[Vision2020] Tet Offensive

[Tony]

Now Sunil, hold your horses.  I did not change the topic, but merely 
clarified what my comment regarding Imperial Japan had been in reference to. 
I apologize if that has caused you to become confused.  Of course as regards 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, BOTH were targeted for their INDUSTRIAL capacity, 
NOT as civilian targets.  I will be gracious and suggest that perhaps you 
had forgotten this.  You continue to insist that Iraq did not instigate this 
conflict while you simultaneously acknowledge that you find Hussein's early 
nineties attempt on our President's life to be troubling.  I will continue 
in a generous vein and suggest that perhaps you sincerely don't  view the 
murder of our nation's leader to be an act of war- but councilor, that 
stretches credibility a bit thin does it not?

I must confess that I love your parsley garnish phrase, but Sunil, no one I 
know has ever taken the position that humanitarian reasons alone were the 
reason for our attack on Iraq.  I am sorry if you somehow came to that 
unfounded conclusion based on something I have said.    (cont.)

Well, Sunil, the girlfriend wants to use the computer for a time, so I'll 
sign off for the moment to avoid a serious waterboarding at her hands.

Later,  -T
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Tet Offensive


> Wow, Tony, you're quite a piece of work.  You accuse me of failing to 
> engage
> in fair-minded dialog even as you change the topic.
>
> No Tony, the original question was not 'whether devastating military force
> is a viable option in defeating a very dangerous adversary.'  I don't
> disagree with that when it's being used on military forces, not on
> civilians, and especially when our adversary has started the war, as Japan
> or Nazi Germany did.  But that was never the point in this discussion, and
> Iraq didn't start this war.
>
> The original question is 'How do you define victory in Iraq?'  I ask this
> because my point is that when you use devastating force at the same time 
> you
> claim to be trying to win hearts and minds, you will fail to accomplish 
> the
> latter.
>
> Japan comes up because you and Pat bring it up.  Pat keeps saying that
> because we succeeded in Japan we can do so in Iraq, and I think that's a
> false comparison and entirely barren of the truth.
>
> You ask, ' But why do you see no merit whatsoever in this administration's
> efforts to free this viciously oppressed population?'
>
> I don't think we went to Iraq to free the Iraqi people.  That was not the
> Administration's reason for asking for authority to attack Iraq.  If you 
> are
> interested in honest dialog you will have to concede this point.
> Humanitarian rationales were tossed in like the parsley garnish on the 
> side
> of last night's dinner plate.
>
> No, the reason for the war was because Iraq was supposed to be an imminent
> threat because they had WMD.  Not WMD programs, or the ability to 
> resurrect
> such programs, but because they had such weapons.  And even when the
> inspectors who were on site said they could find nothing, Bush went ahead
> with the war.
>
> The Administration has been changing war rationales ever since, giving one
> story after another, all the while building massive permanent bases in 
> Iraq.
>  When someone repeatedly changes their story, I say to myself, 'He's
> lying.'  And that's what they're doing here - lying. Why are we building
> those bases, Tony?  If we're trying to free them, why do we need a massive
> long-term presence there?  Why do we need the biggest embassy we've ever
> built anywhere?  If Clinton had changed his story this way, both of us 
> would
> be able to spot him lying.
>
> 'And why have you so little patience for those who would support our
> leadership in that objective?'
>
> Because people are dying.  Because this idiot plan is not going to work, 
> and
> they're going to keep dying.  And  'those who would support our leadership
> in that objective' cannot point to a single place in the Middle East where 
> a
> plan like this has worked.  Do you think your blind faith in an unproven
> theory is a good enough reason to ask someone else to die?
>
> Sunil
>
>
>>From: "Tony" <tonytime at clearwire.net>
>>To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>>CC: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Tet Offensive
>>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:01:49 -0800
>>
>>Sunil, It is more likely that Pat and I simply disagree with the point you
>>are making than that we are ignorant of it altogether.  We are as aware as
>>you of the bitterly divided nature of Iraq's population.  But remember,
>>Sunil, the original question that gave birth to the historical example of
>>Japan was whether devastating military force is a viable option in
>>defeating a very dangerous adversary.  Clearly in the case of Imperial
>>Japan, it WAS. For you to refuse to acknowledge that historical reality is
>>to fail to engage in a fair-minded dialog.  Of course, because of the
>>divisive nature of Iraqi culture, any solution, military or otherwise, is
>>clearly going to be a greater challenge.  But why do you see no merit
>>whatsoever in this administration's efforts to free this viciously
>>oppressed population?  And why have you so little patience for those who
>>would support our leadership in that objective?
>>
>>Curious,    -T
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>