| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Ted Kennedy's Speech: Treason or disagreement? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 6 2004, 11:18 AM (2,092 Views) | |
| doctortobe | Apr 10 2004, 10:50 PM Post #121 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
I can give a couple answers to these questions. For "the enemy of my enemy etc." For the most part, these nations hate America more then they would hate Iraq. Even Iran, who had a bloody war with Iraq, would probably side with them if given the choice. I suppose that a more accurate statement would be "The enemy of my worst enemy is my friend". Also, the War on Terror is not just limited to Al Quida. It is against all organizations that would use terrorism to force their views on people and also the countries that support, protect, and finance them. There are numerous terror organizations, from Al Quida, to the terror cells of Chechnya, to Hamas, that will all be dealt with in given time. The War on Terror cannot be won by just destroying these organizations. The greatests victory that could be won is to change the mindsets of the people that these organizations go to for recruitment. If these people can be given hope that they themselves can control the fate of their life instead of a warlord, then they will not want to volunteer to blow themselves up at the words of some zealot. It is only when people feel that there is no alternative that they will take such drastic measures to ensure the success of their fellow countrymen. Bringing their hopes up just a bit will make them merely want to kill others while staying alive themselves. While that is not a major improvement for their targets, it is an improvement nonetheless. Obviously, the War will not stop at this point. We must give these people sufficient hope for the future that they will stop fighting alltogether and work towards improving their own lot in life themselves. This is why the War on Terror may take decades to accomplish. We are trying to bring a region that is socially in the 12th century into the 21st. We are trying to instill basic civil rights into a people that have never known them before. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 10 2004, 11:08 PM Post #122 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Yeah, Pres. Bush never claimed Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. Now who is it that's claiming that Bush was linking Saddam and Osama? Not me.
It's a saying that is reflective of Middle Eastern thought.
You don't understand Middle Eastern thinking.
Bush never said that either. What Bush did say is, "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
What are you, stupid? The State Dept. info you just linked to says this about Iraq, "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2002. Throughout the year, the Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) laid the groundwork for possible attacks against civilian and military targets in the United States and other Western countries. The IIS reportedly instructed its agents in early 2001 that their main mission was to obtain information about US and Israeli targets. The IIS also threatened dissidents in the Near East and Europe and stole records and computer files detailing antiregime activity. In December 2002, the press claimed Iraqi intelligence killed Walid al-Mayahi, a Shi’a Iraqi refugee in Lebanon and member of the Iraqi National Congress." Dude, you may want to check into the hospital, see a doctor or something, because you clearly didn't read what you think you read, or did you read it and are now going to psychopathically claim the above paragraph was not there and that the document says things it does not?
Pres. Bush said in the same speech I quote above, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." Has the fog lifted off your eyes yet? Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and many other terrorists groups have been targetted. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 10 2004, 11:16 PM Post #123 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
This is exactly why I think that one of our reasons for going into Iraq is that nobody was going to miss Hussein. It means that if we succeed and a functioning democracy takes hold, especially with the Iranians being rather upset with their Guardian Council these days, then there is a chance that the face of the Middle East could begin to change. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Surok | Apr 10 2004, 11:18 PM Post #124 |
![]()
Ensign
|
I don't see a problem with Kennedy's speech in the first place. If you are going to call him a traitor, then everyone at every peace demonstration is a traitor. Where do you stop? Where does your right to express your opinion stop and treason start? I think treason has to be more than calling 'em as you see 'em. As far as a credibility gap goes, we did not need Kennedy to tell the Iraqis that one exists. As for Vietnam, this could very well start looking like a Vietnam. Vietnam did not look like Vietnam one year after we got involved, either. And every day there appears to be more of a question as to how "in control" we are. There is absolutely no reason for us to be in Iraq. There never was. We are now paying the price. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 10 2004, 11:20 PM Post #125 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
You're right man. We could change the face of the Middle East, and we could fail too, but I think we'll only fail if America is run out of the region. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Surok | Apr 10 2004, 11:26 PM Post #126 |
![]()
Ensign
|
There is as much chance of establishing a stable democracy in Iraq as there is of Nader being president. Democracy is not something that can be transplanted anywhere. It needs a certain soil to grow in and Iraq ain't it. Show me the stable democracy without literacy, industry, and a history of freedom. Iraq doesn't fit the nmold in any manner shape or form. Never mind that the fact they hated Sadaam does not mean they don't hate us. There are probably plenty of Iraqis who wanted Sadaam gone and who see us as just another despot to get rid of. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 10 2004, 11:28 PM Post #127 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
No reason you say? If so, then why were there resolutions and sanctions against Iraq? You're trite comments and shallow thinking indicates you've not seriously thought this out. You're merely responding with buzz words and catch phrases that are easily refuted. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Surok | Apr 10 2004, 11:33 PM Post #128 |
![]()
Ensign
|
You mean buzz words and catch phrases like "liberate the Iraqi people," and "bring them democracy," etc? Resolutions and sanctions are not the same as invasion. Some time with a dictionary or thesaurus would be well spent. Your need to belittle anyone who disagrees with you is pitiable at best. "What the Klingon says is unimportant, and we do not hear his words." |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 10 2004, 11:42 PM Post #129 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Your knowledge is lacking. Why don't you read some Iraqi blogs? Start with this one: http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ Here's the most recent entry...
