![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 42. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 10:52:57
In reply to This war and the sad human race. Vent, posted by Alara on April 4, 2003, at 5:21:07
I also was distressed by your comparison of our troops to terrorists.
Our troops are being tricked by Iraqi suicide bombers *because* they value human life. Iraqi "elite troops" are hiding behind the skirts of Iraqi schoolgirls *because* they know that coalition forces find the death of civilians abhorrent.
I know far more veterans from the WWII conflict than the Vietnam conflict, possibly because WWII veterans are being encouraged to tell their stories. I've also read some of their stories. I know that all these years later the thoughts of being shot at, how close they came to dying, remain with them. But the thoughts of shooting, the memories of the lives they took, haunt them far more - so much so that the very macho father of one of my friends still tears up and changes the subject.
I suspect that our soldiers there now feel the same.
My brother (if his story is to be believed), is now being trained to possibly go over there. And if he does, he may have to kill. But he's not a terrorist. He's many things, but he's no terrorist. He would never revel in taking lives of civilians going about their daily business. I doubt he would revel in taking the life of an Iraqi soldier who is doing his job and may feel he is defending his country.
War is horrible. No one likes the death and disruption of lives it brings to the people of the country. No one rejoices in the death of soldiers doing their duty as they see it. Well, almost nobody.
You know, when you talk about the sanctity of American life as opposed to Iraqi life, that argument goes both ways. My initial opposition to this war came from the idea that we should mind our own business. Keep to the sanctions. Not put at risk the lives of young American men and women, the sons and daughters and husbands and wives and mothers and fathers of Americans. And that was as selfish and lacking in compassion for the people of Iraq as I could possibly be.
Saddam Hussein is responsible for the death or "disappearance" of *hundreds of thousands*, let me repeat that *hundreds of thousands* of Iraqis. (Source Amnesty Intl) He invaded his neighboring country of Kuwait with no regard for their sovereignty. (Source known history) He was a threat to others of his neighboring countries by his own past actions. (Source known history) The UN sanctions and the resulting misadministration of the oil for food program under his control was responsible for an immensely high infant mortality rate. (Source Amnesty Intl)
Does that justify the invasion of a sovereign country, even one with which we had never signed a peace settlement after a war started by them - only a cease fire? I don't know. Is the trading of the civilian lives inadvertantly caused by our soldiers, and the military lives directly caused by our soldiers, for the lives of those who would undoubtedly been killed or died from malnutrition under Saddam's regime right? I don't know.
But I do know that while speaking of our soldiers as terrorists may be your right under the constitution, it isn't a correct or fair comparison.
And Dr. Bob, why did you make me post this?
Posted by Phil on April 6, 2003, at 11:08:07
In reply to Re: Oh, he's a nice, quoteable guy! » IsoM, posted by Phil on April 6, 2003, at 10:20:35
It's normal not to want war. It's normal not to trust leaders. It's right and just to want peace. I have no issue there.
But I, many of you too have had family die to keep this country free. It isn't anti-American to disagree with war.
Just don't tell me our troops are evil and mindless and that one American life isn't worth saving.
Other countries call us selfish warmongers and God knows what else.
What will we be when we die for your country when an unprovoked missle hits a major city in your country? Or your subways are gassed or you lose 3000 in an attack? Maybe you will handle it on your own. Good luck.
People say American's are materialistic, bad guys who push around anyone they want for fun. We're a decadant country and all we want is money, money and more money.
Well, you're hearing American's on this board. Bottom line is America will die to save a friends ass before they have to ask. I've lost too many friends and family to sit by and listen to this crap that all we want is to kill civilians in #'s to match 9/11. Saddam trains terrorist and we kill them.
You can be against war, everyone is. The fact is, if we never fought a war, where would the world be? I'm not sure, maybe Hitler's pals could tell us.
Or, while Saddam is living the very rich life, smoking Cuban cigars as he tortures another innocent dirt poor Iraqi and applauding at 9/11, you could ask him why he's been so successful at running his country? We didn't start this. It started before Saddam was raping and killing Kuwaiti's. But, we will finish it and history will tell.
When your country is being beat up for no reason by a bigger, meaner country, us ugly American troops might look pretty damn good.
There was a picture of Bush in a room full of healthy American's(I don't know all the details of where)and the only one who stood was a wounded soldier in a wheelchair, he brought his bandaged arm slowly to his head in a salute, standing as proud as his wasted body would allow.
