Right, Left, Phooey

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Been tied up, as it were, with Engineering and the Helpless Desk, come back to find this! Wonderful.

You folks do realize that you're throwing the Monkey Wrench into the Attic Windows, letting the Doves in the Courtyard mingle with the Lady in the Lake; and there's Broken Dishes on the Courthouse Steps.

I love it. Please continue!

[piqaboo]

They tend get worked into corners.

[OperaTenor]

Did Selma just bargello(sp?) into our line of punnery?!

It's a little warm this afternoon - I think I shall have to fan myself....

<small>[ 09-19-2005, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[treebeau]

Have you all covered all the possible puns?

Regards,
Tim B.

[OperaTenor]

I doubt it. I've been looking for some sort of a blanket pun to cover the whole subject.

I'm glad Shos hasn't gotten upset about the tenor this thread has taken on....

[Schmeelkie]

going back to the topic (not to needle you guys...) - I'm pretty much with Selma. My views tend to be all over the spectrum - maybe more liberal on domestic issues, more conservative on foreign affairs - but wiggle room there too. And the more time I spend with my husband, the more I inch closer to the libertarians - just think that there are some things the govenment does well, and others that they should just keep their big nose out of...

In the four presidential elections I've voted in, won twice and was disappointed and lost twice, but didn't think my guy would do a much better job than the other guy anyway in one election and went third party in the other election. I always feel like I'm picking the lesser of two evils...

Here's an example of my political wishy-washyness: I'm really glad we went to Iraq and got out Saddam - not necessarily for the reasons the government focused on, but he was murdering his citizens, living like a king while his people were in poverty, had an 'election' where he was the only choice and people figured they'd get shot if they didn't vote for him, was generally evil, and would have gotten more WMD if given the chance. (He had already used chemical weapons on the Kurds in the '90's). Also, diplomacy was never going to work. But, I'm not sure we went about the invasion in the right way. We should have worked harder to make this a joint venture with more of the world - should have put out olive branches to Muslim nations and asked for their help.

The world really just couldn't put up with Saddam anymore - unlike Castro, who's annoying, but not really a big threat. So, do the ends justify the means...I don't know...

And GWB should just admit what most historians know - making war is easy, it's making the peace that's hard. And the whiners who want us out should realize that this is not an easy process - heck we STILL have bases in Germany...

[piqaboo]

Politically, they tend to be a colorful bunch, with views all over the spectrum. Patching it all into a party is an act of great skill and patience!

Schmeelkie,
would you think assassination a suitable means for eliminating Saddam?

[barfle]

Originally posted by Schmeelkie:
the more time I spend with my husband, the more I inch closer to the libertarians - just think that there are some things the govenment does well, and others that they should just keep their big nose out of...

I'm pleased to hear that he's having a positive effect.

Originally posted by Schmeelkie:
I always feel like I'm picking the esser of two evils...

I realize I'm in a minority here, but my philosophy is that a vote for a candidate is an endorsement of that candidate. If I think he's evil, whether second worst or not, I refuse to vote for him. That explains why my candidates often run sixth or fourteenth.

Originally posted by Schmeelkie:
Here's an example of my political wishy-washyness: I'm really glad we went to Iraq and got out Saddam - not necessarily for the reasons the government focused on, but he was murdering his citizens, living like a king while his people were in poverty, had an 'election' where he was the only choice and people figured they'd get shot if they didn't vote for him, was generally evil, and would have gotten more WMD if given the chance. (He had already used chemical weapons on the Kurds in the '90's). Also, diplomacy was never going to work. But, I'm not sure we went about the invasion in the right way. We should have worked harder to make this a joint venture with more of the world - should have put out olive branches to Muslim nations and asked for their help.

I agree that Saddam was a brutal SOB. However, there were freedoms under his regime that a clerical regime would not allow, like freedom of religion. Christians were allowed to practice their faith, and one even held a high position in the Iraqi government.

That being said, I still feel that the invasion was wrong, because Iraq was not a demonstrable threat to us, nor to its neighbors (almost none of which supported our efforts).

Originally posted by Schmeelkie:
The world really just couldn't put up with Saddam anymore - unlike Castro, who's annoying, but not really a big threat. So, do the ends justify the means...I don't know...

Again, the "threat" of Saddam was all internal, not to us and not to his neighbors. Even Kuwait did not support our invasion.

Originally posted by Schmeelkie:
And GWB should just admit what most historians know - making war is easy, it's making the peace that's hard. And the whiners who want us out should realize that this is not an easy process - heck we STILL have bases in Germany...

I know far too well that withdrawal of our troops would simply leave Iraq in a bigger mess than it is already, and it's a big mess. But I also feel it's important for the administration to admit that we CAUSED the mess.

And as far as having bases in Germany, even when I was there in 1968-1969, it was not as an occupying force. We were part of NATO, trying to contain the Soviet Union. And then there was the invasion of Czechoslovakia, which simply proved that my presence there was wasted.

[OperaTenor]

Hi Schmeelkie,

If you go to the Libertarian party website, you can take this test to see where you fit in the political spectrum. While it isn't perfect, I thought it did a pretty good job(even if I did turn out to lean more toward the Green Party than anything else!).

I hope this sews it all up for you!



<small>[ 09-20-2005, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Schmeelkie]

Piq - it would have been a great option, if it couldn't be traced back to the US government. Not that other countries aren't nervous about us already, but if we openly started assasinating leaders we didn't like (even if everyone else hates them too), it would set a bad precedent and half the world would object. So, it would have been more effective than the invasion, but MUCH harder to carry out.

barfle - I did go third party once, but felt weird doing it. I think we should have more than two parties, but realistically, that's not going to happen.

as to Saddam doing some nice things - well, nobody's perfect. I just get pissed off when a government starts slaughtering its citizens due to racism or something and the world community sits on it's collective a$$ and whines that something should be done. Governments that allow such things should be stopped. Period. This is the role the UN should take, but so rarely do...