The situation on the ground in Iraq is not the way it is portrait in the media. What is happening is not some massive revolt. It could go that way, but it is not that way now. One thing I can say for sure, the moderate Iraqi people will only support us as far as we support them, and when they hear on the news people like Ted Kennedy and others claiming what they claim, it causes Iraqi's to worry we're going to leave them high and dry again. The more Iraqi's feel that way, the more they'll try to come to other arrangements for their future, and when that happens the future they'll see as best is the one with their religious/ethnic group in charge. If that happens then it will revert to what it was under Saddam or it will turn into a civil war. Much of how Iraqi's look at America is predicated how strong we appear, and when the likes of Ted Kennedy goes on TV and flogs the whole effort, it demoralizes our troops and the moderate Iraqi's. Kennedy needs to shut his mouth unless he's going making statements based in facts. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 10 2004, 11:44 PM Post #130 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Actually, while I don't have numbers, it is my understanding that among Middle Eastern countries Iraq's population was fairly literate in some areas ("loyal" Baathists probably). True we can't just transplant Democracy and hope that it will just take root. It requires our effort there to encourage its growth. Next door in Iran the cleric dominated Guardian Council has taken step to curb what has proven to be too much functional democracy by declaring ineligible a vast majority of moderate candidates for parliament. Many of whom are already in parliament. This is because their voters keep sending moderates to run the show and the conservative Islamic Guardian Council thinks this is a bad idea. The seeds are there if we have the stength of conviction to follow this through. I've posted this more than once on boards: Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It's a long read, but well worth it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Surok | Apr 11 2004, 12:11 AM Post #131 |
![]()
Ensign
|
Swidden, my problem is with this line: "The seeds are there if we have the stength of conviction to follow this through." What does that mean? Because to me, this is what Kennedy was talking about. The same things were said about Vietnam, and we could fall into a similar trap here. As Yogi Berra said, "If you don't know where you're going, you might end up somewhere else." Others might say "Those who do not learn from history ..." A Philip Randolph said, "Freedom is never granted; it is won. Justice is never given, it is exacted." I don't believe we can "give" the Iraqis democracy, or anyone else for that matter. They have to want it and take it. It is our conceit that the great masses are out there just waiting for America to bring them freedom and democracy. Unfortunately much of the world, especially the third world, sees us as a power that likes to "bomb the crap out of some brown people and then whip a little industry on them." (George Carlin) It is hard to push our way of life on people who see their condition as much as a result of US "imperialism" as anything else. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 11 2004, 12:18 AM Post #132 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Hence the procedures we were trying to implement in Iraq via the caucus system that would form an interim government that would give way to an elected government. We let the Iraqi people decide for themselves but, as with how Japan developed following WWII, we help by working with them to create a constitution to base the government upon. I am not saying it would be a given slam dunk, but I am saying we would be able to afford them the opportunity. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 11 2004, 12:30 AM Post #133 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
I think you don't understand the problems with Vietnam. Can you list what you think were the problems? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 11 2004, 09:13 AM Post #134 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
First of all, a wet and happy Easter to all! I have family in for the weekend, so I have to be brief. Actually, Surok, I thought that a lot of those protestors WERE traitors, especially the ones holding up the "Bush is a Nazi" or "Regime change in the USA" type posters. You see, there is a difference between disagreement with the administration and comparing it (uninformedly) to Nazis, or calling for regime change. The organizers, mostly washed-up academics who are trying to relive the pathetic 1960s, ARE traitors. They obviously hate the United States, and under a BILL regime, would be deported to their Socialist utopia, Cuba. This is not 1968. None of those whining little maggots who've been comparing Bush to Hitler are going to be drafted. I believe in supporting our president AND OUR COUNTRY during a time of war, even if I don't agree with the administration's policies. This is called respect for the office and our country. Dammit, stop calling this Vietnam! I know that there are some who really want this to happen, simply to get their guy elected. Just stop it. Look at what is best for America FIRST for once, instead of using every pathetic political ploy to get your guy elected. This kind of behavior is loathsome, and unbecoming to ANY American. Yes there was a reason to be in Iraq, and it is a GOOD THING we are there, unless you long for the days of Saddam Hussein? I have friends AND a cousin there, and I'm damned proud of them. I will not have you besmirch what they are doing to LIBERATE Iraq. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Surok | Apr 11 2004, 10:30 AM Post #135 |
![]()
Ensign
|
I recognize you, Admiral. You were one of those "America, love it or leave it" hardhats whipping up on the peace marchers in NY in 1969. As long as there is free speech, we have a right to criticize. Period. That has nothing to do with being proud of the troops. I am the son of a purple heart veteran of Normandy and the Ardennes Forest, and I fly my father's flag with pride. But for me it is more treasonous not to speak out when my country takes actions I believe to be wrong. That includes in time of war. I don't believe we should blindly follow any policy the government puts forth. To me your words do remind me a bit of a goose-step. True love of country cannot be blind and must be willing to admit error. Dwayne, one of the things we learned in Vietnam is that you cannot make the local population buy in to a war and a puppet government they do not support. Kennedy recognized this early on. You need buy-in to support your actions. I anxiously await the "buy-in" of the Iraqi people into this new democracy we are forcing on them. We also learned that people fighting for their homes and villages, whether right or wrong in principle, are very determined adversaries. If anyone thinks this resistance will go away once our democratic government has been established. they are sorely mistaken. Is this Vietnam? No. Does it show the potential to be like Vietnam in that we may be bogged down there for years? Absolutely. No, I do not long for the days of Sadaam Hussein. I just don't think it is our job to decide who governs who and how, unless there is an imminent or realized threat to our own way of life. That was not the case here. I also detest the fact that we define murderous dictators or tyrants in terms of their opposition to our own interest. If they play ball with us, we love them and send them money and weapons. I am looking for what's good for America first. We disagree on what that is, but then that's America. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |




2:13 PM Jul 11