RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal

RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

philosophy -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 7:37:57 AM)
"Philosophy - I totally agree with you, but I fear the situation has gone too far now for us to assert anything in the eyes of the Islamists and even a lot of ordinary Muslims. We have played favourites and sullied our copybook for far too long to now try to be equitable and moral without it being seen as another western ploy. We have created a monster which may yet bite us many more times before its put to sleep." well.......i see your point here LE........but let me offer a very radical solution. ......................We apologise........................ We apolgise for shock and awe, we apologise for killing thousands of civilians, we apologise for going in to Iraq. we go to the UN and we say, we're sorry, help us out. The US and the UK lose a vast amount of face, and probably end up having to pay quite a lot in damages. But you know what? It'd be the moral thing to do. And in an earlier post you drew a line between moral and practical.....i'm not prepared to concede that point :) oh, and accepted gratefully Caitlyn.........i always enjoy our debates :)

LadyEllen -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 7:40:53 AM)
On behoff of ze surd reich I must protest. Ve hoff alzo put forvord ein zolution! It ist nicht ein nice von, ve admit, but it did nearly voerk fuer uns. If only zose damned Amerikaners stayed out, ve cut hav vun! It ist vot you are calling irony I sink, dass you vil not listen to uns on zis matter!? E

LadyEllen -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 7:49:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy well.......i see your point here LE........but let me offer a very radical solution. ......................We apologise........................ We apolgise for shock and awe, we apologise for killing thousands of civilians, we apologise for going in to Iraq. we go to the UN and we say, we're sorry, help us out. The US and the UK lose a vast amount of face, and probably end up having to pay quite a lot in damages. But you know what? It'd be the moral thing to do. And in an earlier post you drew a line between moral and practical.....i'm not prepared to concede that point :) I could really go for that - although it would leave the power vacuum in Iraq that the Iranians perceived when the first plane shot the first rocket in the presidential palace in Baghdad, and which they are poised to occupy in my Persian Empire scenario. Even if we did apologise and make reparations, that single factor hangs over everything. Plus which, to apologise and repair would be to admit defeat and be a marker of weakness rather than strength which would not help us at all. Its one helluva mess, whatever we do. My son is now eleven years old, and I seriously worry about the newly introduced draft in 2013 that will see him sent to die in Iraq, in a war that some idiot created and that no one here wanted. I wish I could share your optimism, I really do. E

CrappyDom -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 8:00:17 AM)
Guys, Caitlyn is a Republican Freeper, she acts like a moderate and yet repeats the Republican talking points over and over and over. Democrats have suggested plans to say otherwise is to either lie or repeat Republican talking points There is a plan with real support on both sides, FIRE THAT MORON RUMSFELD. The army wants it, the Democrats want it, even Republicans want it.

CrappyDom -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 8:07:04 AM)
Caitlyn, Lets look at "plans". Rummy offered to fire the next person who asked about a postwar plan. They fired the only guy on Garner's team who knew anything about Iraq (sort of like they fired the only guy who knew anything about terrorism) and clearly the only thing written on the Bush's postwar plan was a single line. Secure the oil ministry and put the Iranian double agent Chilabi in charge of the country. With that standard of what a plan is already established by the Administrion, it does't take much to create a more comprehensive and intelligent plan. Hell a complete paragraph would have been better. Considering what was left OUT of the plan we CAN deduce what was in it. Securing nuclear materials wasn't in it Securing the ammunition dumps wasn't in it. Securing the cities wasn't in it Securing the museums, hospitals, and infrastructure wasn't in it The occupied the oil ministry and they are building permanent bases in the desert, that was the whole frigging plan. Your average college ROTC club could have put together a more comprehensive and competent plan.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 8:18:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen My son is now eleven years old, and I seriously worry about the newly introduced draft in 2013 that will see him sent to die in Iraq, in a war that some idiot created and that no one here wanted. I wish I could share your optimism, I really do. E Is this for real or is it simply a fear? I could imagine the arsehole Blair doing this.

philosophy -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 8:31:14 AM)
"Plus which, to apologise and repair would be to admit defeat and be a marker of weakness rather than strength which would not help us at all." ...it is not a defeat to apologise when wrong, it is an ongoing and insidious defeat to refuse to accept it. Neither is it a marker of weakness to admit when one has made a mistake, quite the opposite in fact. We wouldn't accept this sort of logic if applied to a human being so why accept it when a state acts like that, states are human artefacts.....we should not invent a new sort of morality that allow them to act in inhuman ways.

