|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
Although this has a happy ending, as you can see, war is not just the
capturing of someone who may or may not have been a threat to us. We have, because of our war mongering, put this little boy through nothing short of pure hell. If this story doesn't sadden you, then you are no better than Saddam himself: Saleh Khalaf, the 9-year-old Iraqi boy gravely wounded in a blast on his Nasiriya schoolyard, walked out of Children's Hospital Oakland on Tuesday to the high-fives of surgeons who six weeks ago worried whether he would survive. On his way to the main lobby for his media debut, Saleh asked his father, Raheem Khalaf, to brush his hair. Decked out in a red Quicksilver T-shirt and mirrored sunglasses, he wanted to look good for the cameras. He also wanted to cover up his left eye, which was destroyed in October when he picked up an explosive that he thought was a toy ball. Saleh has become shy about his appearance, his father said. Saleh also lost his right hand, and all but a thumb and a partial digit on his left -- injuries that will take several more months of reconstructive work to repair. In the meantime, Saleh and his father will live around the corner in the hospital's Family House. His most dangerous injury was to his abdomen, which was torn open by the blast, exposing his intestines. His older brother, Diya, 16, died in the explosion, the origins of which are unknown. At the insistence of his father, Saleh was transferred from the war-torn and understaffed Saddam Hussein Hospital after two weeks to the trauma unit on the U.S. air base. There, Dr. Jay Johannigman and a team began reconstructive work on Saleh's hands and closed his abdomen. When the boy surprised everyone by surviving dozens of life-threatening surgeries, Air Force doctors began contacting their American medical friends looking for a way to give Saleh the long-term care he wouldn't be able to receive in Iraq. Children's Hospital Oakland accepted the unusual request, and on Nov. 10, Saleh was flown in a military plane to California. 'Amazing' boy "Saleh is an amazing young man," said Dr. James Betts, the hospital's chief of surgery. "He was in such critical condition when he arrived, we expected his recovery would take a lot longer." Saleh was so severely emaciated that he needed calories and antibiotics before his body could undergo any surgeries. Betts and a team grafted skin from Saleh's thigh to close his abdominal wound. During his hospital stay, Saleh's story touched the community. Well- wishers sent presents and visited daily, and local Arabs brought food and invited Raheem to mosques for prayer. His nurses and therapists gathered around him Tuesday, clapping and singing a goodbye song: "Goodbye Saleh, goodbye Saleh, we're sad to see you go! " After he left the hospital, Saleh moved into the nearby apartment the hospital is providing in its Family House for Raheem. Saleh will need several more months of physical therapy and cosmetic surgery before he's ready to return to Iraq, Betts said. He needs a new left eyelid and a prosthetic eye. Dr. Robert Haining will outfit Saleh with a prosthetic hook on his right hand. "We have to give him the most basic prosthetic because he's going to be in a country where those kinds of things are hard to come by and hard to maintain," Haining said. Shouting for joy Saleh said he is so happy to be getting out of the hospital that he would give a high-pitched yell, the kind Iraqi women shriek at weddings, to celebrate. "I love my mom and the only thing I want when I leave is to hear her voice," he said. Raheem is overjoyed that his son is thriving. He thanked the American doctors many times, and hugged all of Saleh's therapists, nurses and surgeons. "I talked to my family in Iraq yesterday to let them know Saleh is out of the hospital," Raheem said. "They can't wait to see him." |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"John H" wrote in message
... Bass, where did any Conservative say that war is grand? Did someone honestly say that, or was that comment simply to attract attention? You could attract attention with a current story just as easily. My son-in-law lost one of his best friends on Christmas eve in Baghdad. Do you think that makes me feel 'war is grand'? Hope you had a good Christmas. I hope your search for the worst you could find didn't affect your day. John H Perhaps he's reacting to tripe like NOYB, who keeps repeating that we ought to bomb Syria, Jordan, etc etc etc just as soon as the president's boys feel like it. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:31:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . Bass, where did any Conservative say that war is grand? Did someone honestly say that, or was that comment simply to attract attention? You could attract attention with a current story just as easily. My son-in-law lost one of his best friends on Christmas eve in Baghdad. Do you think that makes me feel 'war is grand'? Hope you had a good Christmas. I hope your search for the worst you could find didn't affect your day. Perhaps he's reacting to tripe like NOYB, who keeps repeating that we ought to bomb Syria, Jordan, etc etc etc just as soon as the president's boys feel like it. Wait a second... Harry said that also. Now he's a conservative? Steve |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
