling that he had nothing to lose and a great deal to gain, responded by, in effect, canceling the UN weapons inspection program. It is now up Washington to make the next move. Saddam has followed an extremely rational and quite effective policy since his defeat in Kuwait. The policy has had three parts. First, he has focused ruthlessly on maintaining his power domestically, crushing all opposition and frustrating all attempts by foreign intelligence services to encourage and support domestic resistance to his regime. Second, Saddam has worked very hard to break apart the international coalition that defeated him in 1991. He has done this regionally by trying to manipulate the balance of power among Iran, Turkey, Syria and the Arab gulf states. He has worked against the coalition internationally by trying to split the United States off from its Gulf War allies, particularly from Russia. Finally, he has carefully but persistently resisted attempts to impose an arms control regime on his country by limiting access to sites, denying agreed upon facilities, and harassing the inspectors. He has used periodic crises as a means of testing, manipulating, and wearying the United States. Saddam has played his hand brilliantly. Saddam's great advantage in this game is that it was the only game he was playing and, therefore, he could devote his full attention to it. His main opponent, the United States, was engaged in multiple games simultaneously. It could not afford to pay its undivided attention to Iraq. In fact, with a plethora of other international problems, the U.S. really couldn't afford to devote very much attention at all. Saddam understood this and, being a patient man, has carefully expanded his range of actions until this weekend, when he effectively announced that the armistice terms of the Gulf War were null and void. Saddam now waits to see whether there will be any American response and what form it might take. Saddam noted the end of the last crisis with interest. Last February, the United States was threatening air strikes unless Iraq allowed weapons inspectors to go about their work. The U.S. discovered, to its shock, that much of its regional and international coalition had dissolved. They were simply not prepared to back the use of force against Iraq. The Saudis were not prepared to allow the United States to conduct an air campaign from their soil. The Turks were also uncomfortable. As important, China, Russia and France were all opposed to the use of force. Together, this meant that the United States did not have the facilities needed to conduct a sustained air campaign, and that it could lose the legitimation of the United Nations if it went it alone. The United States was increasingly isolated in its Iraq policy because its coalition partners were not particularly interested in the Iraq problem anymore. The question of oil prices was much more important in the Gulf than was Saddam Hussein. The question of overwhelming American politico-military power was much more important to Russia, China and France than was the question of Saddam's power. Thus, the United States allowed itself to take an apparent concession by Saddam as a valid excuse for ending the crisis, and went away mumbling vague threats if Saddam violated his promises. Of course, Saddam had no intention of keeping his promises, since he had no intention of allowing the UN to inspect his weapons facilities. Washington knew that, of course, but was left without many effective cards. Saddam patiently waited for an opportune moment to create another crisis, knowing that each new crisis would both increase the stress in the anti-Iraqi coalition and increase general American boredom with the whole Iraqi question. Saddam picks his moments exquisitely. The U.S. is just coming off a crisis with Serbia. Saddam has been watching the Serbs carefully, and he knows that they have gone to the Saddam Hussein School of diplomacy. The Serbs have no intention whatever of abandoning Kosovo but they don't relish NATO air strikes. Therefore, they are mostly following their agreements, and will wait a while before blatantly breaking them. But in this case, they can't wait too long, or the Albanians in Kosovo will take over and entrench their power under U.S. guardianship. So, Saddam knows that the U.S. will shortly have to face a fact that is already obvious to everyone -- the Serbs are not going to leave Kosovo. Now Saddam has a dream -- acting in concert with other countries like Serbia and North Korea to give the United States one crisis too many. He is piggy-backing on Kosovo. Second, his old nemesis, Iran, is busy trading insults with the Taleban in Afghanistan. A large part of the Iranian army is deployed to the east, along the Afghan border. Saddam's nightmare of Iranian-U.S. collaboration against him appears pretty unlikely at present because of this, and because of the ongoing political crisis in Tehran. So his eastern frontier is secure. Most important, Yeltsin is finished. Primakov, an old