Re: Bush goes Nuclear!

mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: 07/17/04 

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 06:36:56 GMT

In article <45534f09.0407162132.42904c6e@posting.google.com>, vanep@cox.net (Bruce Pew) writes:
>mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message news:<tmXJc.35$45.8024@news.uchicago.edu>...
>> In article <45534f09.0407161108.232e3c8a@posting.google.com>, vanep@cox.net (Bruce Pew) writes:
>> >mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message news:<0BMJc.28$45.5610@news.uchicago.edu>...
>> >> In article <45534f09.0407151832.5ac544ff@posting.google.com>, vanep@cox.net (Bruce Pew) writes:
>> >> >mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message news:<9GDJc.23$45.4920@news.uchicago.edu>...
>> >> >> In article <45534f09.0407151403.1ee1d46a@posting.google.com>, vanep@cox.net (Bruce Pew) writes:
>> >> >> >mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message news:<isnJc.15$45.2823@news.uchicago.edu>...
>> >> >> >> In article <45534f09.0407141931.bd5d6ef@posting.google.com>, vanep@cox.net (Bruce Pew) writes:
>> >> >> >> >mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message news:<GIgJc.10$45.1614@news.uchicago.edu>...
>> >> >> >> >> In article <45534f09.0407141120.431a287b@posting.google.com>, vanep@cox.net (Bruce Pew) writes:
>> >> >> >> >> >mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message news:<Sn1Jc.46$25.6651@news.uchicago.edu>...
>> >> >> >> >> >> In article <45534f09.0407131754.781cca6e@posting.google.com>, vanep@cox.net (Bruce Pew) writes:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > So you are
>> >> >> >> >> >> >satisfied with our present leadership group for fighting terrorism?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> By and large, yes. Not all they're doing is optimal, but that's a new
>> >> >> >> >> >> kind of situation and you learn as you go along. I can't point to any
>> >> >> >> >> >> war where all that was done was optimal.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >I'm not 'by and large'. They havn't approached optimal at any level of
>> >> >> >> >> >the manuever.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Not me. I have some 'first hand' knowledge about getting shot at.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> So do I.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >So you went to school on the GI Bill?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> :-)) I wasn't even born when the GI Bill was passed.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >?. It would have been hard to go to school on the GI bill if the bill
>> >> >> >> >didn't exist. I was asking whether you went to Nam and then finished
>> >> >> >> >your education? Maybe you get shot at in Chicago?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No, at the Suez Canal.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I don't mean to pry and will certainly accept 'no' answer. Egyptian,
>> >> >> >Israeli, French, or British?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Israeli. The war of 1973.
>> >> >
>> >> >That helps me understand your position better. I think trying to
>> >> >reduce terrorism on our planet is very important. My objection is with
>> >> >the leadership group in the USA. I think the war on terrorism is low
>> >> >on this groups agenda. Invading Iraq was high on their agenda as
>> >> >evidenced by the plans for such an invasion existing long before 9/11.
>> >>
>> >> That's an evidence of nothing. You've been mislead by journalists
>> >> whorarely have any idea how things work. It is the job of military
>> >> planners to generate and maintain military intervention plans for any
>> >> possible spot aroung the glob where the need for intervention may ever
>> >> possibly arise (and especially for any current or potential trouble
>> >> spot). I'll bet you that in the safes of the Pentagon there are plans
>> >> like this for dozens of spots around the globe. Their existance is
>> >> not an indication of an intent to intervene, just of a recognition
>> >> that it is not inconceivable that a situation may arise where an
>> >> intevention is needed. Similarly, it is the job of political planners
>> >> to go through all possible "what if" scenarios and prepare
>> >> recomendations for action plans, for such scenarios. They would've
>> >> been derelict in their duty not to do so.
>> >>
>> >> Such prepared contingency plans are necessary so that if and when an
>> >> emergency situation occurs, you'll be able to act fast. Their
>> >> existance no more indicates an intent than the fact that I carry a
>> >> colision insurance for my car indicates that I'm planning on having a
>> >> collision. Only that I recognize that it is not inconceivable that
>> >> I'll be involved in a collision.
>> >>
>> >> As for "war on terrorism", how do you imagine to yourself such war?
>> >> As hunting for individual terrorists? This (as a primary course of
>> >> action) is only useful when dealing with small fringe groups enjoying
>> >> no significant support base (such as the Bader-Meinhoff and the REd
>> >> Brigades in Europe, during the 70s). When applied to organizations
>> >> bith a bid (and non-localized) support base, such hunt achieves
>> >> little. You still do it to keep them on their toes, but it is a
>> >> sideshow. Your main effort *must* be directed at eliminating the
>> >> support base. Else, what you're doing is the equivalent of fighting
>> >> malaria with flyswatters.
>> >>
>> >> As somebody else (Dave, I think) wrote here, one characteristic of the
>> >> war critics is that they offer no plausible alternatives. Nothing
>> >> more than "I don't want this". That's not good enough, I'm afraid.
>> >>
>> >> I could, for example, criticize cancer treatments saying "it is
>> >> unthinkable to subject people to radiation doses just a tad short of
>> >> lethal and to feed them poison (against, just a tad short of lethal
>> >> levels). There must be a better way". But, unless I can actually
>> >> point to a better way, such criticism is ridiculous. To borrow a
>> >> phrase (from Uncle Al), "to criticize is to volunteer".
>> >>
>> >> Reality is messy. In Holywood movies the greatest possible crisis can
>> >> be resolved by a single brave agent who penetrates the lair of the
>> >> mastermind, kills him, fucks the mastermind's mistress and all is well
>> >> with the world. Real world problems are more complicated and clean
>> >> solutions, where only the "bad guys" are eliminated and no innocents
>> >> are hurt are not available.
>> >>
>> >> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>> >> meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
>> >
>> >We could say the same about you or me "You've been mislead by
>> >journalists
>> >who rarely have any idea how things work". A better way is focusing on
>> >terrorism rather than invading 'chicken*** nations' who are rich in
>> >oil.
>>
>> Meaning, what? "Focusing on terrorism", these are words. It is like
>> saying "working together to solve the problem". Or, "Dealing with the
>> issues". "What" is easy and not very meaningful. It is the "how"
>> that is the problem. So, what is your "how"?
>
>Give me a break. What have you said that wasn't comprised of words. I
>certainly wouldn't spend a large portion of the manpower and resources
>invading a dip*** country such as Iraq. Spend the resources locating
>terrorist cells, training camps, and destroy them. Do this in a way
>where alliances could be formed between nation states who have the
>common goal of reducing terrorism in this world. The bottom line is
>you will accept any effort regardless of how inept it is. Such as
>invading Iraq under false pretenses and getting Americans ass shot of
>for no good reason.
>
When you've nothing of value to say, there is no need to repeat it 5
times

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Quantcast