[Vision2020] Tet Offensive

[Sunil Ramalingam]

Are you suggesting the early-nineties attempt on Bush Sr.'s life was the 
reason for the war or is a valid reason for this war?  Was that discussed in 
Congress prior to the war?  Is that why Congress authorized the use of 
force?  Did you think that Bush I was murdered?  He's still around!  So why 
do you say this:  '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?'

Second, are you saying such an act is enough to justify a nation going to 
war?

(I've also been a dishwasher and a laborer, to pick just two out of my many 
past jobs.  See if you can work those in to one of your insults.  And let me 
know your profession.  Then, if I choose to evade your questions, I can make 
dumb comments about it.)

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 16:54:50 -0800
>
>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
>>=======================================================
>>
>>
>
>