[Winstonm]

Thank you Dwayne - I hate to be at odds with someone I like.

Quote

War is meant to be fought as if you want to win it 100-0, not 24-21.

I agree with this view completely. This is why hollow reasons do not justify going into a war.

Quote

We were right to go into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Herein lies our differences: I believe it was totally wrong to go into Iraq. Neither of us has anything but the highest admiration for our troops - it is simply my belief that the troops themselves have been dishonered by inserting them into a dishonest war. I feel the one who has dishonered our troops is the Commander-in-chief who lied to the entire world about WMD and Iraq's direct connection to terrorists. Criticism of the war is not a criticism of the troops but of those who placed us in that position.

[pbleighton]

"Criticism of the war is not a criticism of the troops but of those who placed us in that position."

Absolutely.

Peter

[hrothgar]

Quoting from today's Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6111900287.html

Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday.

In a wide ranging interview on British Broadcasting Corp. television, Kissinger presented a bleak vision of Iraq, saying the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's regional neighbors _ including Iran _ if any progress is to be made in the region.

"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi Government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he said on the BBC's Sunday AM breakfast show.

[Winstonm]

Quote

In a wide ranging interview on British Broadcasting Corp. television, Kissinger presented a bleak vision of Iraq, saying the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's regional neighbors _ including Iran _ if any progress is to be made in the region.

Is the present administration capable of negotiation? I fear the "black and white" mentality thus far displayed does not allow this type dialogue - it seems more fitted to drawing lines in the sand.

[Al_U_Card]

Sadly, only when the interest in bodybags exceeds the interest in everything else will the politicos finally serve the will of the people. What a pathetic commentary on that will.....the greatest potential on the planet and it's greatest strength is being used to destroy itself. Lethal

[the saint]

Winstonm, on Nov 14 2006, 03:30 AM, said:

Quote

Keylime: If we do a "phased redeployment" while we have "oversight" and "inquiries" about the conduct of elected officials, it sends two very loud and clear messages:

1. To our brave troops: Your great work in spreading freedom is no longer wanted or needed. The deaths of your comrades, meaningless, an exercise of excess, a number.

I cannot begin to express how despicable I feel this correlation between demanding truth from our elected officials and unfeeling, uncaring non-concern for those whom have died - it is the most base form of false causation. To say one implies the other belittles the very basis of the republic and all those who died to free us from Brittish imperialism.

Oi!

Less of the anti-British crap. Its your own fault (USA in general) for electing that complete spanner of a President in the first place.

Note - I do note decry the efforts and loss of any of the armies involved. They were sent to do their jobs. The errors of judgement lie firmly with the men in charge.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Its your own fault (USA in general) for electing that complete spanner of a President in the first place.

Note - I do note decry the efforts and loss of any of the armies involved. They were sent to do their jobs. The errors of judgement lie firmly with the men in charge.

Agreed. I feel the situation surrounding our troops much different than the Vietnam era - this time it seems everyone is behind the troops for doing their jobs but the reason for being sent to battle is being questioned.

And you are 100% right - we have no one to blame but ourselves for putting a C- student into an A+ job.

[keylime]

Winston,

Back from sectional; hence the delay.

I think both political parties are D students quite frankly. Nothing's pretty.

I dunno if I agree with Kissinger's comments tho. It is tho something to think over carefully.

[Winstonm]

keylime, on Nov 19 2006, 10:36 PM, said:

Winston,

Back from sectional; hence the delay.

I think both political parties are D students quite frankly. Nothing's pretty.

I dunno if I agree with Kissinger's comments tho. It is tho something to think over carefully.

I am the first to say I have no idea what to do about Iraq - I am just sorry we got ourselves into this mess.

My brother is a U.S. Army Colonel - I am not anti-military. I am extremely distrustful though of the current administration and its motives - I would still like to see a thorough investigation into the reasons to start this preemptive war. I am of the (admitedly minority) viewpoint that if it were found that Bush/Cheney/et al purposefully ignored warnings and/or propagandized known false information in order to justify the invasion that impeachment of the President and Vice-President should occur and would not embarass the country but on the contrary send a strong message to the world that this country does not tolerate imperialistic motives from its leaders.

But that is only wishful thinking - I agree with your assessment of the political parties - I really don't see the differences any more - just superficial trappings of pretend differences. And impeachment is "off the table" according to millionairess Pelosi and her pals, so I don't any meaningful investigation will occur.

I still see the only possible chance is to divide Iraq into 3 separate entities but then that begs the question: who gets the oil?

