If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act? You got torqued off, didn't you Ed? The -reason- you got torqued off, I would suggest, is that you have no basis whatsoever for your support of Bush administration policies. Walt |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following as a follow-up to Walt: Do you seem me assigning the term to Juvat, or am I pointing out the rhetorical weaknesses of his argument? Uhhh, well I actually thought you were calling me a "dedicated liberal." But I am not offended by that at all. I confess I also thought you meant it in a pejorative context. Which made me laugh, "If Ed thinks that'll hurt my feeling, he's crazier than I thought!" He failed to address the question and he couched his comments in the terms I indicated. Pffft. Ed you must have missed my long retort on 25 May (that you didn't respond to) where I clearly disabused you of the notion that ONLY liberals refer to Bush's elite as neocons. I cited The American Conservative magazine (which you **should be aware of** if you are indeed a "dedicated conservative" as you profess) and Karen Kwiatkowski (LtCol USAF-Ret). Neocon is a term used by Pat Buchanan... March 24, 2003 issue Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative [title]Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest. "Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War." Hmmm, Ed it would appear that you were not aware that some "traditional conservatives," consider gwb's top advisors NEOCONS. Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform. I understand very well the difficulty in being at the point of the spear of national policy. I also understand very well the difficulty of being out there at the point while nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and "America-lasters" undermine the support of the mission. Been there, experienced it first hand. This is where I'll raise the BULL**** flag. It's BULL**** to say opposition to flawed foreign policy should take the blame for that flawed policy. Next you're gonna tell us that our negative thoughts are gonna get troops killed (like we're holding an RPG aimed at US troops). That is just so intellectually weak. Blame the French, blame the Germans, blame the liberals and the folks at The American Conservative. That is so friggin lame to blame voters for this **** up...okay let me rephrase that, you're right to blame the voters that voted gwb into office for this ****ed up foreign policy. But don't blame folks like me that oppose gwb (and his neocons as described by the American Conservative). Our military is undefeated on the battlefield since Korea. We'll kick ass and take names (and strip'em, cuff 'em, pose them in sexual positions etc) but we won't lose on the battlefield. Ten thousand attaboys and one "aw-****" wipes the entire slate clean. This is a big "aw-****!" The Sadaam regime was toppled in ten days, not ten weeks, months or years. If that equals mismanagement, then your standard is different than mine. I'm pretty sure he was addressing the events following those fortuitous 10 days. Things like the looting in cities to which Rumsfeld correctly observed, "Democracy is messy." Sure but Iraq is not a democracy yet...not even close. The USA is a democracy, it's messy, and it surely beats all of us singing the praises of gwb and the neocon advisors. The situation in Iraq is not a made-for-TV scenario. There are three distinct factions competing for supremacy--Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd. They don't much like each other, and it isn't suprising that they also don't like an occupation force trying to keep things balanced. So Ed, did you assume that we would be greeted as liberators? I didn't. Nor did I expect to see photos of US troops abusing prisoners (another "aw-****") Have we heard from the opposition in America what they would specifically do different? Cut and run? Turn it over to the UN--those are the folks that gave us "oil-for-food" and made billionaires out of several less than savory functionaries. Well during the 2000 campaign gwb expressed the opinion that the USA should not be in the business of "nation building." And yet here we are. I think he was right...that we should not be in the business of nation building. Sincerely. I don't think any of us, (what were the terms you used for us? oh yeah) nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and "America-lasters" would have invaded Iraq. So to ask what we would do NOW...good question. Kinda hard to blame us for opposing a course of action that we wouldn't have taken (I personally wanted UN support before we kicked SH's ass). gwb squandered all that international goodwill we had earned becasue of 9/11...poor diplomatic skills. Trust me. I teach political science at the local college. I teach international relations as part of the job.... I am not particularly prone to emotionalism... But like all of us, you are not without this personal failing from time to time regardless of what you might wish. and I like to couch my political discourse in objective analysis... Interestingly enough, you give the short shrift to mere mortals here but gladly acknowledge that Generals (Zinni, Clark) can have a difference of opinion (offering the same critiques). I respect you, I respect you're opinion. I'll not change your opinion, nor will you change mine. Have a Great Weekend. Robey |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:16:14 GMT, Robey Price