That's America. Warts and all, this is the greatest country in the world. That's the bottom line.
Posted by Phil on April 6, 2003, at 11:10:22
In reply to Re: Tired of America bashing., posted by Phil on April 6, 2003, at 11:08:07
Posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 12:13:31
In reply to Re: Tired of America bashing., posted by Phil on April 6, 2003, at 11:08:07
I am too, Phil. We're not perfect but we're not monsters either. And certainly we aren't the worst offender at looking after our economic interests in this matter.
Thank you for your comments about the American POW. I think that Iraqi man is the true hero in all of this. He could have just minded his business, but he made the pain of another human being his business.
At least I think this time, the returning troops won't have to live through what returning Vietnam troops had to face. It appears that even most of those who are anti-war still support our troops.
My son's class wrote letters to the troops. His teacher's report says that the sentiments ranged from "Thank you for protecting us." to "I want a rabbit." My son reports that his was "I hope you are safe." (kindergarten)
Take care, Phil.
Posted by gabbix2 on April 6, 2003, at 16:41:01
In reply to Re: Tired of America bashing. » Phil, posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 12:13:31
I'm really sorry if it looked like I was in agreement with comparing the troops to terrorists.
I'm not. Even if I was I don't think it would be necessary for me to say so at this time, in this forum.
I took the post overall, differently. Though it probably seems impossible I sort of 'overlooked' that one statement' Shame on me.
I took it as critique of priorities and how perpetually, it seems' in the news both on a large and small scale the life of a precious attractive white person takes precedence over atrocities committed upon others.
Posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 16:58:19
In reply to I'm sorry Dinah Phil » Dinah, posted by gabbix2 on April 6, 2003, at 16:41:01
And I tend to agree with you about the news. I rather wish more attention were given to the lawyer. Although I suppose it isn't in his best interest to be in the news.
Isn't it odd what they focus on though? My husband often quotes the Simpsons (in our family we use popular TV quotes as a way to tell great truths in small words).
Homer was talking about a little boy who was a great hero. And Bart (?) asked why the little boy was a hero. Homer responded that he had fallen in a well, which led to the quite sensible question of why that made the boy a hero. Oh, it loses something without my husband's great impressions of cartoon characters.
But there is so much truth in that. As much as the story of a child in danger grabs our attention and no matter how much we want them saved, how many children die each year at the hands of their parents with little news mention?
And do you remember that whale story? The two pod whales were caught without exit when their area was iced in. Everyone was doing everything to try to save these whales. The news media was everywhere. Finally a Russian boat broke the ice and the whales were able to escape. The scientists decided not to tag them because the chances of their survival were not great. Yet how many endangered animals are killed each year by poachers and the destruction of the rain forest.
I think it's all just the nature of the news media beast.
Posted by shar on April 6, 2003, at 21:12:21
In reply to Re: Tired of America bashing., posted by Phil on April 6, 2003, at 11:08:07
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 2:55:23
In reply to Re: Tired of America bashing., posted by Phil on April 6, 2003, at 11:08:07
> Ask the French, who would be German now, if it weren't for the U.S. dying by the 1000's to save their lazy asses.
> Just don't tell me our troops are evil and mindless and that one American life isn't worth saving.
Did someone say our troops are evil and mindless and an American life isn't worth saving? Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't be sarcastic, post anything that could lead them to feel put down, or exaggerate or overgeneralize, thanks.
Bob
PS: Follow-ups regarding posting policies should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration; otherwise, they may be deleted.
Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 5:32:47
In reply to Re: please be civil » Phil, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 2:55:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 7, 2003
'Chemical Ali' Found Dead, British Officer Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:56 a.m. ETBASRA, Iraq (AP) -- Ali Hassan al-Majid, one of the most brutal members of President Saddam Hussein's inner circle, was killed by an airstrike on his house in Basra, a British officer said Monday. He had been dubbed ``Chemical Ali'' by opponents for ordering a 1988 poison gas attack that killed thousands of Kurds.
Maj. Andrew Jackson of the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment told The Associated Press that his superiors had confirmed the death of the man who was Saddam's first cousin, entrusted with defending southern Iraq against invading coalition forces.