... On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:31:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . Bass, where did any Conservative say that war is grand? Did someone honestly say that, or was that comment simply to attract attention? You could attract attention with a current story just as easily. My son-in-law lost one of his best friends on Christmas eve in Baghdad. Do you think that makes me feel 'war is grand'? Hope you had a good Christmas. I hope your search for the worst you could find didn't affect your day. Perhaps he's reacting to tripe like NOYB, who keeps repeating that we ought to bomb Syria, Jordan, etc etc etc just as soon as the president's boys feel like it. Wait a second... Harry said that also. Now he's a conservative? Steve I suspect that if you see Harry say this, he's being exquisitely sarcastic. NOYB, however, isn't kidding at all. Of course, that'll change the moment one of his kids is old enough to join the military. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:22:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message ... On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:31:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . Bass, where did any Conservative say that war is grand? Did someone honestly say that, or was that comment simply to attract attention? You could attract attention with a current story just as easily. My son-in-law lost one of his best friends on Christmas eve in Baghdad. Do you think that makes me feel 'war is grand'? Hope you had a good Christmas. I hope your search for the worst you could find didn't affect your day. Perhaps he's reacting to tripe like NOYB, who keeps repeating that we ought to bomb Syria, Jordan, etc etc etc just as soon as the president's boys feel like it. Wait a second... Harry said that also. Now he's a conservative? Steve I suspect that if you see Harry say this, he's being exquisitely sarcastic. NOYB, however, isn't kidding at all. Of course, that'll change the moment one of his kids is old enough to join the military. Actually it was the other way. Harry was not being sarcastic. NOYB probably was. Steve |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
... I suspect that if you see Harry say this, he's being exquisitely sarcastic. NOYB, however, isn't kidding at all. Of course, that'll change the moment one of his kids is old enough to join the military. Actually it was the other way. Harry was not being sarcastic. NOYB probably was. Steve Watch carefully. NOYB repeats this idea a few times a week in various discussions. Either he's just monkeying with the assembled masses, or he actually believes his spew. My theory: 10% of the time, it's the former, and 90% the latter. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message ... I suspect that if you see Harry say this, he's being exquisitely sarcastic. NOYB, however, isn't kidding at all. Of course, that'll change the moment one of his kids is old enough to join the military. Actually it was the other way. Harry was not being sarcastic. NOYB probably was. Steve Watch carefully. NOYB repeats this idea a few times a week in various discussions. Either he's just monkeying with the assembled masses, or he actually believes his spew. My theory: 10% of the time, it's the former, and 90% the latter. I don't know what your reference is, but, immediately after 9-11, when we were *told* by our government that Afghanistan as a government and a country was directly involved, I suggested we nuke the country. In short order, facts began rolling in and I changed my mind, and stated that fact, since it became apparent that terrorist cells, and not the people or at that time the practically non-existent government of Afghanistan were involved. In other words, a foreign country had not declared war on us. As the 9-11 story has evolved, it has become more apparent that those terrorists as people aren't really any different than our home-grown terrorists, like, for example, Tim McVeigh, or the abortion clinic bombers, or any of the other violent right-wingers who poison our humanity. The 9-11 folks are simply better funded and better organized. But they are cut from the same right-wing, conservative cloth. I always get a kick out of the rabid righties here who will point out something political I may have posted a year ago or five years ago and gleefully state that I must be a hypocrite because I have changed my mind. Well, folks, the fact that I can change my mind and do means that I am the exact opposite of a hypocrite. Further, I do not suffer from a rigid personality. While I am not the smartest bear in the woods, nor the most highly educated, nor the most experienced, I am pretty bright, I have had a good education (which continues) and I have experienced a lot of what life has to offer, good and bad. I used to admire some "conservatives" in America because of their brain power, their personal accomplishments, and what they had done for society. I liked Truman, I liked Eisenhower, I had an overwhelming fondness for Barry Goldwater, I like Gerry Ford, I like Bob Dole. Hell, I even voted for some Republicans and, in fact, was *reared* a Republican by my mother and while in public school got involved in one of the campaigns to help re-elect Prescott Bush. But the generation of conservatives that came in with Reagan, they're out only for themselves, they're selfish, they're users, they're only interested in lining their pockets and getting away with as much as they possibly can. They have come damned close to absolutely ruining this country and dissolvings its freedoms. They're dirty, they want to dirty the air, the water, religion, the social contract - you name it and the new conservatives have trashed it or are turning it into trash. George W. Bush is their puppet. I'm not even sure he is smart enough to be held responsible for his own actions. But for the moment, he's the man. With God's help, we'll survive him and move on. If the rest of the world lets us. And as for the new conservatives, the mindless, goose-stepping masses of them? They can go **** themselves. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