Middle East hand from his KGB days, is in control of Russia. Primakov is not only an old friend of Iraq, but he doesn't really care much for the United States. Most important, the U.S. is not giving Primakov what he wants -- a great deal of money to try to refloat his bankrupt economy and get Russia through what promises to be a terrible winter. Primakov knows better than to expect charity from the U.S. He also knows that the U.S. does not want him reasserting his influence in the Middle East and undermining U.S. policy in the region. Therefore, that is precisely what he is going to do, as this is the only lever he really has at this point. If this doesn't work, then Russia has no further use for the U.S. anyway, and will be looking to renew old friendships. Saddam is shrewd and he is patient. He has now posed a terrific problem for Washington. He has simply repudiated his agreements from the armistice of 1991. Technically, the war should resume. Technically, the U.S. is not only free, but pledged, to resume military operations against Iraq. But the United States has big problems. U.S. military leaders have been making it publicly known that the tempo of operations imposed on them by the Clinton Administration, coupled with massive budget cuts, has severely limited the U.S. military's effectiveness. In our judgement, this is not simply posturing for more budget dollars. U.S. forces are quite weak. The logistical demands of simultaneous operations in Kosovo and the Persian Gulf on the scale required in both cases may simply be beyond the capacity of U.S. forces. It can be done, but it will be rough. Diplomatically, the U.S. is pretty much alone. Domestically, of course, there are some attractions to a crisis. Quick air strikes probably would boost Democratic chances in this Tuesday's elections. But it takes a while to organize air strikes. If they do happen in the next 48 hours, the suspicion that they were planned before Saddam's statement will be strong, and probably well-ground. After the election, there are the impeachment hearings. But Clinton is still smarting about "wag the dog" accusations after the Afghan-Sudan attacks. It could hurt him more than it helps him. It seems to us that Saddam is now testing the waters for the end game. In his mind, the objective foundations of America's anti- Iraqi policy have dissolved. The possibility of a sustained air campaign is low and he thinks he can survive the kind of quick air strikes the U.S. has come to favor. Moreover, Saddam is calculating that, like last spring, the United States will grasp at any excuse not to strike. He will therefore eventually give some vague promise that no one expects him to keep, allowing the U.S. to get off the hook gracefully. In our view, Saddam is on the verge of checkmating the United States. The old coalition is gone. U.S. forces are spread too thin to be effective. An effective campaign against Iraq would require massive call-ups of reserve units and several months to prepare. Without Saudi backing, it probably can't be done. If he can force the United States to back-off, Saddam is home free, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned. That leaves two other problems -- Israel and Iran. Neither wants to see Saddam unchained, and both have some means of trying to get him under control. Indeed, as the U.S. tires of its endless containment of Iraq, this could be exactly what Washington has in mind -- let the Israelis and Iranians worry about Saddam. This isn't a bad policy, so long as it is a policy and not simply exhaustion talking. The American problem is that its enemies are defining its foreign policy agenda. The system of American commitments and guarantees casually entered into has created a situation where any minor power can create a crisis at will and then vaguely capitulate if they wish. Serbia, Iraq, Korea and the rest define the tempo of the relationship, not the other way around. Moreover, the geographical diversity of U.S. commitments means that the U.S. is not in a position to impose a definitive resolution on an adversary. The U.S. therefore lurches from confrontation to confrontation on a schedule set by its opponents. The problem is in the concept driving the policy. So long as U.S. foreign policy is driven primarily by ad hoc commitments based on passing sentiment rather than on strategic principles, the ad hoc will continue to drive U.S. policy. Nowhere is this clearer than in Iraq, where U.S. commitments, interests, and capabilities have now hopelessly diverged. Washington will spend this week trying to wire them together again. Saddam will watch and retreat or press forward as events warrant. Saddam knows that time is on his side. |
Faerygdds | Monday, April 15, 2002 - 01:21 pm     delted by me after I rethought it and decided to post this elsewhere lol |