wrote: After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus confessed the following as a follow-up to Walt: Uhhh, well I actually thought you were calling me a "dedicated liberal." But I am not offended by that at all. I confess I also thought you meant it in a pejorative context. Which made me laugh, "If Ed thinks that'll hurt my feeling, he's crazier than I thought!" I suggested you were using the rhetorical techiques of the dedicated liberal, not that you were one yourself. I'm not sure whether calling you a liberal would be as great an affront as you're characterization of me as crazy. He failed to address the question and he couched his comments in the terms I indicated. Pffft. Ed you must have missed my long retort on 25 May (that you didn't respond to) where I clearly disabused you of the notion that ONLY liberals refer to Bush's elite as neocons. I cited The American Conservative magazine (which you **should be aware of** if you are indeed a "dedicated conservative" as you profess) and Karen Kwiatkowski (LtCol USAF-Ret). Neocon is a term used by Pat Buchanan... John Shinal posted a link to an excellent Wall Street Journal piece that explains where the neo-con terminology came from. No, I don't read "The American Conservative", nor do I regularly peruse The American Spectator or the New Republic. Ms Kwiatkowski has enjoyed her fifteen minutes of Wharolian fame, but brought no great distinction to the debate other than adding to the the list of women in the military who seem to be rising to the surface of infamy. As for Pat Buchanan, the less we say, the better. March 24, 2003 issue Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative [title]Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest. See, I really have a difficulty with work that starts out with "A neoconservative clique..." Doesn't that seem that the author's first intent is to inflame rather than enlighten? "Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War." Excuse me, but did I miss something on 9/11/01? Or at Khobar Tower? Or the USS Cole? Or the Marine Barracks in Beirut? Or Mogadishu? Is that the years of peace we are forfeiting by not turning the other cheek? Hmmm, Ed it would appear that you were not aware that some "traditional conservatives," consider gwb's top advisors NEOCONS. If you went beyond your single citation to explore neo-conservatives, you might expand from the pejorative to a greater understanding of the work of Straus and Kristol. But, that would endanger your strawman. Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform. I understand very well the difficulty in being at the point of the spear of national policy. I also understand very well the difficulty of being out there at the point while nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and "America-lasters" undermine the support of the mission. Been there, experienced it first hand. This is where I'll raise the BULL**** flag. It's BULL**** to say opposition to flawed foreign policy should take the blame for that flawed policy. Next you're gonna tell us that our negative thoughts are gonna get troops killed (like we're holding an RPG aimed at US troops). That is just so intellectually weak. Blame the French, blame the Germans, blame the liberals and the folks at The American Conservative. You stretch my argument a bit. I don't "blame the French,....et.al." I don't think "negative thoughts" will get us killed. I don't even seek unanimity in the national policy debate. I merely acknowledge that there are some who will oppose war regardless of the circumstances. We've become a nation of McNews and MTV. We want instant solutions to complex problems and aren't willing to offer the blood, sweat and treasure it takes to get there. That is so friggin lame to blame voters for this **** up...okay let me rephrase that, you're right to blame the voters that voted gwb into office for this ****ed up foreign policy. But don't blame folks like me that oppose gwb (and his neocons as described by the American Conservative). So, you'd prefer the steady, well-reasoned leadership of Al Gore that we heard this week? Our military is undefeated on the battlefield since Korea. We'll kick ass and take names (and strip'em, cuff 'em, pose them in sexual positions etc) but we won't lose on the battlefield. Ten thousand attaboys and one "aw-****" wipes the entire slate clean. This is a big "aw-****!" Does that herring stink? We were talking about the correctness of response to terrorism and whether a democracy replacing Saddam in Iraq was a worthy foreign policy goal. The Abu Ghraib prison atrocities are not in any way excusable. (But, extending responsibility above the brigade commander level is going to take a stretch. It might happen, but I doubt it.) The Sadaam regime was toppled in ten days, not ten weeks, months or years. If that equals mismanagement, then your standard is different than mine. I'm pretty sure he was addressing the events following those fortuitous 10 days. Things like the looting in cities to which Rumsfeld correctly observed, "Democracy is messy." Sure but Iraq is not a democracy yet...not even close. The USA is a democracy, it's messy, and it surely beats all of us singing the praises of gwb and the neocon advisors. Dare I say "faulty syllogism"? Because the sun comes up post-rooster, doesn't imply cause/effect. There was looting after the fall of Hitler as well. Ditto fall of Saigon. Unfortunate, but you might recall that some of the reports were exaggerated as well--remember the archeological artifacts in the tens of thousands that were looted....oops, they were in the