Al-Majid apparently was killed on Saturday when two coalition aircraft used laser-guided munitions to attack his house in Basra. Jackson said the body was found along with that of his bodyguard and the head of Iraqi intelligence services in Basra.
Jackson said the discovery of al-Majid's body was one of the reasons the British decided to move infantry into Basra, because they hoped that resistance in the southern Iraqi city might crumble with the top leadership gone.
``(His death should show) that the regime is finished. It is over, and liberation is here,'' said Group Capt. Al Lockwood, spokesman for British forces in the Gulf. ``The leadership is now gone in southern Iraq.''
Believed to be in his fifties, al-Majid led a 1988 campaign against rebellious Kurds in northern Iraq in which whole villages were wiped out. An estimated 100,000 Kurds, mostly civilians, were killed.
Al-Majid also has been linked to the bloody crackdown on Shiites in southern Iraq after their uprising following the 1991 Gulf War. Prior to that, he served as governor of Kuwait during Iraq's seven-month occupation of its neighbor in 1990-1991 -- an invasion that led to the Gulf War.
Human rights groups had called for al-Majid's arrest on war crimes charges when he toured Arab capitals last January seeking to rally support against mounting U.S. pressure on Saddam's regime.
``Al-Majid is Saddam Hussein's hatchet man,'' Kenneth Roth, head of Human Rights Watch in New York, said at the time. ``He has been involved in some of Iraq's worst crimes, including genocide and crimes against humanity.''
Hazem al-Youssefi, Cairo representative of the opposition Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, described al-Majid as a standout in a regime of criminals.
Al-Majid was a warrant officer and motorcycle messenger in the army before Saddam's Baath party led a coup in 1968. He was promoted to general and served as defense minister from 1991-95, as well as a regional party leader.
In 1988, as the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was winding down, he commanded a scorched-earth campaign to wipe out a Kurdish rebellion in northern Iraq. Later, he boasted about the attacks, including the March 16, 1988, poison gas strike on the village of Halabja, where an estimated 5,000 people died.
During April 1991 peace talks in Baghdad, the Kurdish delegation leader, Jalal Talabani, told al-Majid that more than 200,000 Kurds lost their lives in the Iraqi campaign. Al-Majid replied that the figure was exaggerated and the dead were not more than 100,000, according to Arab press reports.
After Iraq's 1991 Shiite Muslim uprising was crushed, Iraqi opposition groups released a video they said had been smuggled out of southern Iraq. In the video, which was shown on several Arab TV networks, al-Majid was seen executing captured rebels with pistol shots to the head and kicking others in the face as they sat on the ground.
He was no less brutal with his own family.
His nephew and Saddam's son-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, was in charge for many years of Iraq's clandestine weapons programs before defecting in 1995 to Jordan with his brother, Saddam Kamel, who was married to Saddam's other daughter.
Both brothers were lured back to Iraq in February 1996 and killed on their uncle's orders, together with several other family members.
Syria and Lebanon ignored international calls to arrest al-Majid when he visited in January. He dropped scheduled stops in Jordan and Egypt -- both U.S. allies. Egypt refused to receive him and the Jordanian government denied a visit was ever planned.
--------
Associated Press writer Maamoun Youssef contributed to this report from Cairo, Egypt.
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press | Privacy Policy
Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 14:35:55
In reply to Re: I won't be back to discuss this war. (nm), posted by Phil on April 6, 2003, at 11:10:22
Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 14:38:01
In reply to Re: I won't be back to discuss this war. (nm), posted by Phil on April 6, 2003, at 11:10:22
Posted by Ginjoint on April 7, 2003, at 22:01:05
In reply to Re: Tired of America bashing., posted by Phil on April 6, 2003, at 11:08:07
...when America chooses to stay out of a crisis, we hear...."HOW CAN AMERICA <drum roll please> STAND BY AND WATCH THIS HAPPEN?!" That's one of my favorite quotes. When we do get involved to stop a tortuous, murderous tyrant who has women gang raped in front of their own families, then we're spreading imperialism from our trash culture to the seemingly more pristine cultures of the world (many of which still treat women as trash). Meanwhile, other countries sit smugly by, there own economic interests in Iraq safely umbrellaed under a peace movement.
It would be interesting to see, over a span of say, five or seven years, how well some other countries would fare if they should take the reigns from the U.S....the dirty decisions, lousy compromises (but they're the only ones available), and constant cries for huge amounts of aid from countries due to their own fiscal mismangagement. Plus, on the homfront, the jobless rate is high and folks are living well under the poverty line.
I do not want this war. I did not vote for George Bush. But I am tired of hearing complaints from countries that are not in the position we are in. Years from now, if we don't get involved, people will be in "shock and awe" that we stood by and let this brutality go on. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Ginjoint
Posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 22:26:06
In reply to Hey, Phil, my favorite is...., posted by Ginjoint on April 7, 2003, at 22:01:05
Good to see you. I was just thinking about you yesterday. How are you doing?
Posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 22:28:07
In reply to Hey, Phil, my favorite is...., posted by Ginjoint on April 7, 2003, at 22:01:05
Posted by Ginjoint on April 7, 2003, at 22:28:16
In reply to Re: Ginjoint!, posted by Dinah on April 7, 2003, at 22:26:06
Hey Dinah....I have a post at the bottom of this list....I'm so sorry I haven't been available to help you...hopefully you'll see why....
With love,
Ginjoint
Posted by Alara on April 8, 2003, at 5:21:21
In reply to Re: Counterpoint, posted by Phil on April 6, 2003, at 10:14:11
At the time I wrote my post, I was seriously disillusioned about human nature in general. The post was never intended as an attack on Americans - but after rereading it I can understand why it was perceived in this way.
Just a couple of points for clarification:
1. I didn't mean that the allied forces themselves were `terrorists'. Instead I was implying that allies' governments were driving them to (unknowingly) commit terrorist acts. War is always justified from your own side of the fence.2. I was commenting more upon human nature in general than upon Americans. Greed increases when human beings rise to power -regardless of their culture or nationality - and George Bush and his administration are no exception to this rule. In my opinion, this is just one of the darker sides of the human condition. This tendency towards greed and power can affect all of us and does not define ALL of who we are..I was just venting about one part the human shadow when I posted.
3. I applaud the rescue of Private Jessica. But I do not believe that this nullifies the countless casualties of this war. Nor do I believe that one American life is more important than those hundreds/thousands of Iraqi lives that have been lost. I cannot help but wonder about the timing of the `Jessica' story featured by the American, British and Australian media. (Far better to concentrate on a `feel good' story about one of our comrades than to focus on the mass slaughter that is taking place in the Middle East.) I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but this is my opinion.
At the end of the day, I consider Americans to be my good friends and certainly do not blame the average American person for the atrocities of this war.
I am truly sorry if I offended anybody.
Alara
Posted by Alara on April 8, 2003, at 5:37:31
In reply to Re: This war and the sad human race. Dr. Bob » Alara, posted by Dinah on April 6, 2003, at 10:52:57
>
> Saddam Hussein is responsible for the death or "disappearance" of *hundreds of thousands*, let me repeat that *hundreds of thousands* of Iraqis. (Source Amnesty Intl) He invaded his neighboring country of Kuwait with no regard for their sovereignty. (Source known history) He was a threat to others of his neighboring countries by his own past actions. (Source known history) The UN sanctions and the resulting misadministration of the oil for food program under his control was responsible for an immensely high infant mortality rate. (Source Amnesty Intl)
>
> Does that justify the invasion of a sovereign country, even one with which we had never signed a peace settlement after a war started by them - only a cease fire? I don't know. Is the trading of the civilian lives inadvertantly caused by our soldiers, and the military lives directly caused by our soldiers, for the lives of those who would undoubtedly been killed or died from malnutrition under Saddam's regime right? I don't know.
>
>Dinah, this is a very good point. If only this whole d*** thing was more simple!
Posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 7:45:53
In reply to Apology and explanation to Phil and other posters, posted by Alara on April 8, 2003, at 5:21:21
I hadn't realized you weren't American. The thought oddly hadn't occured to me, although I suppose it should have given the sentiments expressed towards Americans by other non-citizens on this board.
I'm glad you consider us friends, but I'm sorry you think so poorly of us.
Oddly, whatever negatives I might think about the democratically elected (Saddam was not elected democratically) leadership of another country, I would never dream of commenting on them on an internet bulletin board. I might just possibly comment on my own leaders (but probably wouldn't in deference to those who elected them) but never those of another country. But that's just me. Apparently it's a well accepted practice among others.
Posted by jane d on April 8, 2003, at 14:01:20
In reply to Apology and explanation to Phil and other posters, posted by Alara on April 8, 2003, at 5:21:21
> At the time I wrote my post, I was seriously disillusioned about human nature in general. The post was never intended as an attack on Americans - but after rereading it I can understand why it was perceived in this way.
Alara,
For whatever it's worth to you that is how I read your original post.
Perhaps we should identify an "off limits" subject as one where people cannot say what they mean without being misunderstood. Sooner or later people get angry at having been misunderstood so badly. You didn't mean to attack Americans and I'm glad you haven't chosen to get angry about being misinterpreted. I know that many people who have decided they support this war, or JUST DON'T KNOW, lose sleep at night over those same images that bother you. And have the same questions. And they will get angry when someone seems to say that they don't care about loss of life.
Frankly I'm nervous about posting on this subject at all despite this being the big subject right now. It has so much potential to drive us apart. I don't worry (much) about disagreeing with my closest friends here or in real life either. I know that we have enough invested in friendship to keep it going. And my family needs to put up with me no matter what I believe. So I can talk out my doubts about this with them and feel sure that no matter how strongly they disagree we will work that out. But I worry about the potential friends here. People who, in a few more months or years, would someday also be the kind of friends I could disagree with and learn from. People who, if we disagree too strongly today, will just walk away from me and me from them.
As a final note you may want to stay away from both "terrorist" and "atrocity" in your posts. Both words are just too loaded with extra meanings these days. And since we all understand the meanings of words partly from the context in which they have been recently used, and since American's and others are not hearing exactly the same speeches and media clips, they are sure to have extra shades of meaning for each group that the other doesn't fully understand.
Jane
Posted by gabbix2 on April 8, 2003, at 14:49:08
In reply to Re: Apology and explanation to Phil and other posters » Alara, posted by jane d on April 8, 2003, at 14:01:20
I could also see after re-reading it why it was taken the way it was, but my original impression was what you'd intended I think.
Posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 20:45:05
In reply to Re: This war and the sad human race. Dr. Bob » Dinah, posted by Alara on April 8, 2003, at 5:37:31
My last post was perhaps intemperate. It's really Dr. Bob I'm mad at.
But I still find the following statement distressing, although less distressing than the original.
"Instead I was implying that allies' governments were driving them to (unknowingly) commit terrorist acts. "
I still don't think war can or should be equated with terrorism. But I'm willing to agree to differ as long as my support of the troops and dislike of comparisons to terrorists is on record. Otherwise I would just feel like a terrible traitor to the people who have agreed to put their lives on the line to defend me (up to and including General Tommy Franks).
And as you agreed, things are rarely as simple as they appear on the surface. I honestly think the American and British governments think they are doing the right thing. You may disagree with them (or with me for not thinking them terrible) but I really don't think it's fair to assume the worst about their motives.
Posted by Phil on April 8, 2003, at 21:30:57
In reply to Apology and explanation to Phil and other posters, posted by Alara on April 8, 2003, at 5:21:21
Posted by Phil on April 8, 2003, at 23:22:33
In reply to Re: I apologize » Alara, posted by Dinah on April 8, 2003, at 20:45:05
Why We Must Fight - and Now!
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
By William J. Bennett
Three weekends ago, millions of demonstrators across the globe protested on
behalf of "human rights." Their marches, slogans, placards and speeches did
not declaim against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, did not cite the human
rights reports detailing his tyranny and torture, did not take account the
plaints of Iraqis fortunate enough to live in exile.Rather, they protested the U.S. and the U.K. and their efforts to topple
Saddam and liberate Iraq. Now, we are seeing more television advertisements
along these lines, and even a "virtual march on Washington."Just after the celebration of Abraham Lincoln's birthday, it is
appropriate to remember his lament: "The world has never had a good
definition of the word 'liberty.'" With Saddam flouting international
law, and President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair attempting to
enforce it, portrayals of Bush as Adolf Hitler - as we saw and heard in
the "human rights" protests - betray an ignorance of liberty, an
ignorance of right and wrong, an ignorance of commonsense. Because Bush and
Blair are putting together a coalition of countries to oust Saddam, they
are labeled the warmongers and tyrants. We live in a confusing time indeed.Lincoln described liberty by a useful analogy: "The shepherd drives the
wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a
liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer
of liberty." Lincoln made it clear who the sheep was and who the wolf was.
It is equally important to recognize who the liberator is.Those who march against the U.S. and the U.K. today, those who condemn Bush
and Blair and remain silent when it comes to Saddam, are in league with the
wolf's view that the shepherds are destroying liberty. The people of Iraq
will soon know what Afghanis know. The true wolf was devouring Afghanis,
the true shepherd saved them.It is worth remembering what those in the former Soviet republics know and
what the anti-American Western street has forgotten: It was, and is, U.S.
and British resolve that truly liberates the oppressed and that defends the
lives and liberties of the free against the appetites and ill-will of the
world's dictators.In 1998 then-President Bill Clinton stated: "What if he [Saddam] fails to
comply [with disarmament] and we fail to act? He will conclude that the
international community has lost its will. He will then go right on
building up his arsenal. Someday, someway, I guarantee you, he'll use that
arsenal." Last year, former Vice President Al Gore stated, "[W]e know that
he [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and
chemical weapons throughout his country."It is not President Bush who woke up one day to discover that Saddam was
making and harvesting weapons of mass destruction. Yet it is Bush who is
blamed for doing something about it. Saddam may be mad, but he is not a
scientist. He does not collect chemical and biological weapons for mere
pleasure and intrigue. Just ask the survivors of Halabja. So when Saddam
acts, it will be Bush and America who are blamed for inaction, for
appeasement. We will be liable for such blame because we are the only ones
who can do something about it.We are not at war with Muslims or Arabs around the world; we are at war
with some Muslim and Arab leaders who misinterpret their religion and put a
primacy on war over peace and slavery over freedom. But among the
leadership in the world's moral democracies there is no
misinterpretation, and nowhere is that more true than in the case of the
U.S.This is not a new role for us, but is a unique role we proudly inherit as
the world's liberator. As Wolf Blitzer pointed out: "Over the past two
decades, almost every time U.S. military forces have been called into
action to risk their lives and limbs, it's been on behalf of Muslims. ...
[T]o assist the Afghan mujahadin . during the Soviet invasion in the
1980s, to liberate Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion of 1990, to help
Somali Muslims suffering at the hands of a warlord in Mogadishu, to help
Muslims first in Bosnia and then in Kosovo who faced a Serb onslaught, and
more recently to liberate Afghanistan from its Taliban and Al Qaeda
rulers."Those who protest against the U.S. just now are legatees of those who
protested against the U.S. in the 1980s, when we fought the focus of evil
then, the Soviet Union. But ask a former Soviet, or East Berliner, if he is
better off now than he was, say, 15 years ago. Ask a Nicaraguan. Ask a
Bosnian Muslim. U.S. resolve can be thanked for all that, even as those who
protested our defense and military postures marched in favor of
appeasement.Indeed, we live in a strange time when the anti-nuclear movement and its
leaders of yesterday can today suggest a course of inaction such that
Saddam will be able to join North Korea in becoming a nuclear power. The
only logical conclusion one can reach is that for the protesters today,
weapons in the hands of the U.S. are to be met with outrage while weapons
in the hands of Saddam are to be met with silence.We seek to liberate Iraq today, not only because for Saddam "[t]orture is
not a method of last resort in Iraq, it is often the method of first
resort," according to Kenneth Pollack, President Clinton's director of
Gulf Affairs at the NSC. We seek to liberate Iraq because after Sept. 11,
2001, we were put on notice. We were put on notice that civilized people
can no longer live in a bubble and hope for the best. We were put on notice
that there are fanatics and tyrants who want nothing from us but our death.
And this notice requires action: the action of the brave, the action of the
unthanked, the action of the free.In Iraq as in other contemporary situations, the responsibility to act has
been ours because the ability has been ours. The responsibility has been
ours because oppressed people look to us for their deliverance. There is a
duty in being the nation that Abraham Lincoln, speaking of our Declaration
of Independence, called "a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very
harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression." That is who we happen
to be. And it is an honor.William J. Bennett, chairman of Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, is a
former secretary of Education and the author of Why We Fight: Moral Clarity
and the War on Terrorism, re-released and updated in paperback (Regnery,
Posted by bluedog on April 9, 2003, at 10:48:16
In reply to Re: No comment (nm) » Alara, posted by Phil on April 8, 2003, at 21:30:57
Phil
No disrespect intended but do you realize that like myself Alara is Australian and do you also realise that Australia, considering it's limited military might in comparison to the USA and the UK has made a HUGE committment to the war to free Iraq.
The Australians have comitted ground troops (special forces), Navy and air support (including FA-18 Hornets) to the coalition forces since day one of this war and continues to make a signigificant contribution to the liberation effort. Even now Australian Navy divers are in the port of Umm Quasar putting their lives at risk in the continued effort to clear the port of mines to make way for the huge humanitarian effort that will be required following this war. Sure we can't match the American might but we are a small nation of only 20 million people and I just wanted to make people aware of this so that this contribution is not overlooked and to emphasize that relatively speaking the Aussie effort is no less than the US or UK contribution.
I don't see Alara's post as America bashing at all but was merely her personal opinion and I personally find it offensive that considering the Australians' REAL military support that it has provided the coalition forces that anyone would consider her post as America bashing. If that were the case she would also be bashing (her own country)Australia at the same time as a member of the coalition forces with our own troops who are on the ground as we speak putting their lives at risk to free the Iraqi people.
I don't mean to offend but maybe in the American media they focus on the US forces only and it is not generally well known of the Australians contribution and support.
I am not saying whether I personally support the war or not but I agree that war is war and that it is always bloody and horrible and I suppport our Australian troops with all my heart just like you support your American troops. I am certain that Alara also supports the Australian troops with all her heart.
Again I don't mean to sound harsh but Phil, knowing you from your past posts I know you can handle this kind of banter without being offended, which is why I am actually writing what I am right now and that is that I find it strange that you choose suddenly now not to make any comment!!!
From one very proud Aussie who also supports the US and UK troops on the ground in Iraq
regards
bluedog
Posted by bluedog on April 9, 2003, at 11:04:38
In reply to Re: Tired of America bashing., posted by Phil on April 6, 2003, at 11:08:07
> It's normal not to want war. It's normal not to trust leaders. It's right and just to want peace. I have no issue there.
> But I, many of you too have had family die to keep this country free. It isn't anti-American to disagree with war.
> Just don't tell me our troops are evil and mindless and that one American life isn't worth saving.
> Other countries call us selfish warmongers and God knows what else.
> What will we be when we die for your country when an unprovoked missle hits a major city in your country? Or your subways are gassed or you lose 3000 in an attack? Maybe you will handle it on your own. Good luck.
> People say American's are materialistic, bad guys who push around anyone they want for fun. We're a decadant country and all we want is money, money and more money.
> Well, you're hearing American's on this board. Bottom line is America will die to save a friends ass before they have to ask. I've lost too many friends and family to sit by and listen to this crap that all we want is to kill civilians in #'s to match 9/11. Saddam trains terrorist and we kill them.
> You can be against war, everyone is. The fact is, if we never fought a war, where would the world be? I'm not sure, maybe Hitler's pals could tell us.
> Or, while Saddam is living the very rich life, smoking Cuban cigars as he tortures another innocent dirt poor Iraqi and applauding at 9/11, you could ask him why he's been so successful at running his country? We didn't start this. It started before Saddam was raping and killing Kuwaiti's. But, we will finish it and history will tell.
> When your country is being beat up for no reason by a bigger, meaner country, us ugly American troops might look pretty damn good.
> There was a picture of Bush in a room full of healthy American's(I don't know all the details of where)and the only one who stood was a wounded soldier in a wheelchair, he brought his bandaged arm slowly to his head in a salute, standing as proud as his wasted body would allow.
> That's America. Warts and all, this is the greatest country in the world. That's the bottom line.
>
>Phil
I can only refer you to my above post. It appears that you are not actually aware of the Aussie involvement and contribution to the coalition effort to free Iraq.
BY the way many Aussies also died in the 9/11 bombing so you can't claim that Austrlia was not attacked also in on this day. And what about the Bali bombings where the terrorists freely admitted that they were specifically targeting Australians and the majority of the casualy=ties were in fact Australian.
So please don't take such a moral high ground. Sorry again to sound harsh but the world does consist of more countries than just America. Again I wouldn't normally post in these tones but I know that you are hardy enough to realise that I'm not attacking you personally but am (just like yourself) trying to bring some awareness to this debate.
I happen to believe as an Aussie that Austrlia is the world's greatest country....warts and all. And that is MY bottom line.
regards
bluedog
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.