Why do you try to turn a simple opinion piece on the value of prudence into a policy statement by Solon on the Iraqi war? I said nothing to you about my views on the war except to indicate it was a done deal and to express my agreement with the manner I which it is being given consensus through deliberation. I support the modern commitment to dialogue which militates against the sort of recklessness which has caused so much human tragedy in the past.
Please stop with the inflammatory rhetoric to create an argument about something I have not said.
"So you believe it is good that Iraq's policy of bribing France, Germany, and Belgium in the furtherance of its aggressive foreign policy was successful? And that their only problem is that there is a bigger dog on the block?"
I never said anything about bribery being good.
"Who do you trust further with nuclear weapons? The United States, who invented them almost 60 years ago and only used them twice to avoid a bloody invasion? Or Iraq?"
Did I say I would trust Iraq having nuclear weapons? (and as an aside to your change of topic..the US did NOT use nuclear weapons to avoid a bloody invasion...at least not the one you're thinking of. That is poppycock.).
"Would you prefer Iraq have that imbalance? Iran? Saudi? Amin's Uganda?"
Did I say any such thing? I said when there is a huge imbalance of power, people ought to be extremely careful it does not get out of hand.
______________________
"War always takes innocent lives regardless of the justification for the engagement."
"Hmmm. I guess the US and Russians should have let Hitler continue gassing Jews then. Lots of innocent Germans died in the fighting to stop it."
Don't talk stupid. I said nothing about war being unjustifiable. I made the point that it should not be approached recklessly because there are human costs. You are engaging in an endless series of non sequitors.
"I'd like to tell you how stupid I consider that remark, but words fail me"
Well, stop making things up from what is said, and you may find that words do not let you down so heavily.
"Tell that to 1930's Britain and France."
You obviously agree with me, so why do you phrase your retort in a hostile manner?
"I'd say Britain and Canada have nothing to worry about as regards the US"
But the US may have a great deal to worry about when your children's children or their children are no longer the most powerful Nation on earth. Our friendship and commonality of culture ties our destiny to the fate of the US. It is one thing to oppose enemies. But let us to be sure not to needlessly court them by arrogance or disregard.
"This has been going on for TWELVE YEARS! Do we get to settle in the 21st century? DO you honestly think Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney, et al, are a bunch of mindless knee-jerk robots?"
Have I said anything about them being mindless knee-jerk robots?
"Has it occurred to the debate is simply a delaying taking, hoping that the passage of time will dim memories and make the "aggression" look even worse? You think this ploy is innocent? Were you found yesterday under a cabbage leaf?"
In a world where the ability to destroy is so great it must be balanced by the necessity of responding to objections. I was not discussing the specific merits of opposition voices nor the motives. I was lauding the need for a prudential process of open dialogue and the sincere attempt to reach unanimity amongst nations where invasion of rogue Nations or any other matter is concerned which affects the entire world and which depends for ultimate success on the good will and co-operation amongst civilized peoples. That does not mean that consensus need always be reached. It means simply that criticisms ought to be fairly addressed and considered.
Now repeat after me: SOLON IS NOT EXPRESSING AN OPINION FOR OR AGAINST ANY PRAISE OR CRITICISM BEING PROFFERED TOWARD THE US, OR FOR OR AGAINST THE SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION OF US POLICY. SOLON SAID NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF THESE THINGS IN HIS POSTS TO LAZARUS LONG. SOLON EXPRESSED HIS SUPPORT FOR THE ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION AND THE RESTRAINT THAT HAS BEEN EXERCISED, AND HE SPOKE TO THE VALUE OF WORLD OPINION BEING FAIRLY ACKNOWLEDGED AND ADDRESSED PUBLICLY WHETHER IT IS WRONGHEADED OR NOT IN ORDER THAT ANY TENDENCY OF ANY NATION TOWARD RECKLESSNESS OR IMPRUDENCE WOULD BE RIGHTLY CONDEMNED AS NO LONGER TOLERABLE IN THE MODERN CIRCUMSTANCES OF GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE AND RELIANCE.
SOLON DID NOT SAY HE TRUSTED IRAQ WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS. HE DID NOT SAY THAT BRIBERY WAS GOOD. HE DID NOT SAY THAT HE PREFERS IRAQ OR IRAN TO HAVE AN IMBALANCE OF POWER. HE DID NOT SAY THAT THE RUSSIANS SHOULD HAVE LET HITLER GAS JEWS SO THAT INNOCENT LIVES WOULD NOT BE LOST. HE DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT BUSH, RUMSFIELD, OR CHENEY. AND HE WAS NOT FOUND UNDER A CABBAGE LEAF. ALL OF THESE SILLY TARGETS WERE INVENTED BY LAZARUS LONG BECAUSE HE READS RECKLESSLY.
Now, just lighten up, cowboy... :-) |
