except to say the fundamental error in your analysis is reflected in your usage of one word...
"rescuing"
our calvary is not "rescuing" ....
it is defending
Defending.....
From.... Saddam, I take it....
But before I follow this... let's get some language issues straight... (Including my own benefit)
_______________________________________________________
Main Entry: res•cue
to free from confinement, danger, or evil : SAVE, DELIVER: as a : to take (as a prisoner) forcibly from custody b : to recover (as a prize) by force c : to deliver (as a place under siege) by armed force
- res•cu•able /-&-b&l/ adjective
- rescue noun
- res•cu•er noun
synonyms RESCUE, DELIVER, REDEEM, RANSOM, RECLAIM, SAVE mean to set free from confinement or danger. RESCUE implies freeing from imminent danger by prompt or vigorous action <rescued the crew of a sinking ship>. DELIVER implies release usually of a person from confinement, temptation, slavery, or suffering <delivered his people from bondage>. REDEEM implies releasing from bondage or penalties by giving what is demanded or necessary <job training designed to redeem school dropouts from chronic unemployment>. RANSOM specifically applies to buying out of captivity <tried to ransom the kidnap victim>. RECLAIM suggests a bringing back to a former state or condition of someone or something abandoned or debased <reclaimed long-abandoned farms>. SAVE may replace any of the foregoing terms; it may further imply a preserving or maintaining for usefulness or continued existence <an operation that saved my life>.
_____________________
Main Entry: de•fend
1 a : to drive danger or attack away from b (1) : to maintain or support in the face of argument or hostile criticism (2) : to prove (as a doctoral thesis) valid by answering questions in an oral exam c : to attempt to prevent an opponent from scoring at <elects to defend the south goal>
2 archaic : PREVENT, FORBID
3 : to act as attorney for
4 : to deny or oppose the right of a plaintiff in regard to (a suit or a wrong charged) : CONTEST
5 : to seek to retain (as a title or position) against a challenge in a contest
intransitive senses
1 : to take action against attack or challenge <couldn't fight back, could only defend>
2 : to play or be on defense <playing deep to defend against a pass>
3 : to play against the high bidder in a card game
- de•fend•able /'fen-d&-b&l/ adjective
synonyms DEFEND, PROTECT, SHIELD, GUARD, SAFEGUARD mean to keep secure from danger or against attack. DEFEND denotes warding off actual or threatened attack <defend the country>. PROTECT implies the use of something (as a covering) as a bar to the admission or impact of what may attack or injure <a hard hat to protect your head>. SHIELD suggests protective intervention in imminent danger or actual attack <shielded her eyes from the sun with her hand>. GUARD implies protecting with vigilance and force against expected danger <White House entrances are well guarded>. SAFEGUARD implies taking precautionary protective measures against merely possible danger <our civil liberties must be safeguarded>. synonym see in addition MAINTAIN
_____________________________
After reading the above, I will stick to my term "rescue" as I believe to be a closer term to what is happening in Iraq. Yes, to rescue the Iraqi people from the leader that was placed in power by the US.
Read----> FREE from confinement, danger, OR EVIL <----
Followed by:
---->RESCUE implies freeing from imminent danger by prompt or vigorous action <------
Even Don Jorge used the words "to FREE from danger and EVIL"
Beyond that... I honestly do not see why my analysis would be flawed from the use of such word.
how can you think otherwise
I am not. But it does not stop me from seeing what some members of the government would like to see happening.
....but please ask yourself the question why this was not done?
bush41 was meticulous in getting a UN mandate for the removal of Saddam and he followed it to the letter....oh yes, we won *that* battle, but imo...we lost *that* war because for 12 years we allowed Saddam to flout the terms of his "surrender" while he continued to murder and torture
12 f'ing years...
Follow to the letter... please... the US made the hardest decision and executed the hardest task to rescue Kuwait and the rest of the inepts in the area... so why stop now???? What "letter of the agreement”? I have some suspicions as to why Bush (1) stopped but in reality I have NO FACTS... what I do know is that I don't CARE what was behind whatever agreement was made... it was stupid to stop. The army was there... everything was in place.... what kind of idiotic agreement can possibly make sense???
In my eyes... NONE...
The US could have saved itself the entire CURRENT CHARADE.... there was more support then.....
So.... do I ask myself that question?
Yes, I do... and I have no answer, can't find one.
I do not follow your argument at all...
____________________
it's a far different world than when we were looking at cold war era banana republic dictators as some sort of hedge against militant socialism....we are in a far, far different paradigm post 9/11
I know it is a different world... this time, it really hit home... it happened HERE.
just stop right there and read your own words....
WHY IS IT DIFFERENT ?
Because the violence happened HERE.
Before.... the.... violence was IN THE BANANA REPUBLIC, far, far away from here...
My point is
How do you think those who lived through the violence in these banana republics see the US?
Do you think for them is any different than it is for you and me now that it happened here?
frankly, i'm surprised to see you revert to such an outmoded argument couching the US policy of pre-emption in terms of who "decide on who will be the assassin they will call to be in power
really.
such hyperbole
do you really believe that?
do you honestly believe that american foreign policy sees it that way?
that it is in our interest to install a future assassin?
Hyperbole?
Hmmmm
Do you think I am attacking you by saying these things?
Or
Am I trying to give you a different perspective or possibly how is it that the "rest of the world” sees American "foreign" policy from their eyes?
Do I "really” believe that America puts assassins as country leaders?
Well... let's see the record....
Somoza, (Nicaragua); Batista (Cuba) Videla & Ongania [and the entire Junta] (Argentina); Stroesser (Paraguay); The Sha (Iran), Noriega (Panama); Pinochet & its "caravan of death" (Chile); Saddam (Iraq)... not to mention Ossama himself, that received training by the US.
No, I am NOT a Castro fan... I think the guy is a murdering son of a bitch, but does that stop me from seeing what happened ? Castro (a law graduate) became a revolucionaire BECAUSE of the atrocities of Batista
This is the guy that was being backed by the US... until he was out of control...
And look at the record of the rest of the Presidentes... another bunch of murdering bastards...
Without Somoza's brutal regime Augusto Sandino would not have reacted. Same with the Sha...
Plus many others in Africa where I am really not very familiar with those situations...
So... do I believe that they intentionally paced these bastards in?
I think it is worse as they really do not care, OR do not go back and check what their record is... or WORSE... they have absolutely NO idea who the hell are they backing... Somehow, I do not think this last option is the case...
Now... you asked me:
do you really believe that?
Well, do not believe me... research it yourself... Please show me the evidence that refutes the appalling record of most of these leaders....
Don’t discount my comments by saying "hyperbole"
Refute my argument with a fact.
The very probable reality is that the great majority of the American people have NO IDEA of what the hell goes on out there... and then... when something like this comes up, you ask... do I really believe that ?
Don't ask me... ask the hundreds, if not thousands of wives, mothers and sisters of the "desaparecidos" during the era of terror in Argentina (Junta Goverment 1970's - 1983)
guardian.co.uk
Pinochet's Caravan of Death (Chile)
memoriayjusticia.cl
and here... a collection of rogues... some of whom I had no idea of. are they ALL backed up by the US ? I do not know.
globalpolicy.org
I am not your enemy... but I am not blind or stupid either.
What I am trying to do is allow you to take a step back and attempt to look at the problem(s) from a different perspective so perhaps, a better solution would be at hand.
I cannot discard the past as...
'Reverting to an outmoded argument'
Why should it be different for he guy in El Salvador, or Nicaragua... or Iraq... or wherever... because in your own eyes, THIS time is easier to justify the bombings, given the CLEAR attack on US soil?
Directly or indirectly the past and today are related. Yes, things have changed and now we are facing different threats... bit to discount the past as less important I do not believe this to be a wise move.
Am I saying that the respective leaders are not responsible for their actions ? NO, absolutely not... furthermore, the people in those respective countries should take a more active role (and many do) --but believe me, when a government has the backing of the US be this direct or indirect, in the open or not, it makes it quite difficult to overcome the leaders in thee places.
I've told you what I believe about US foreign policy based on the history I know.
Would you please tell me what do you believe the US leaders attempt to accomplish with their policies... and I would appreciate if you comment on the results that history show us...
No, I do not believe that ALL has been negative... but which one has created more long lasting impact?
Foreign aid ? who controls it...? does it reach its intended target ? does the US have any say how it is used ?
Here is a site where it shows the current states that are considered supporters of terrorism... is the US being consistent, in terms of what Iraq did?
infoplease.com
I am willing to consider your view.
the best we can hope for is an election in iraq, and there are risks....there are no guarantees what that election produces will not eventually come back to bite us. i pray not, but that is the calculated risk.
I agree... and unfortunately it is too late to implement an easy solution... I really do not know what would be best... we should have thought about that BEFORE going in... Now it is a different proposition... and I am not sure there is one simple route... sooner or later, we will have to leave it to the Iraqis... when, and I have no idea...
The question has been asked before... is the Middle East ready for a system that allows more freedom?
even if the election outcome is not optimal vis a vis the US, i doubt seriously any leadership there would have the temerity to go down the path of a saddam hussain...hell even qaddafi apparently "got religion" and now sees the light (of self preservation) and is throwing open the doors to unfettered weapons inspections and destruction of WMD (perhaps that would have happened sans the war in iraq:regime change, but i seriously doubt it)
Well... ok... the threat of invasion certainly is a good persuasive argument... but the real question then is...
Is the US ready, willing and able to become the world's police? While in my eyes it is trade, industry and commerce the way to bridge differences... NOT bombs.
Retaliation to an attack? No question about it... I've said it before; get rid of Arafat and cronies, which will be a good start.
In my eyes... the way the war was started out was a mistake... but that is now irrelevant as it happened... the point is that had the US continued putting pressure on the allies and others, a stronger coalition could have been formed and in the end succeed however on a better and more solid footing. Now we have to deal under the current circumstances.
xyz:
Ah, we could put it this way:
Why do we need to educate the young? Since we can make them cavalry members who will go on rescuing mission all over the world
MD: with all due respect...just more hyperbole....
i would surely be interested in what further role the federal government you see in achieving that...
hmmmmmm..... My comment above was a SARCASTIC comment made in response to Vitas's comment [which I did not take well] who said:
vitas: Absolutely correct.
Or you could put it another way, if it weren't for France, Freedom in Iraq would not be in progress.
Perhaps you did not read the line above "perhaps we could put it this way"
Capice....?
So I am not going to explain the background, since it would be a waste of time....
All I can tell you about MY comment was that I was "putting" a specific concept... in a different and sarcastic light to make a point.
Apparently you did not understand my intent.
Now.... you asked me....
i would surely be interested in what further role the federal government you see in achieving that...
Well, see above, my expectation is quite different.
What I would like to see is that they spend a lot more money in education and much less in the military... I understand we are in a different set of circumstances as the danger we face is larger.... so no, I do not want them to STOP spending in the military, but I would like to see two things done differently:
First... more emphasis on education, particularly at the very young age...
Second... somehow integrate within the military... some sort of objective analysis what would the results be if we were to take a different approach to influence governments around the globe, making commerce, trade and industry a center point of the strategy....
My point is... we cannot afford to continue to fight the rest of the world. If more and more people become disenfranchised as the Iraqis have become... what do they have to lose? Eventually, they will find a leader that will lead them to more of the same....
Somehow we need to change that.
i totally reject that...
as i said a hobson's choice
You do not have to; you misunderstood the intent of the comment.
we have an enemy that wants to KILL OUR CHILDREN.
Precisely.... what are we going to do EFFECTIVELY to change this? More bombs?
Do what the Israelis and Palestinians are doing?
I sure hope not. |