basement. The situation in Iraq is not a made-for-TV scenario. There are three distinct factions competing for supremacy--Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd. They don't much like each other, and it isn't suprising that they also don't like an occupation force trying to keep things balanced. So Ed, did you assume that we would be greeted as liberators? I didn't. Nor did I expect to see photos of US troops abusing prisoners (another "aw-****") There's a disconnect between what I see on CNN and what I'm getting from "boots on the ground" sources. In fact, I do see (hear, actually) a lot of greeting as liberators. There is also a lot of competition for political power. Have you considered the disconnect in the rhetoric between the demands for us to withdraw and turn over sovereignty from the left and the simultaneous questioning of how could Bush possibly keep the June 30 deadline for just that? Have we heard from the opposition in America what they would specifically do different? Cut and run? Turn it over to the UN--those are the folks that gave us "oil-for-food" and made billionaires out of several less than savory functionaries. Well during the 2000 campaign gwb expressed the opinion that the USA should not be in the business of "nation building." And yet here we are. I think he was right...that we should not be in the business of nation building. Must I point out again that there was a significant event intervening between Campaign 2000 and today? I think we all agree that "nation-building" is not a desireable role. But, we must also agree that in this small, inter-connected, increasingly inter-dependent world, we must participate in efforts to enhance stability. We can't be everywhere in the Wilsonian sense, but there are some places we must get involved. Sincerely. I don't think any of us, (what were the terms you used for us? oh yeah) nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and "America-lasters" would have invaded Iraq. So to ask what we would do NOW...good question. Kinda hard to blame us for opposing a course of action that we wouldn't have taken (I personally wanted UN support before we kicked SH's ass). gwb squandered all that international goodwill we had earned becasue of 9/11...poor diplomatic skills. That's an opinion. Personally, I'll take Colin Powell over Madeline Albright any day. Ditto Condi Rice in preference to Sandy Berger. Appeasement on all fronts may seem warm and friendly, but it isn't always the best course, Mr. Chamberlain. Trust me. I teach political science at the local college. I teach international relations as part of the job.... I am not particularly prone to emotionalism... But like all of us, you are not without this personal failing from time to time regardless of what you might wish. I confess to the flaw of convictions. and I like to couch my political discourse in objective analysis... Interestingly enough, you give the short shrift to mere mortals here but gladly acknowledge that Generals (Zinni, Clark) can have a difference of opinion (offering the same critiques). Certainly Zinni and Clark have much to thank Bill Clinton for in their successful careers. I respect their opinion, even if I find it in Clark's case to continue to be politically driven rather than objective. I also like to consider other Generals' opinion as well--guys like Dick Myers, Hugh Shelton, Norm Shwartzkopf, Chuck Horner, Tommy Franks, etc. They differ from Zinni and Clark in their estimations. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:16:14 GMT, Robey Price
wrote: Pffft. Ed you must have missed my long retort on 25 May (that you didn't respond to) where I clearly disabused you of the notion that ONLY liberals refer to Bush's elite as neocons. I cited The American Conservative magazine (which you **should be aware of** if you are indeed a "dedicated conservative" as you profess) and Karen Kwiatkowski (LtCol USAF-Ret). Neocon is a term used by Pat Buchanan... March 24, 2003 issue Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative [title]Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest. For your further edification as you seem to enjoy throwing the neocon label around, here is some info on what neo-conservatives are really all about. (one might note that Kristol started the movement in the '70s.) http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/000tzmlw.asp Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following: John Shinal posted a link to an excellent Wall Street Journal piece that explains where the neo-con terminology came from. No, I don't read "The American Conservative", Interestingly enough it appears that at least one small passage in Zelden's article is "lifted" without attribution from Buchanan's article that appeared a month earlier. No biggee, just an observation. Ms Kwiatkowski has enjoyed her fifteen minutes of Wharolian fame, but brought no great distinction to the debate other than adding to the the list of women in the military who seem to be rising to the surface of infamy. I gather from your cursory dismissal that you did not read her three part description of events in the Pentagon. ad hominem anyone? Nah not you Ed. As for Pat Buchanan, the less we say, the better. Two for two...any you boys seen a definition of ad hominem around here? An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). But you would never dismiss an argument simply for something weak like that. Excuse me, but did I miss something on 9/11/01? Or at Khobar Tower? Or the USS Cole? Or the Marine Barracks