Bush's Plan for "Serial War" revealed by General Wesley Clark - Page 5

acp · 07-28-06, 10:25 PM

Quote:

As I mentioned previously, we do have the right to tell those who commit evil that they are wrong and must stop. Perhaps right isn't the best term. It really is more of a responsibility and an obligation to do so.

Right, couldn't agree more on that one. However the means used aren't always the right ones, war being the worst in my opinion. Sure, there comes a moment were there is no way out, so your options are rather limited, but you have to try a bit before coming to this. And Iraq isn't in my opinion a reference. First of all, the "search of chemical weapons" excuse, which was later on by Bush himself said to be false, was really stupid. Then, this war hadn't that much support. If my memory serves me well, it was the US, UK and Spain who were the main actors, with the rest of european countries being more or less firmly opposed. The number of protests against it was quite astonishing... So in that particular case, I think it wasn't a good choice. And let's not get to excited as to what the situation is now in Iraq. Sure, it might be a bit better that the dictatorship, but it's quite unstable, the Iraqi government hasn't yet the power to lead the country, there is still a good deal of groups who resist, etc.

Thank you for bringing Israel in the conversation too, because that's another example of misused military force. You said there not nuking the place. Well they did destroy Beyrouth's airport, the main powerlines plunging a big part of the country to the dark and set up an embargo. That will certainly be a problem for the 5% terrorists, but the 95% will suffer much more. I understand the position of Israel, being fed up of people burging in and exploding themselves in public places. However, they are not exactly the only victims here, let's not forget the history of this country, and more importantly, that doesn't justify the ferocity of their attacks.

Quote:

The only one's in both these scenarios that are killing innocents are the terrorists.

I just heard a couple of hours ago that the number of casualties in this war had reached the 600. Not all of them are terrorists, whatever smart bombs you use (which have proven pretty dumm some times :) ), you still have a great deal of innocent casualties. That's war you might say, but an unfair one I respond, therefore making this number unacceptable.

I find it sad that so much effort and time is spent on such outrageous things. People killing each other (not talking only about war here). Man is capable of such great things I hear often ; well all this bloodshed makes me forget it...

SkyRydr · 07-28-06, 11:16 PM

Well, I was just using Iraq and Israel as a broad example. I think we could both talk till we are blue in the face and both pass out over the finite issues. I was merely trying to illustrate that Iraq is now a free country. The people now have the freedom to, in essence, write their own future. And that was done as a result of removing a dictator whose lust for power drove him to kill many of his own people.

I think the future of Iraq looks very bright. You have to remember that the new Iraq is still young. Very young. It took Germany years to rebuild, and with the help of many other nations to do so. And look at where they are now. A thriving country. Iraq has that same potential, but it will take time. And it was the result of a coalition of free nations who stood up and said "Enough!" that gave that freedom to the citizens of Iraq.

And smart bomb is somewhat relative

. You have to compare them to the old methods to come to the conclusion that they are "smart". But that's a whole other topic... :)

Anyway, I don't think you and I are as far apart as one might think. Most would probably agree that war should be a last resort. But, unfortunately, sometimes it is also the only resort. And, as has been discussed earlier, with the case of terrorists whose only objective is to kill. This, regretably, is the only choice left. You can't debate, or discuss, or come to treaties with people who have no interest in doing so. These terrorists are just those types of people. I wish that was not the case, but reality says different.

Man is capable of great things. But he is also capable of horrific things as well. That, I believe, is the core of my point. It is up to those of us who believe in greatness to stop those who thrive on horror.

Unfortunately it is getting late, and I have to work tomorrow. But, I have enjoyed this discussion very much. Perhaps, we can continue at another time.

Good Night All!

.

dgoldring · 07-28-06, 11:53 PM

You know, normally I would jump into this debate, but it is close to middnight and it has been a long week.

All I wanted to say was that I have to commend acp and skyrydr for their posts. They have provided a thoughtful and informative debate. They clearly do not agree on all of the issues, but have kept personal attacks/flaming to a minimum and stuck to a discussion of the issue at hand. Bravo. The two of you should be an example to everyone in these political threads of the CORRECT way to conduct a mature and intelligent debate. THANK YOU.

Doug

SkyRydr · 07-29-06, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by dgoldring

You know, normally I would jump into this debate, but it is close to middnight and it has been a long week.

All I wanted to say was that I have to commend acp and skyrydr for their posts. They have provided a thoughtful and informative debate. They clearly do not agree on all of the issues, but have kept personal attacks/flaming to a minimum and stuck to a discussion of the issue at hand. Bravo. The two of you should be an example to everyone in these political threads of the CORRECT way to conduct a mature and intelligent debate. THANK YOU.

Doug

Thanks Doug,

That's nice of you to say.

:)

dgoldring · 07-29-06, 09:52 PM

Skyrydr. I meant every word. I've seen to many of these conversations degenerate into name calling and flaming. It is refreshing to see people able to discuss intelligently and disagree maturely without making it personal.

Doug

SkyRydr · 07-29-06, 10:08 PM

Now see what you made me do...

The credit should go to acp, though. He/She (sorry acp, don't know) made the discussion very entertaining and enjoyable. A worthy debater. :approve:

RobMan · 07-29-06, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by dgoldring

All I wanted to say was that I have to commend acp and skyrydr for their posts. They have provided a thoughtful and informative debate. They clearly do not agree on all of the issues, but have kept personal attacks/flaming to a minimum and stuck to a discussion of the issue at hand. Bravo. The two of you should be an example to everyone in these political threads of the CORRECT way to conduct a mature and intelligent debate. THANK YOU.

Doug

Agree: :approve: have enjoyed reading their posts.

acp · 07-30-06, 07:52 AM

Na, na, na, won't accept any credit at all. Takes at least two to make a conversation ;). (and it's a he :) ).

mozart2 · 07-31-06, 09:07 AM

EVERYBODY has an agenda. Every President - elected by the people, no matter how slim the margin - and Bush's margin was wider than that of JFK's over Nixon in 1960 - has a RIGHT to put in place the policies of his choice.

Clark was a Clinton appointee and disciple. He BOMBED Serbian cities, killed huge nos. of civilians, and for what? Last time I looked, the Serbs were not our enemies. None of this is reported in the Liberal Media of course. You probably won't even believe it since you didn't read or see it on CNN or NBC or CBS, all Liberal News sources who hate Bush. Clark is and was a political Hack who will say anything. I don't belive one word of what you quote him as aying, Book or no Book. Anyone can write a book and say they were in the Pentagon on such and such a date, bla bla bkla....etc.

Originally Posted by reese

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=2797

I knew he had an agenda from the beginning!