It is virtually impossible for me, after Vietnam, to understand how we could have placed ourselves into what is actually a worse situation - since 9-11, no one has been hung out to dry for ineptitude or negligence - I think it is high time some accountability occured.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Nov 13 2006, 02:04 AM, said:

IF you want the USA to win then you can define victory, if you need other people to define it for you ...they are avoiding the question.

Let's give it a try. A victory for the USA would mean that
- US tourists would feel safe abroad, even in the Middle East. People with double citizenship would have no particular reason to use their second passport.
- The USA would not have the largest financial deficit of any nation in the history or at least if they did it would only be due to the irresponcible income tax policy of this C- student and not due to military expenses
- The elections would be about the USA rather than about the Middle East.

The US have lost the Iraq war. Which is remarkable. Since you might expect the US to be the least likely country to loose a war:
1) The US are the World's only superpower
2) The US have no traditional enemies: the borders with Canada and Mexico are stable.
3) The US are a democracy and as such less vulnerable to a crazy dictators unrealistic military ambitions than are non-democracies. For those of you who know the "Civilization" game: as soon as you have changed your government to "democracy" you can't start a war.
4) The US got involved in Iraq completely voluntarily. You might expect that they wouldn't have started the war unless they were sure to win.

[keylime]

Helene and Winston,

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We might be seeing that, as much as I hate saying it. The more I think about this, the words "multiple redunancy failures" comes to mind.

Oh, my sectional tourney went great!

[mike777]

What is happening in the Netherlands? You can do prostitution and drugs but wear a scarf/veil over your face in public and you go to jail?

It seems Europe is going nuts.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Nov 20 2006, 05:18 PM, said:

What is happening in the Netherlands?  You can do prostitution and drugs but wear a scarf/veil over your face in public and you go to jail?

It seems Europe is going nuts.

Different countries have very different standards regarding freedom of religion.

Case in point, When Attaturk founded Turkey, he deliberately created a very secular state. Overtly religious dress such as a veil or a headscarf is banned in any state institution - schools, congress, government offices, etc. (The Turk's laugh at Americans when we talk about separation of church and state). What I've always found most interesting about this is the thriving business in wigs... Many religious women sidestep the entire issue by using a wig to cover their heads rather than something more obvious.

I've seen a number of court cases in Britain and France that have focused on whether students/teachers have the right to wear a veil while attending state run schools. (I want to avoid the whole public/private nomenclature for obvious reasons). As I understand matters, one specific city in Belgium (Maaseik) has banned the niqab, which is described as a head to foot covering that leaves only the eyes exposed. I've also seen reports that Dutch immigration minister is trying to ban the Burqa in public places. I certainly don't agree with this policy, however, it seems quite inaccurate to describe this as banning a scarf/veil.

Of course, if we move over here to the US, there are all sorts of examples of state and local governments passing all sorts of restrictive regulations. Try wearing a T-Shirt critical of President Bush to a a town hall meeting and see what happens. Try holding a protest outside a so-called "freespeach" zone. Lord help you if you want to marry someone of the same sex...

[helene_t]

mike777, on Nov 20 2006, 04:18 PM, said:

What is happening in the Netherlands? You can do prostitution and drugs but wear a scarf/veil over your face in public and you go to jail?

It seems Europe is going nuts.

What's wrong with drugs and prostitution? Btw, coke and opium are not allowed, only marihuana and such is.

As for this burka debate: You can't cover your face in public areas because surveilance cameras would not be able to recognize you if you commit a crime. This law was originaly meant for militant squaters but it naturally extends to burkas.

There's absolutely freedom of religion in the Netherlands. Everything that you're allowed to do for non-religious reasons (such as selling marihuana, selling sex, or wearing a scarf) you can do for religious reasons as well. Everything you can't do for non-religious reasons (such as selling coke, selling child sex, or wearing a burka) you can't do for religious reasons either.

I don't see the problem.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Nov 20 2006, 05:18 PM, said:

What is happening in the Netherlands? You can do prostitution and drugs but wear a scarf/veil over your face in public and you go to jail?

It seems Europe is going nuts.

By the way Mike, weren't you the one who kicked off the thread about Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

In the first case, we have an example where a very vocal opponent to fundamentalist Islam had her citizenship annulled.

In the second case, we see an example where the fundamentalist Islamists are being denied the right to wear a burqa.

From my perspective, it seems difficult to claim that the Dutch have a deliberate policy for or against fundamentalism Muslims. Rather, it appears as if the country is conciously trying to defuse problems by clamping down on the extremists at either either end of the spectrum.

As for your comment about drugs and prostitution: I suppose that the Dutch don't consider either of these issues particularly controversial. These sorts of activities might seem highly scandalous here in the US, but in large parts of the world folks really don't care that much.

I suspect that one of the few areas where Todd and I probably agree is the argume3nt that drug use and prostition should be decriminalized here in the US.

[mike777]

So you can do drugs and prostitution both of which are NOT victimless crimes and and women can go topless in public but wear a veil over your face in public, be accussed of committing no other crimes and you go to jail.

By this logic if you distort your face in anyway in public so that cameras cannot know you it is a crime.. Good God!

[akhare]

helene_t, on Nov 20 2006, 09:52 AM, said:

mike777, on Nov 20 2006, 04:18 PM, said:

What is happening in the Netherlands?  You can do prostitution and drugs but wear a scarf/veil over your face in public and you go to jail?

It seems Europe is going nuts.

What's wrong with drugs and prostitution? Btw, coke and opium are not allowed, only marihuana and such is.

Absolutely -- I think the legalized prostitution might in fact actually contribute to the overall well being of society. No one makes a fuss about marijuana where I come from and there's actually a festival (Holi) where a lot of people get stoned on it (makes for some hilarious scenes).

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Nov 20 2006, 10:48 PM, said:

So you can do drugs and prostitution both of which are NOT victimless crimes and woman can go topless in public

For all intents and purposes, drugs and prostitution are victimless crimes.

I am well aware that a large number of crimes are committed in conjunction with drug use and prostitution. Junkies will often rob other individuals to feed their drug habits. Furthermore, theres a large percentage of the population that is subject to various addictive compulsions. They are unable to exercise restraint with respect to: drugs, alcohol, gambling, religion, whatever. Many prostitutes are virtually slaves. They are trapped in foreign countries without Visas or passports and completely dependent on their pimps. All of this is highly regrettable. It should be addressed. However, I don't think that banning prostitution and making various drugs illegal is the best way to go about things.

Most of the studies that I've seen suggest that the best way to address drug abuse involves the following steps:

1. Legalize drugs and drive down prices. Eliminate the requirement that junkies constantly need to score large amounts of money to feed their habit.

2. Spend the money that was being spent on interdiction and incarceration on treatment programs.

There was a great article in Salon magazine a couple months back about decriminalizing heroin in Vancouver. Vancouver has a large number of heroin addicts who congregated in certain districts of the city. Said addicts had a severe impact on property values. There was an artificially high crime rate, a nasty litter problem, and a large number of dead junkies. The city created some quasi-legal shooting galleries where heroin addicts could go, get clear needles, and have a safe location to ride out their high. Locally property owners were originally very opposed to the shooting galleries, but switched over to enthusiastic support when they saw the improvements in their standard of living and increased property values. I was actually toying with the idea that it might be possible to develop a business model based on this type of system. Identify urban zones where severe drug problems are depressing the property values – I know that there are areas in Washington DC, Baltimore, NYC, and Chicago that fit the bill. Purchase large amounts of property rights, then fund a Vancouver style drug treatment programs. Use the revenue from the appreciation of the property values to cover the expenses. I'm quite sure that the model would work on a technical basis, however, I'm too worried about the politics of the drug war to give things a go. It might work better in Canada or Mexico.

As for the topless women... grow up already. I've spent a lot of time in Europe. Nudity really isn't a big deal there. Most of the beaches seem to have a nude section. If you want to make use of it, you can. If you don't go to another section. In a similar fashion, if you don't like the fact that German TV has soft core movies running in the evenings, don't watch. Its not that complicated.

[mike777]

...


I see everyone go off on tangents...so ok...throw women in jail for wearing veils.

Expected more outrage..I was wrong..again....

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Nov 21 2006, 01:39 AM, said:

...


I see everyone go off on tangents...so ok...throw women in jail for wearing veils.

Expected more outrage..I was wrong..again....

Helene already refuted your main point:

For better or worse, Dutch society decided that it does not want people to be able to conceal their faces. At the time these regulations were passed, they had nothing to do with religion. Rather, it was a public safety issue. The Dutch didn't want hooligans to be able to break the law while using ski-masks to conceal their identity.

Now, several years later, you have a group claiming that they should get an exception to these same laws based on their religion. The Dutch decided that this isn't reasonable. So be it... Lots of different countries have very different standards with respect to personal privacy and surveillance. The British have cameras deployed all over the place constantly monitoring the population.

I find it especially surprising that your so happy to kill people based on the suspicion that their leaders might be developing WMDs, yet you're so horrified when a country bans wearing veils.