in Beirut? Or Mogadishu? Is that the years of peace we are forfeiting by not turning the other cheek? You did omit Timothy McVeigh. So these terrorists events/attacks prove...what? That Buchanan's claim about the peace won from the COLD WAR (that'd be the Big One you and I fought in Europe) is in error? You mean we didn't win the COLD WAR? I'm pretty sure that Treaty in 1991 that allowed Germany to re-unite was part of that victory/peace. Buchanan was not presenting a Theory of Everything...but that the cold war was a success. But I'd say YES we were at peace up to 9/11. We chose to have our troops or ships in dangerous parts of the world (foreign countries), I'm not surprised there were terrorist attacks overseas...our friends have had them for years. Remember the RV explosion at Ramstein in front of USAFE HQ? I do. If you went beyond your single citation to explore neo-conservatives, you might expand from the pejorative to a greater understanding of the work of Straus and Kristol. But, that would endanger your strawman. Straw man fallacy? I don't think so. You missed (or ignored) my 25 May epistle with other citations. I've read Perle (note the date) http://www.fpri.org/enotes/americawa...tstopiraq.html I've also read A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies' "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy. [snipped for SOME brevity] etc... So, you'd prefer the steady, well-reasoned leadership of Al Gore that we heard this week? Ummm, here's a basic difference. If Al Bore (you read that right) were in the Oval Office the war on terror would be different, SH would probably still have his iron-fisted grip on Iraq. I've got no problem with that. Does that herring stink? You failed to grasp the intent. In very basic terms, we won the war in Iraq, but poor conduct or bad decisions by the "good guys" in the aftermath can lose the peace. And it won't be because folks like me opposed "pre-emptive, nation-building, 800 pound gorilla" foreign policy. We didn't plan to fail, but we certainly failed to plan (for the peace). We were talking about the correctness of response to terrorism and whether a democracy replacing Saddam in Iraq was a worthy foreign policy goal. Foregoing my snappy repartee for a moment. I don't recall democracy building as a goal for taking down SH, it was the THREAT he presented to the USA. The democracy notion was ancillary to the ANNOUNCED reasons. [Yes I have the text of all gwb's State of the Unions] When the ties to AQ weren't found and the WMD stockpiles weren't found, democracy took center stage...worthwhile but not quite the sizzle of discovering WMD stocks. Afterall we have friends that are not democracies...so it doesn't fit neatly into the war on terrorism rhetoric. Dare I say "faulty syllogism"? Because the sun comes up post-rooster, doesn't imply cause/effect. There was looting after the fall of Hitler as well. Ditto fall of Saigon. Unfortunate, but you might recall that some of the reports were exaggerated as well--remember the archeological artifacts in the tens of thousands that were looted....oops, they were in the basement. Again you failed to grasp the message, not that everything should be perfect; rather the clear demonstration that Rumsfeld and the architects of this nation building experience did not have a plan for post war. Oh yeah, I'm sure there was something they call "a plan" but I suspect it was predicated on Cheney's claim we'd be greeted as liberators. Have you considered the disconnect in the rhetoric between the demands for us to withdraw and turn over sovereignty from the left and the simultaneous questioning of how could Bush possibly keep the June 30 deadline for just that? Most definitely. I've considered the desire to give Iraq back to Iraqis and not leave it as damaged goods now that we've "broken it" to paraphrase Colin Powell's counsel (ala Woodward's book). Rock and a Hard Place, Deep Kimchee, Up to our Ass in Alligators... Must I point out again that there was a significant event intervening between Campaign 2000 and today? I think we all agree that "nation-building" is not a desireable role. But, we must also agree that in this small, inter-connected, increasingly inter-dependent world, we must participate in efforts to enhance stability. We can't be everywhere in the Wilsonian sense, but there are some places we must get involved. Again I go back to the raison d'ętre promulgated in gwb's 2002 State of the Union and the absence of a smoking gun (oh yeah, one sarin round) to show our friends and allies..."here I told you he had all this ****, and was linked to al-Qaeda." Clearly I have a higher threshold of proof. In the information age I expect the proof. Appeasement on all fronts may seem warm and friendly, but it isn't always the best course, Mr. Chamberlain. Ed, kicking al-Qaeda ass in Afghanistan is NOT appeasement. Containing SH's ass in a small portion of his country is NOT appeasement. Tracking down terrorist cells with the assistance of our allies is not appeasement. This notion that folks like me would do NOTHING is poor comprehension on your part, and a frequent error by bush supporters that label my ilk as "unpatriotic.". I would not have invaded Iraq. I would kill AQ ****s where I found them. Iraq was taking our eye off the ball so to speak. I confess to the flaw of convictions. I do not envy the student that writes a paper opposing your convictions. Believe me when I say that is NOT ad hominem...simply they way I see your debating style...not your message. Robey |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