Misslibra | Monday, April 15, 2002 - 01:56 pm     This is true the middle East has been around a whole lot longer then this Administration all the more reason for this Administration to have a heads up on it, and be alot quicker then they did getting involved to try and defuse it especially since they had their sights set on getting Sadam out of power. But yes I am some what critical of this Administration handling of this particular issue, and Bushes flip flopping, saying one thing one day and another thing the next. He was ignored by Israel. I think they should of sent Powell over there long ago when they kept sending Zinni and nothing was happening. And Saudi Arabia is showing us what their all about. The Middle East is a major powder keg that our President couldn't afford to ignore. And Bush can't say one day we are fighting a war on terror and then tell Israel they can't. Thats just my opinion about the whole deal. Not expecting everyone to agree with it. But I can't help feeling like we are being held hostage in a way because of the oil over there, otherwise I'm sure the Saudi's would of been on his axis of evil list. I still can't get over that especially since most of the men who were involved in 9/11 came from there. JMO |
Faerygdds | Monday, April 15, 2002 - 06:17 pm     OK.. I deleted it earlier, but I have to say this... What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter??? PERSPECTIVE!!!! It all depends whose "side" you are on... |
Shakes | Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 12:25 pm     Freedom fighters accomplish something, terrorists do not. Freedom fighters pave the way, terrorists burn the bridge. Freedom fighters sacrifice for the betterment of others, terrorists sacrifice others for personal glory. Osama Bin Laden - terrorist The Taliban - terrorists Timothy McVeigh - terrorist Saddam Hussein - terrorist Hitler - terrorist The Shah of Iran - terrorist Martin Luther King - freedom fighter The minutemen - freedom fighters Students who stood in front of the tanks in Tianniamin Square - freedom fighters The US military - freedom fighters IMHO. |
Faerygdds | Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 12:39 pm     But you are forgetting.. the Taliban were considered freedom fighters when they were fighting the soviets.... now they are terrorists... hmmmmmmm |
Ocean_Islands | Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 04:38 pm     We trained Bin Laden, don't forget. We are creating monsters and we only have ourselves to blame. The adminstration recently announced they would start training Afghanistan military (not Taliban). This shows we never learn anything. |
Faerygdds | Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 05:36 pm     Like I said... what's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter??? Perspective..... This is what I am talking about... When the soviets were our enemies we thought of them as "freedom fighters", now that they are fighting us... they are terrorists... perspective... Thanks for chiming in on that Ocean... I thought if I reminded ppl of that in the same post it would be too much, but I can always count on you to do that for me!  |
Misslibra | Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 06:31 pm     Faerygdds great question...Freedom fighters wont sacrifice innocent people for their cause... They vaule life! Terrorist will take out anybody and sacrifice even their own people and children for their cause. They do not value human life period. OI I believe we're training them so that we wont be stuck over in Afghanistan forever. Also our promise to help rebuild the country. It does put us between a rock and a hard place to say the least, because like you said they could turn it around and use it against us. But what else can we do? We can't leave them butt naked sort to speak, after we pull out. JMO |
Faerygdds | Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 07:19 pm     Quote: Faerygdds great question...Freedom fighters wont sacrifice innocent people for their cause... They vaule life! Sorry, but that simply is NOT true. You think that innocent people weren't knowingly killed by freedom fighters??? You need to look up the history of places liek the Middle East, El Salvador.... HECK,... I remember when I was a little girl and the Salvadoran "freedom fighters" were sending children to surrender to the Americans with Teddy Bears rigged to blow up! Yeah... THERE's a REAL moral difference huh? |
Misslibra | Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 07:37 pm     Then I think they would fall under the catagory of terrorist. Remember things have change alot since 9/11. And if the Salvadorians was sending innocent children out with teddy bears to blow up innocent people, they are terrorist as far as I'm concerned. It wrong and it's a terrorist act. There is no freedom is blowing up innocent people, and you call yourself a freedom fighter. If they were doing that then they were using the title of freedom fighters when they really weren't. |
Faerygdds | Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 08:07 pm     But that's my POINT!!!!!!!!!!!! It's all a matter of perpective... we try to trivialize things with the "morality" of it, but the reality is that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist... that's just the reality. War is UGLY... people die.. this is the fact. No matter what innocent people are going to die. And the fact is NOTHING has changed since 9/11! We may change the terms and the positioning of the pawns on the chessboard, but it's still a chessboard and they are still pawns... not to mention that any military person will tell you (if they are being honest) that they ARE expendible and so is anyone else. And while we are on the subject... you think that all those times we've sent in special forces to help take out a small government we weren't considered "terrorists" by THEIR standards??? You think the US has never killed "innocent" people in the name of "freedom"???? Have you really been that that blinded by your patriotism??? IF so.. I'd like to borrow those rose colored glasses form you... I could use them about now... |
Misslibra | Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 08:47 pm     But that's my POINT!!!!!!!!!!!! It's all a matter of perpective... Ummmm... Faerygdds and I never disagreed with that point. Just adding my two cents to the discussion. It would be a pretty boring discussion if we all agreed with each other in here. I can respect your opinon. And believe it or not we're not that far appart on some things. I think we do look at things a lot differently, wait a minute let me correct that, I look at things differently, I can't speak for everyone. We may change the terms and the positioning of the pawns on the chessboard, but it's still a chessboard and they are still pawns... this is true. And changed the terms in positioning means looking at things differently so therefore like I said things have changed since 9/11. We be fools not to change our positioning and terms on that chess board after 9/11. we try to trivialize things with the "morality" of it, but the reality is that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist... that's just the reality. And also a fact. War is UGLY... people die.. this is another fact I agree with you on... Innocent people died during war but I see a difference when your strapping your children with bombs for sole purpose of hurting and killing innocent people. And how well I know that any military person will tell you they are expendible. Military is the key word since they know going into the military they could die going into a War. And of course tommorrow isn't promise to anyone. And I know not think that some of the children I'm sure consider us terrorist. But our Men and Women aren't targeting innocent people on purpose, to me that is the difference. Even though in the pass it has been brought out that innocent people had been killed by are army on purpose. Vietnam comes to mind. But all our military people weren't involved in that senseless killing. And it was wrong, and the US admit it was wrong and have since tried to correct that wrong. I like discussing political views, but don't like it to turn into a big arguement, sometime thats impossible to avoid but we have been doing a good job here at TVCH, respecting each others views without it getting out of hand. Because these issues can become so passionate, but I think it's good for us to discuss things happening in the world today, as long as we can do so without blowing up at each other. |
Misslibra | Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 09:23 pm     On PI right now they are talking about how the chess board has change... go figure. |
Faerygdds | Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 09:23 pm     I know MissLibra... I just let frustration get the better part of my senses... Actually.. the term "freedom fighter" is a military thing... it implies the use of armaments. wait.... hang on... From encarta: free·dom fight·er (plural free·dom fight·ers) noun fighter in armed revolution: somebody who participates in an armed revolution against a government or political system regarded as unjust see... armed I think I was still reeling from the fact that Shakes put some wonderful pacifists (students) and spirtual leaders (King) in the list with "freedom fighters"... I was arguing under the assumption (probably a wrong one and generally a BAD thing to do anyway) that the definition of freedom fighter was misinterpreted and misunderstood. And it shakes case it was.. now Malcom X.... well.. I don't know if he is "classified as a freedom fighter, but he's a lot closer to one that KING! And btw Miss Libra... I didn't intend to "blow up"... but I like to argue with you... you come back at me with valid well thought out arguments that I have to counter... in other words... I argue with you because you are good at it, and you make me THINK... and trust me... when you are stuck at home all the time with no kids and no decent source of input and stimuli... well... let's just say... whne I have those moments.. you or someone else equally good at a heated (not chernobyl) debate is a WHOLE lotta fun...
|
|