I also realize that we're not occupying Germany, but from my fuzzy history recollection, we took our time slowly pulling back and making sure the new government was on it's feet before pulling out. And I agree that GWB needs a real plan... I think he was just thinking, 'we'll go in there, kick some a$$, and everyone will be happy.' How you can be president and so far removed from reality is beyond me... (see, I'm waffling again)

OT - will look at that when I get a chance and let you know the results.

[Marye]

Barfle... you always make perfect sense to me....

[piqaboo]

originally posted by schmeelkie
Piq - it <assassination> would have been a great option, if it couldn't be traced back to the US government. Not that other countries aren't nervous about us already, but if we openly started assasinating leaders we didn't like (even if everyone else hates them too), it would set a bad precedent and half the world would object. So, it would have been more effective than the invasion, but MUCH harder to carry out

Its pretty easy to trace the invasion back to the US. You think they are less nervous because we iinvaded?

[Schmeelkie]

Piq - I guess I think a war/invasion isn't a big surprise and you can expect certain behavior from the invader. Assasinations are covert, don't have any warning and suggest more of a feeling of moral superiority by the assassin. Also, other people have a chance of influencing what a government does in a war and there's more accountability. Once someone's been assassinated, there's no going back and saying, 'maybe you shouldn't have done that'. Besides, it may better that Saddam gets to go on trial anyway.

[OperaTenor]

Do you really think Saddam will ever actually be put on trial? He was supposed to go on trial almost a year ago, and no one makes a fuss about it. VP Dick Halliburton speculated about banishing him to some tropical island(or some silly thing, I can't remember specifically). Just enough information about his disposition gets leaked to make it seem like some juicy National Enquirer story, and he just remains in detention. It's all probably part of the plan.

I guess it goes along with still believing we're in the fight to end terrorism and redress the wrongs committed on 9/11....

[snark] As for how I feel about it, it's all Haggis' fault. He made that comment about not being comfortable with the relationship between the house of Bush and the house of Saud a while back, and it's been niggling at me ever since. It all fits; we're in Iraq so the Sauds can earn more profits on their oil. [/snark]

<Ed: Is this your pathetic attempt to make Haggis feel somewhat responsible, and perhaps a little guilty for all of your conspiracist ravings?!!"

"Well, yeah. Somebody's got to be at fault for it, and it sure isn't me! I think I've got this blame game business down cold, and I blame...............HIM!">

<small>[ 09-20-2005, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[piqaboo]

Schmeelkie,
if we went to war in Iraq for the sole purpose of deposing SH, in lieu of assassination, then I would have even bigger problems with that decision than I do now.
Can we really say "oops" and put things back together now?


(yes, I realize assassination is against US law and there are good diplomatic and pragmatic reasons for it. Just as there are for not invading other countries at will, just because we can)

I've strayed over the border of the thread. I dont vote as a block. I <like to believe I> piece my opinions together. Sometimes a small contribution from another changes the entire tone, if not color, of my thoughts. Crazy as it may seem, windows onto the thoughts of others do illuminate the dusty corners. How in heck do I work Fat Quarters into this?

[shostakovich]

Although this comment would better fit another thread, let me just say:

"Stay the course." and "Win the war." are appealing, but no more than wishful thinking.

"Stay the course." doesn't mean much if you don't know what the course is. And there is no criterion by which you can determine when it's over. If it means when the insurgency gives up (win the war), we're talking centuries.

If the insurgency is truly getting stronger as time goes on, then the longer we stay, the worse the civil war will be when we leave. And civil war is what's going on now. In Korea and Viet Nam we got into a civil war. This one we created.

To end on a lighter note, the Bush look-alike on Jay Leno's show was commenting on Cheney's bypass as minor surgery. Leno asked if it isn't more serious. Look-alike said "No. For a Republican the heart is not a vital organ".

In keeping with my feelings about classifications, I'd amend that to just the Bush Administation. See, I can be nice to Haggis and Shap, too.
Shos

[barfle]

Originally posted by Marye:
Barfle... you always make perfect sense to me....

Alas, if I only made sense to me anywhere near that often...

But thank you for your kind words.

[barfle]

If we had attempted assassination of Saddam Hussein with the same skill and stealth we've tried to assassinate Fidel Castro...

Well, 2,000 Americans wouldn't be in their graves, 10,000 Iraqis wouldn't be in their graves, and there wouldn't be anywhere near the insurgent backlash.

But Saddam would still be in power. Maybe one of his stand-ins would be in his grave.

[Marye]

From: Shos
To end on a lighter note, the Bush look-alike on Jay Leno's show was commenting on Cheney's bypass as minor surgery. Leno asked if it isn't more serious. Look-alike said "No. For a Republican the heart is not a vital organ

Nice one....

[Shapley]

Barfle,

And, of course, the Bay of Pigs fiasco led to the Cuban missile crisis in 1963, in which Castro stockpiled WMD for implementation against the U.S.

I don't think a Cuban-style embargo would have diffused the situation, and we would have had to invade Iraq, which would then actually have WMD, and we would have 20,000 Americans and 10,000,000 Iraqis in their graves.

V/R
Shapley

Oh! And I haven't attempted to count the number of Israeli casualties!

<small>[ 09-22-2005, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>