basskisser wrote:
John H wrote in message . .. On 24 Dec 2003 08:25:50 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: Although this has a happy ending, as you can see, war is not just the capturing of someone who may or may not have been a threat to us. We have, because of our war mongering, put this little boy through nothing short of pure hell. If this story doesn't sadden you, then you are no better than Saddam himself: Snipped Bass, where did any Conservative say that war is grand? Did someone honestly say that, or was that comment simply to attract attention? You could attract attention with a current story just as easily. My son-in-law lost one of his best friends on Christmas eve in Baghdad. Do you think that makes me feel 'war is grand'? Hope you had a good Christmas. I hope your search for the worst you could find didn't affect your day. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! That's quite easy to to answer. You conservatives don't mind starting a war, with no real premise, right? Well, I guess except for the cardboard drones!! You think Bush is correct for the pre-emptive strike of a poor nation that we had no reason to be in, right? You righties are talking about which country we need to go blow the hell out of next, right? It would seem to me that if you thought war was bad, then you'd not want is in one....or more, especially when there has been no real evidence that we needed to go there. The threat of war kept people like John Herring in uniform long enough to secure a retirement. It is in their interest to war monger. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
... The threat of war kept people like John Herring in uniform long enough to secure a retirement. It is in their interest to war monger. Harry, it's 40 degrees here in Rochester. It's gotta be even warmer in your neck of the woods. Turn off the computer. Get outside. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... The threat of war kept people like John Herring in uniform long enough to secure a retirement. It is in their interest to war monger. Harry, it's 40 degrees here in Rochester. It's gotta be even warmer in your neck of the woods. Turn off the computer. Get outside. It's 43F here. As soon as my bride rolls out of bed and out of the shower, we're (I'm told) heading out to the malls for another day of adventure, package-toting and being trampled by out-of-control women. I got up at my usual 6 am, and spent the morning doing entirely useful chores, such as emptying and filling the DW, cleaning off the glass and pieces and parts of the gas cooktop, feeding and watering the critters, wrestling with Bob, the family bobcat, and watching the geese fly overhead. Today, I hope, we're heading to the mall where the LL Bean store is located, since I need a coat. There are three stores in that entire mall I'll go into: LL Bean, Apple Computer Store, and Restoration Hardware. Oh...and Harry & David's. And there must be 200 stores in that mall. And one really good pizza place. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
... Harry, it's 40 degrees here in Rochester. It's gotta be even warmer in your neck of the woods. Turn off the computer. Get outside. It's 43F here. As soon as my bride rolls out of bed and out of the shower, we're (I'm told) heading out to the malls for another day of adventure, package-toting and being trampled by out-of-control women. Mall??? On a day like this? That's insane. Drug her and take her fishing. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:25:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message ... I suspect that if you see Harry say this, he's being exquisitely sarcastic. NOYB, however, isn't kidding at all. Of course, that'll change the moment one of his kids is old enough to join the military. Actually it was the other way. Harry was not being sarcastic. NOYB probably was. Steve Watch carefully. NOYB repeats this idea a few times a week in various discussions. Either he's just monkeying with the assembled masses, or he actually believes his spew. My theory: 10% of the time, it's the former, and 90% the latter. He's monkeying with the masses, and it worked John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Harry, it's 40 degrees here in Rochester. It's gotta be even warmer in your neck of the woods. Turn off the computer. Get outside. It's 43F here. As soon as my bride rolls out of bed and out of the shower, we're (I'm told) heading out to the malls for another day of adventure, package-toting and being trampled by out-of-control women. Mall??? On a day like this? That's insane. Drug her and take her fishing. Uh, in this household, she is the doctor and in control of the drugs. I get to take a daily multi-vitamin. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:58:30 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message ... I suspect that if you see Harry say this, he's being exquisitely sarcastic. NOYB, however, isn't kidding at all. Of course, that'll change the moment one of his kids is old enough to join the military. Actually it was the other way. Harry was not being sarcastic. NOYB probably was. Steve Watch carefully. NOYB repeats this idea a few times a week in various discussions. Either he's just monkeying with the assembled masses, or he actually believes his spew. My theory: 10% of the time, it's the former, and 90% the latter. I don't know what your reference is, but, immediately after 9-11, when we were *told* by our government that Afghanistan as a government and a country was directly involved, I suggested we nuke the country. In short order, facts began rolling in and I changed my mind, and stated that The simple fact that you seriously suggested that we nuke Afghanistan when you thought that they, as a government and country, were directly involved is what I was talking about. On the other hand, I believe that even if it were Afghani military fighter planes that somehow flew into the WTC, Pentagon and a field in PA, it still wouldn't justify nuking the country. [...] I always get a kick out of the rabid righties here who will point out something political I may have posted a year ago or five years ago and gleefully state that I must be a hypocrite because I have changed my mind. You changed your mind about nuking Afghanistan when you found out that the government didn't directly execute the attacks. You haven't said you changed your mind about nuking the country if it turned out that there were directly involved in the attacks. Steve |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
He's monkeying with the masses, and it worked
He's repeating the company line. Most of his heroes are listed at www.newamericancentury.org Check out their admitted agenda. It explains a lot. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
... He's monkeying with the masses, and it worked He's repeating the company line. Most of his heroes are listed at www.newamericancentury.org Check out their admitted agenda. It explains a lot. The JohnHs and NOYBs don't want to read that stuff. It would be too horrible to believe, like being told your whole family had been killed in a car accident. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
The JohnHs and NOYBs don't want to read that stuff.
NOYB has read it, and has stated that he agrees with the general principles. I don't have a problem with NOYB's opinion. He's less hypocritial than a lot of people. I disagree that the road to maximum American prosperity is to obliterate the governments of selected nations around the world (Iraq, Iran, Syria, and N. Korea) or that pursuing such a course is morally justifiable......but you have to respect people courageous enough to admit that they actually endorse the strategy. There is enough room in the world for more than a single opinion. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:00:39 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... He's monkeying with the masses, and it worked He's repeating the company line. Most of his heroes are listed at www.newamericancentury.org Check out their admitted agenda. It explains a lot. The JohnHs and NOYBs don't want to read that stuff. It would be too horrible to believe, like being told your whole family had been killed in a car accident. With what part of the Statement of Principles of the New American Century do you disagree? I've asked Chuck this question, but he's not, to the best of my knowledge, answered. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Harry Krause" wrote in message - And as for the new conservatives, the mindless, goose-stepping masses of them? They can go **** themselves. It's much more satisfying to **** with you. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message ... I suspect that if you see Harry say this, he's being exquisitely sarcastic. NOYB, however, isn't kidding at all. Of course, that'll change the moment one of his kids is old enough to join the military. Actually it was the other way. Harry was not being sarcastic. NOYB probably was. Steve Watch carefully. NOYB repeats this idea a few times a week in various discussions. Either he's just monkeying with the assembled masses, or he actually believes his spew. My theory: 10% of the time, it's the former, and 90% the latter. More like 1% and 99%. The governments of Syria and Iran openly support Hezbollah and Hamas...two every evil terrorist organizations that purposely target civilians. They both *should* be annihilated. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On 27 Dec 2003 07:38:11 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:
John H wrote in message . .. On 24 Dec 2003 08:25:50 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: Although this has a happy ending, as you can see, war is not just the capturing of someone who may or may not have been a threat to us. We have, because of our war mongering, put this little boy through nothing short of pure hell. If this story doesn't sadden you, then you are no better than Saddam himself: Snipped Bass, where did any Conservative say that war is grand? Did someone honestly say that, or was that comment simply to attract attention? You could attract attention with a current story just as easily. My son-in-law lost one of his best friends on Christmas eve in Baghdad. Do you think that makes me feel 'war is grand'? Hope you had a good Christmas. I hope your search for the worst you could find didn't affect your day. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! That's quite easy to to answer. You conservatives don't mind starting a war, with no real premise, right? Well, I guess except for the cardboard drones!! You think Bush is correct for the pre-emptive strike of a poor nation that we had no reason to be in, right? You righties are talking about which country we need to go blow the hell out of next, right? It would seem to me that if you thought war was bad, then you'd not want is in one....or more, especially when there has been no real evidence that we needed to go there. Again, could you please show me where a conservative said that war was grand? No, none of your statements above is 'right'. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... The JohnHs and NOYBs don't want to read that stuff. NOYB has read it, and has stated that he agrees with the general principles. I don't have a problem with NOYB's opinion. He's less hypocritial than a lot of people. I disagree that the road to maximum American prosperity is to obliterate the governments of selected nations around the world (Iraq, Iran, Syria, and N. Korea) or that pursuing such a course is morally justifiable......but you have to respect people courageous enough to admit that they actually endorse the strategy. There is enough room in the world for more than a single opinion. Chuck is right, and Doug is wrong on this one. I *do* openly support PNAC's agenda. Read it. It makes sense. We've been kicked around for too long. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... The JohnHs and NOYBs don't want to read that stuff. NOYB has read it, and has stated that he agrees with the general principles. I don't have a problem with NOYB's opinion. He's less hypocritial than a lot of people. I disagree that the road to maximum American prosperity is to obliterate the governments of selected nations around the world (Iraq, Iran, Syria, and N. Korea) or that pursuing such a course is morally justifiable......but you have to respect people courageous enough to admit that they actually endorse the strategy. There is enough room in the world for more than a single opinion. Chuck is right, and Doug is wrong on this one. I *do* openly support PNAC's agenda. Read it. It makes sense. We've been kicked around for too long. Well, of course you support it. You're a neoCon chickenhawk. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... The JohnHs and NOYBs don't want to read that stuff. NOYB has read it, and has stated that he agrees with the general principles. I don't have a problem with NOYB's opinion. He's less hypocritial than a lot of people. I disagree that the road to maximum American prosperity is to obliterate the governments of selected nations around the world (Iraq, Iran, Syria, and N. Korea) or that pursuing such a course is morally justifiable......but you have to respect people courageous enough to admit that they actually endorse the strategy. There is enough room in the world for more than a single opinion. Chuck is right, and Doug is wrong on this one. I *do* openly support PNAC's agenda. Read it. It makes sense. We've been kicked around for too long. Well, of course you support it. You're a neoCon chickenhawk. Sticks and stones, Harry... |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
With what part of the Statement of Principles of the New American
Century do you disagree? I've asked Chuck this question, but he's not, to the best of my knowledge, answered. John H Your knowledge is incomplete. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
Could you please show me, in the Statement of Principles, where
obliteration of governments is stated? John H Dig into the PNAC website a bit, John. The devil is in the specifically outlined details- not the platitudes and general principles. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
Could you please show me, in the Statement of Principles, where
obliteration of governments is stated? John H How about the following quote from NOYB, an adherent of the PNAC, agreeing with my analysis of the New American Century's agenda? You're unlikely to accept the opinon of a goddam liberal- but NOYB is certainly one of the conservatives best schooled on the PNAC agenda. You might find him more credible: I wrote: I don't have a problem with NOYB's opinion. He's less hypocritial than a lot of people. I disagree that the road to maximum American prosperity is to obliterate the governments of selected nations around the world (Iraq, Iran, Syria, and N. Korea) or that pursuing such a course is morally justifiable......but you have to respect people courageous enough to admit that they actually endorse the strategy. There is enough room in the world for more than a single opinion. NOYB wrote: Chuck is right, and Doug is wrong on this one. I *do* openly support PNAC's agenda. Read it. It makes sense. We've been kicked around for too long. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"John H" wrote in message
... You say my knowledge is incomplete (which is a true statement), so perhaps you could reenlighten me. With which of the Statements of Principle do you disagree? That web site is too important to have someone else digest it for you, John. Read it. To do otherwise is lazy, and that has no place in a healthy democracy. There's an election coming up. You need to be sure of what you're voting for. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:26:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . You say my knowledge is incomplete (which is a true statement), so perhaps you could reenlighten me. With which of the Statements of Principle do you disagree? That web site is too important to have someone else digest it for you, John. Read it. To do otherwise is lazy, and that has no place in a healthy democracy. There's an election coming up. You need to be sure of what you're voting for. I have. With which of the Statements of Principle do you disagree? Is that question too difficult to answer? You could just give me a number. If you cannot state the disagreeable principle(s), then one must assume you disagree with none of them, True? If you disagree with none of the principles, then why all the fuss about the New American Century? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:26:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . You say my knowledge is incomplete (which is a true statement), so perhaps you could reenlighten me. With which of the Statements of Principle do you disagree? That web site is too important to have someone else digest it for you, John. Read it. To do otherwise is lazy, and that has no place in a healthy democracy. There's an election coming up. You need to be sure of what you're voting for. I have. With which of the Statements of Principle do you disagree? Is that question too difficult to answer? You could just give me a number. If you cannot state the disagreeable principle(s), then one must assume you disagree with none of them, True? If you disagree with none of the principles, then why all the fuss about the New American Century? John, I've asked the same question several times...and never received a response, either. Don't hold your breath. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests? We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead. We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; [[(oops).accidentally cut the part about promoting econonic and politcal freedom in other countries]] • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz ************************************************ OK, John. Here we go. "We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership." As you would discover elsewhere on the site, "American Global Leadership" even includes extending American religious and moral values to other countries. It is a process of economic and moral colonization. How do I disagree? I believe that until we solve our own problems we have no business assuming the role of the world's military or moral police power. I believe that an Asian, European, African, or South American individual is as entitled to self determination as any US citizen of North America. Aussies too. Who the hell are we to presume that the rest of the world is even interested in having us "lead" them anywhere? Has to be one of the most arrogant public positions ever taken. Who are these couple of dozen people to presume to speak for the entire country? "Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?" IOW, "having eliminated a rival philosophy that sought to shape the world in its shadow, does the US have the resolve to do shape the world in its own."? "And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead." I actually agree with that statement. "Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership." We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are most favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our right, or mandate, to do so. How arrogant. "Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;" We're already the sole, remaining, superpower.......but we're going to need a much larger and better equipped military to carry out what the PNAC sees as our "responsibilities." "• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;" As this is the second of four items listed, it's safe to assume that we will use our expanded military to "challenge regimes that are hostile to our interests and values." NOTE: The site does not say that these regimes have to be a military threat to the United States, merely nonaligned with our (commercial?) interests and (moral?) values. The accidentally cut statement about promoting political and economic freedom in foreign countries is hypocritical in this context. The NAC crowd are only interested in promoting the freedom of other countries to agree with and support American "interests and values" "• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. " We need to structure the rest of the world to create an international order friendly to US security, US prosperity, and US principles. Colonialism. So there you go John. I don't expect you to agree with my perspective. But stow the crap that I haven't ever specified the nature of my concerns. This is probably the third or fourth time I have repeated this in this NG, and only did so because you asked in a reasonably civil manner. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership." We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are most favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our right, or mandate, to do so. How arrogant. We need to "shape circumstances" in order to "maintain peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East." And, yes, peace and security in those regions *is* in our "fundamental interest". |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"NOYB" wrote in message
. com... "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership." We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are most favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our right, or mandate, to do so. How arrogant. We need to "shape circumstances" in order to "maintain peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East." And, yes, peace and security in those regions *is* in our "fundamental interest". Every country does this. But, the method is the issue. Broadly speaking, you can use weapons or commerce. You seem to favor weapons. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:33:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message .com... Snipped And, yes, peace and security in those regions *is* in our "fundamental interest". Every country does this. But, the method is the issue. Broadly speaking, you can use weapons or commerce. You seem to favor weapons. Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com