LadyEllen -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 8:32:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen My son is now eleven years old, and I seriously worry about the newly introduced draft in 2013 that will see him sent to die in Iraq, in a war that some idiot created and that no one here wanted. I wish I could share your optimism, I really do. E Is this for real or is it simply a fear? I could imagine the arsehole Blair doing this. simply fear, based on the fear I have that we will still be there and fighting seven years from now, and that since no one wants to join the army as things stand now (they are running loads of recruitment ads on TV, radio and in printed media and holding more than the usual number of recruitment events because of that), then it wont be too long before a draft has to be introduced just to fill the ranks. I do wonder what the Muslim youth of Britain would do though, should such a draft be introduced. I expect flights to Pakistan will be severely overbooked in that case. They interviewed some on the TV and every one said they wouldnt fight in the British army in Iraq, but would be prepared to join the insurgency. Even allowing for the editorial removal of positive (thus uninteresting) respondents, this is treason just on a hypothetical question, from those few featured? How much more treasonous their likely response to a draft might be then? If they'd just said they wouldnt take part for conscientious reasons, that would be OK, but to state openly on record that they would fight the British army is very scary. E

philosophy -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 8:35:26 AM)
"....it wont be too long before a draft has to be introduced just to fill the ranks." ...wont happen in the UK. It's opposed by the armed forces and most politicans on all sides. Following on from the Deepcut debacle the papers would have a field day. It would be electoral suicide and this isn't the Blitz....only some Americans believe that.

Lordandmaster -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 8:36:48 AM)
Yeah, here's a plan: secure sources of intelligence in Iraq--like immediately after you invade. Read this, it'll make you weep: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19197 quote: I arrived in Baghdad on April 14, 2003, as a news consultant to the ABC investigative team led by veteran correspondent Brian Ross. Before the war, Brian had broadcast a profile of Uday and one of his first stops in Baghdad was at Uday's riverside residence. In the basement of the partially looted house, Bob Baer, another ABC news consultant, made an astounding discovery, the personnel files of the Saddam Fedayeen. We were amazed that the military had not inspected or secured such an obvious location and Ross made that point in his exclusive ABC news report. ABC had no further use for the files; but they had obvious value for the US military, containing as they did the names and addresses of the main resistance to the American occupation. I had thought Ross's story would arouse some interest from the Pentagon but there was no reaction. I then called Paul Wolfowitz's office to see if I could discreetly hand them over to the military. (I was still a professor at the National War College—and therefore an employee of the Defense Department—and wanted to help.) Although we were staying in the Ishtar Sheraton, a hotel guarded by US troops, the deputy secretary of defense could not arrange to pick up these documents before I had to leave the city. That's Peter Galbraith speaking--A FORMER AMBASSADOR. This was in April of 2003. 2003! But we should just wait and see...maybe they know something we don't. Do you really believe that, caitlyn?

LadyEllen -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 8:39:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy "Plus which, to apologise and repair would be to admit defeat and be a marker of weakness rather than strength which would not help us at all." ...it is not a defeat to apologise when wrong, it is an ongoing and insidious defeat to refuse to accept it. Neither is it a marker of weakness to admit when one has made a mistake, quite the opposite in fact. We wouldn't accept this sort of logic if applied to a human being so why accept it when a state acts like that, states are human artefacts.....we should not invent a new sort of morality that allow them to act in inhuman ways. I agree. But what do you think the headlines would be if we apologized? What would be the mood of the country and the mood of those against us be? I strongly suspect it would not be "Blair shows strength and virtue" or "Britain marks new era of success" in the papers. It would tell the people that the country had been defeated and tell the world the same. I totally disagree with the war and our involvement in it and the mess its been allowed to become, but to apologize would be to admit defeat, however noble such an action is, and that is not going to happen because our leaders want us to believe them strong and capable, not subject to weakness and error, and the standing of the entire nation would go down, not up, around the world - not a recipe for outside investment or respect. E

philosophy -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 8:44:38 AM)
"the standing of the entire nation would go down, not up, around the world - not a recipe for outside investment or respect." ...i wonder in how much respect we're held by the world now for slavishly following the US line? Way i see it apologising is a short term hit leading to a long term gain......in the medium and long terms i believe it would increase respect for our country. Just as i have more respect for an individual who admits to making a mistake than one who bangs on and on about how, yes mistakes were made, but no, no-one is culpable. i agree entirely though with you when you suggest that my plan is an unlikely option for Blair.........but in all honesty i feel it is one that actually has long term gains to recommend it, unlike all the military solutions.....which merely defer the problem to another generation.

LadyEllen -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 8:50:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy "the standing of the entire nation would go down, not up, around the world - not a recipe for outside investment or respect." ...i wonder in how much respect we're held by the world now for slavishly following the US line? Way i see it apologising is a short term hit leading to a long term gain......in the medium and long terms i believe it would increase respect for our country. Just as i have more respect for an individual who admits to making a mistake than one who bangs on and on about how, yes mistakes were made, but no, no-one is culpable. i agree entirely though with you when you suggest that my plan is an unlikely option for Blair.........but in all honesty i feel it is one that actually has long term gains to recommend it, unlike all the military solutions.....which merely defer the problem to another generation. Again, I totally agree. But with general elections every five years and local elections in between them, and an economy reliant on very short term gains and subject to the minute by minute whims of the international money markets, its not going to happen I fear. E

caitlyn -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 9:02:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster That's Peter Galbraith speaking--A FORMER AMBASSADOR. This was in April of 2003. 2003! But we should just wait and see...maybe they know something we don't. Do you really believe that, caitlyn? You can't link those two things. That there may be information that we don't know, is one thing. That we should wait and see how things turn out, is another. Do I believe they know something we don't? I have no idea, but am willing to at least consider it. Apparently that makes me the devil in some people's mind. Apparently, to be a good soldier, you are supposed to take a stance, and be completely unwilling to accept anything other than your own stance. Apparently, if you even consider any alternative to your own view, you are a schill to the other side. Do I believe we should wait and see how things will turn out ... yes, I do. I don't believe we can just leave. I don't believe we can approach the United Nations with some sort of apology. The United Nations, in my view, is a "path of least resistance" based organization, run by the same sort of people that allowed the Second World War to escallate into a catastrophic event. I do distrust the motives of the Bush Administration, but equally distrust the motives of the United Nations. I think sending more troops will end up widening the war. That may be inevitable ... I know some pretty smart people that feel that we are on a collision course to war in Iran, and that nobody is going to be able to stop it. To me, the only thing that is left, is to wait until the next election and hope we can elect someone that has a better plan. Certainly if things stay the same, you would hope that this would be an important issue for the next administration.

Level -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 9:23:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Level - I will agree with you that 9/11 was a despicable and inexcusable attack on civilians that were just going about their lives and who (we will probably never know) likely had a multitude of positions on the way the west has dealt in foreign policy since WWII; for, against and neutral over Israeli abuses and tacit western support for them for instance. But to regard that attack as coming out of the blue with no cause or reason is I'm afraid too naive to have any credibility at all. It was a retaliation, not the opening punch in some hitherto non existent conflict. E No, I agree with you, the attack did not "come out of the blue", but the murderers chose their action.

Chaingang -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 10:21:05 AM)
"I just hope that we are greeted with open arms and cheers since we liberated Iraq!!!1111...What? It could still happen..." No, Caitlyn - it could not.

NorthernGent -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 10:38:53 AM)
The first, is stating as defacto truth, what is really only opinion. The War in Iraq is a good example. I have said many, many times that I don't think we should be there ... but, the moment someone starts saying it's a failure, they are venturing into the unknown This argument lacks basis. Yes, whether or not the invasion of Iraq is a failure is not set in stone and is open to debate i.e. there is no 11th commandment lying around that tells the sole story. However, based on the available facts, we can put together an informed view of failure/success. When a poster states Iraq is a failure, of course it is not fact, but, neither is the poster venturing into the unknown because it is an opinion based on certain facts. The wise money is on the opinion that Iraq is a failure not least because the country has almost descended into civil war since the invasion and you can have all the "democracy" in the world but when people are killing each other left, right and centre then it doesn't count for very much.

caitlyn -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 10:46:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang "I just hope that we are greeted with open arms and cheers since we liberated Iraq!!!1111...What? It could still happen..." No, Caitlyn - it could not. That quote does not belong to me.

caitlyn -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 10:52:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent The first, is stating as defacto truth, what is really only opinion. The War in Iraq is a good example. I have said many, many times that I don't think we should be there ... but, the moment someone starts saying it's a failure, they are venturing into the unknown This argument lacks basis. Yes, whether or not the invasion of Iraq is a failure is not set in stone and is open to debate i.e. there is no 11th commandment lying around that tells the sole story. However, based on the available facts, we can put together an informed view of failure/success. When a poster states Iraq is a failure, of course it is not fact, but, neither is the poster venturing into the unknown because it is an opinion based on certain facts. The wise money is on the opinion that Iraq is a failure not least because the country has almost descended into civil war since the invasion and you can have all the "democracy" in the world but when people are killing each other left, right and centre then it doesn't count for very much. Both our countries had their own civil war ... all the chaos leading up to it, and all the chaos after. So ... if your case is that Iraq is a failure because there was "almost" a civil war, you are going to have to rethink that one, in my view. Both of our countries became much stronger and more united after our own civil wars.

Chaingang -> RE: The Caitlyn Rebuttal (9/26/2006 10:55:02 AM)
I am just saying you are rather Pollyanna-like about the whole matter. Seriously - what, if there are any, are your criteria for a political disaster? How does the Iraq war not qualify as such a disaster? That's why your position on this issue is not credible to some. There appears to be no basis on which you would hold this administration accountable for any of their amateurish blunders involving Iraq. Pointing to the possibility that there may be facts not known to the public is holding out for pie in the sky. After 5 years, is there some reason this administration deserves the benefit of the doubt - still?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625