WalterM140 wrote:
Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to act? Gee, Ed. It's a newsgroup. You came on my thread and spouted a bunch of crap in no way supported by the available evidence. Don't forget to direct your class to this thread. The Bush administration is arrogant and incompetent. Bush is the -worst- president we've -ever- had. Worse than Reagan? Come now, let's not forget the godfather of the mujahadin. Not so very long ago, most of these terrorists were proxies for RR and his boy Bill Casey. When they video taped the throat slittings of Russian draftees, they were freedom fighters. Cheers --mike Walt |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
WalterM140 wrote:
Ed allows: I have no trouble with my opinions or my actions. I don't have a clue who you are nor how you might be justified to comment on my positions on the issues. I could say the same thing about you, couldn't I, Ed? I'm a veteran too. I was on Desert Storm. But you don't have to be a veteran, or even an American, to see that we have 5,000 casualties because of the arrogant, maladroit actions of the Bush administration. Now I've cited General Zinni of course. He cites Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki. True, but Dr. Ed is a very prominent "professor" at a very exclusive junior college. Let's show some respect for the professoriat. I also cited James Webb. I'd say altogether I've made a pretty good case. Bush and his minions are incompetent. They'd probably ace Dr. Ed's "Intro to Political Science." Cheers --mike We have guys dying in Iraq due --directly-- to their incompetence. You're blowing that off. Now you may have some emotional attachment to Bush, you probably voted for him. But it's time to wake up. I was for the war. I've always thought Bush just a puppet. He sounds like a retard to me. But I knew that Cheney and Powell were savvy and experienced. But what we have is a -disaster-. It's a catastrophe, just like former VP Gore said. What's also plain as day is that the good name of the United States has been dragged through the mud by the Bush administration. As you probably know, the White Counsel wrote for Bush two years ago a paper in which he said we could (secretly of course) dispense with the Geneva Convention. Bush is in charge, and oh yes, he is definitely responsible. He's practically a criminal. Don't forget to direct your poly sci class to this thread. I've got a long career of service to country and have no need to apologize for anything. Oh, yes you do. You need to apologize for this fantasy rant that excuses the Bush admnistration. Robert E. Lee had a long career of service too. But he chucked it and went with the traitors. Not to compare you to Lee. "Dick" Cheney has a long career of service. He's practically a criminal too. General Zinni is entitled to his position on the situation, but it doesn't determine mine and if we disagree it doesn't mean I don't care for folks in uniform. Your position is --so-- not based in fact, that I respectfully disagree. As for the war on terror, it leads me to recall Sean Connery's comments in "The Untouchables". Let me roughly paraphrase. If you threaten me, I will hurt you. If you threaten my family, I will kill you. If you threaten my nation, I will kill you by the thousands. Whooo hoooo. Too bad Iraq was the wrong target, huh? It's as if in "The Untouchables" that Ness had set up his ambush to catch the mob bringing in bootleg liquor from Canada --- somewhere near El Paso. I will determine the level of force used and it will be decisive, possibly even viewed as extreme, but I will win. I know too well the cost of gradualism in a war. Iraq was the wrong target. Ask General Zinni. Ask James Webb. America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the terrorist organization responsible. Which had nothing to do with Iraq. Atacking Iraq was the worst strategic blunder in memory. We didn't lob a few cruise missiles from afar, destroy an aspirin factory and go back to the hallway adjacent to the Oval Office with our intern. We rolled up our sleeves and took on the thankless task of rooting the *******s out. As General Zinni has indicated, containment worked. At least the Clinton administration didn't generate 5,000 battle casualties -- and several thousand civilian deaths --- unlike the disastrous and maladroit Bush administration. They didn't trust Chalabi. They didn't manufacture from whole cloth an excuse to go to war. And don't forget: LONDON - The U.S.-led war on terror has produced the most sustained attack on human rights and international law in 50 years, Amnesty International said in its annual report Wednesday. Irene Khan, secretary general of the human rights group, condemned terrorist assaults by groups such as al-Qaida, saying they posed a threat to security around the world. But she criticized the response of the U.S.-led "coalition of the willing," saying its powerful governments were ignoring international laws by sacrificing human rights in the "blind pursuit" of security. "The global security agenda promoted by the U.S. administration is bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle," Khan said in a statement. "Violating rights at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, and using pre-emptive military force where and when it chooses have damaged justice and freedom, and made the world a more dangerous place." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...p_on_re_eu/bri tain_amnesty_report_1 Be sure and direct your class to this thread, Ed. That's "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle," in case you missed it. Bush is the -worst- president we've ever had, and the blood of those service people killed in Iraq is -red- on his hands. Walt |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
For your further edification as you seem to enjoy throwing the neocon label around, here is some info on what neo-conservatives are really all about. (one might note that Kristol started the movement in the '70s.) Keep sucking on that Jewish cock, Ed, you fruity old traitor. Maybe one day you'll wet your leathery, treasonous old tonsils. ****ing quisling. Cocksucker. Grantland treasonous http://www.weeklystandard. old com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 28 May 2004 23:06:51 GMT, Robey Price
wrote: After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus As for Pat Buchanan, the less we say, the better. Two for two...any you boys seen a definition of ad hominem around here? I didn't say that Buchanan was old or balding or even "crazy"--I merely mentioned that his radical right, America-first, ultra conservatism has made his pronouncements less than reliable. If I don't find Buchanan particularly credible (his abandonment of the Republican Party when he couldn't get a start on his quest for the presidential nomination is an example of his self-serving attitude,) it doesn't mean I am attacking ad hominem. I similarly might disregard the pronouncements of Minister Farrakhan. Here's a link you might find interesting--it's a balanced (rare that!) discussion of the possibility of an AQ-Iraq connection. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...lndzv.asp?pg=1 But I'd say YES we were at peace up to 9/11. We chose to have our troops or ships in dangerous parts of the world (foreign countries), I'm not surprised there were terrorist attacks overseas...our friends have had them for years. Remember the RV explosion at Ramstein in front of USAFE HQ? I do. Your first sentence says "YES" and your last sentence says "no". I remember the explosion quite well. It occurred three weeks after I PCS'd from Ramstein and the injured LtC was out of my shop. You failed to grasp the intent. In very basic terms, we won the war in Iraq, but poor conduct or bad decisions by the "good guys" in the aftermath can lose the peace. And it won't be because folks like me opposed "pre-emptive, nation-building, 800 pound gorilla" foreign policy. We didn't plan to fail, but we certainly failed to plan (for the peace). I won't disagree on the "bad decisions" at Abu Ghraib. Lots of failures of leadership at all levels up to brigade commander. But the continued assertion that there was no plan for transition is tougher to accept. Of course there was a plan--an essential element of the Powell Doctrine is "exit strategy". The problem is that events don't always flow exactly the way the plan predicts. If that is a failure of leadership, then every plan ever devised exhibits the same problem. When the ties to AQ weren't found and the WMD stockpiles weren't found, democracy took center stage...worthwhile but not quite the sizzle of discovering WMD stocks. Afterall we have friends that are not democracies...so it doesn't fit neatly into the war on terrorism rhetoric. Again, take a look at this: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...lndzv.asp?pg=1 Must I point out again that there was a significant event intervening between Campaign 2000 and today? I think we all agree that "nation-building" is not a desireable role. But, we must also agree that in this small, inter-connected, increasingly inter-dependent world, we must participate in efforts to enhance stability. We can't be everywhere in the Wilsonian sense, but there are some places we must get involved. Again I go back to the raison d'ętre promulgated in gwb's 2002 State of the Union and the absence of a smoking gun (oh yeah, one sarin round) to show our friends and allies..."here I told you he had all this ****, and was linked to al-Qaeda." Clearly I have a higher threshold of proof. In the information age I expect the proof. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...lndzv.asp?pg=1 I confess to the flaw of convictions. I do not envy the student that writes a paper opposing your convictions. Believe me when I say that is NOT ad hominem...simply they way I see your debating style...not your message. I suspect you would need to talk to my students regarding that assertion. It is a leap to unsupported conclusions. For you to extend my debate with you on this topic to some sort of student intimidation or doctrinaire requirements for successful grades is ridiculous. Students are taught to think, reason, consider the various aspects of complex political situations. They should recognize that knee-jerk acceptance of sound-bite solutions and slogans from either the right or the left are not accurate. As political science students they should be learning to find the middle ground, evaluate the compromises and build the concensus to create effective policy. They are discouraged from exercising emotional screeds. Probably not the way it is taught in the Ivy League, but it's what happens where I work. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Home Built | 3 | May 14th 04 11:55 AM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
Highest-Ranking Black Air Force General Credits Success to Hard Work | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 10th 04 11:06 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |