Are You In Support Of Starting A War In Iraq ?

by minimus 111 Replies latest jw friends

  • unclebruce
    unclebruce

    Q: Are you in support of starting a war in Iraq?

    A: No (i might be interested in finishing one though!)

    In the light of the drum beating getting louder I find the following words of John Kenneth Galbraith chillingly relevant. Here he is observing the Kennedy White house during the Cuban missile crisis:

    “When I did have time to worry … it was about the peculiar dynamics of the White House crisis meeting. This has the truly terrible tendency always to favour the most reckless position, for that is the position that requires the least amount of courage. The man who says, ‘let’s move in with all we have and to hell with the consequences’ will get applause and he knows it. In reality he’s a coward who knows that in urging more deliberate policy he will invite the disapprobation of his colleagues or later be accused of advocating a policy of weakness. Normally, also, he is aided by his inability to foresee, or even to imagine, the consequences of the action he advocates. In contrast, the man who calls for caution, a close assessment of consequences, an effort to understand the opposing point of view and who proposes concessions, must have great courage. He is a real hero and rare.”

    “Neither at the time nor after did I think the Missile Crisis the great and successful episode in our history it was thought by some. It showed on the contrary how fragile, almost negligible, is the issue of our existence when it passes under the control of domestic political exigency”

  • unclebruce
    unclebruce

    Q: Are you in support of starting a war in Iraq?

    A: No (i might be interested in finishing one though!)

    In the light of the drum beating getting louder I find the following words of John Kenneth Galbraith chillingly relevant. Here he is observing the Kennedy White house during the Cuban missile crisis:

    “When I did have time to worry … it was about the peculiar dynamics of the White House crisis meeting. This has the truly terrible tendency always to favour the most reckless position, for that is the position that requires the least amount of courage. The man who says, ‘let’s move in with all we have and to hell with the consequences’ will get applause and he knows it. In reality he’s a coward who knows that in urging more deliberate policy he will invite the disapprobation of his colleagues or later be accused of advocating a policy of weakness. Normally, also, he is aided by his inability to foresee, or even to imagine, the consequences of the action he advocates. In contrast, the man who calls for caution, a close assessment of consequences, an effort to understand the opposing point of view and who proposes concessions, must have great courage. He is a real hero and rare.”

    “Neither at the time nor after did I think the Missile Crisis the great and successful episode in our history it was thought by some. It showed on the contrary how fragile, almost negligible, is the issue of our existence when it passes under the control of domestic political exigency”

  • unclebruce
    unclebruce

    cont...

    cont...

    Clearly, sadly, dangerously there are few heroes in the Bush White House. And a great many cowards. (for a time it seemed that Colin Powell, despite a murky past that begun in the Nixon years, was half a hero but as far as

  • chachasmum
    chachasmum

    NO

    NO

    NO

  • Pleasuredome
    Pleasuredome

    just so theres no confusion over who has the biggest oil reserve.

    2.1 World proved crude oil reserves and changes in recoverable years

    (1) Crude oil reserves/recoverable year/production quantity

    Source) "Oil & Gas Journal"

    this iraq war isnt about WMD, morality or oil. the truth is out there....

  • dubla
    dubla

    pleasure-

    i dont use LaRouche to back up anything.

    if you give me a link to an article written by a larouche supporter, im going to assume you are using larouche to back up your argument, directly or indirectly..........theres no way around it.

    that article wasnt written by LaRouche or about LaRouche.

    well, it may not be written specifically about larouche, but it was written about larouches ideas on 9/11, so whats the real difference? the title of the article, just to refresh your memorty: "Opposition to 'Osama Did It' - Impact Of LaRouche's Thesis"

    i dont give a crap about LaRouche

    well then i suggest you stay away from articles specifically written about larouches thesis.

    which hijackers from the list of 19 were terrorists?

    i gave you the article link....i dont know if the names of those two have been released yet or not. if not, im sure when they are you will merely scream "lie!!!".

    is it the ones that have been found alive and well?

    why do you keep going back to this point after ive long since nullified it? you have an article written the week after 9/11 that states several of the initial suspects were alive and well. the fbi admitted as much, and there were stolen ids used to get on those planes.....its called mistaken identity, and weve been over this. are you claiming that the fbi still has terrorists on their list of the 9/11 hijackers that are alive and well? if so, please prove this with some current facts.

    i would suggest to you that boston globe lied

    im sure you would. you are so paranoid that you believe every reporter in the mainstream world is part of a big conspiracy.

    as there hasnt been one shred of evidence of the hijackers names appearing on any passenger list or ticket documentation.

    hey, they produced the list, not me. how can i personally verify the manifest that was printed by the boston globe? how can you personally discount it as false? simply because your conspiracy theory website tells you as much?

    if you've seen it please show me and then i'm sure i'd be more enlightened.

    well, i can give you a link to the article, but it would be a waste of time considering youve already written it off in your mind as a lie without ever reading it.

    you talk about FACTS, please post the Facts as you know them

    i have posted facts, but i will not continue to do so when you simply write them off as "lies". i give you an article about the fbi, and you tell me they would lie to you about what time of day it is. i give you facts as told by the boston globe, and you retort with "they are liars". short of sneaking into the american airlines file room and stealing the official passenger manifest from that day, i dont think any facts i provide are going to be sufficient enough for you.....so digging up more links will no doubt be a waste of my time.

    aa

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    "This has the truly terrible tendency always to favour the most reckless position..."

    This is truly the most biased piece of rubbish I have read in a long time...give us a break.

  • freeman
    freeman

    I would hope that everyone’s answer to the above question is a very loud and decisive

    NO!

    That is current position taken by the US government. Contrary to some peoples understanding, the US government and it's people do not desire war. However one should not mistake a lack of desire for war with a lack of willingness to enact it. I assure you, the resolve to carry through with the military option is quite firm.

    Not long ago similar scenarios were played out with regard to Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. The US government and a few of their allies asked for some specific things to be done and backed up that request with a military option.

    In the case of Afghanistan, it was: Stop harboring terrorists and hand over the Al-Qaeda leaders or you will be dealt with militarily. They made their choice, they did not choose wisely.

    In the case of Yugoslavia, it was: Stop killing or “ethnically cleansing” your own people and threatening your neighbors or you will be dealt with militarily. They too made their choice, and they did not choose wisely.

    Now we are at the same point with Iraq, and the US government and some of their allies are now asking: Give up your weapons of mass destruction, stop killing, torturing, and raping your own people and threatening your neighbors or we will deal with you militarily.

    Should the US and it’s allies be doing this? Are they being a bully for doing so? Or are they in fact to be commended for these actions against tyrants? Each must answer such questions as they see fit and as their prejudices dictate.

    Nonetheless, there is a choice. No war is not the only possibility, even at this late date, however it absolutely is the default choice if what is being asked for at this time is not complied with fully. Saddam, there is a choice, please choose wisely.

    Freeman

  • minimus
    minimus

    By the way, I'll be going to Aruba toward the end of the month. Do you think there's danger traveling this month?

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex
    I'll be going to Aruba

    Well I hate to tell you Minimus, but secret documents just handed to me indicate Osama Bin Laden has been hiding in Aruba all this time. He's been working on his snorkeling and trying to get his certification in diving.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit