[Vision2020] Tet Offensive

[Tony]

By the way Sunil, do you know if First Step Internet uses waterboarding to 
control those who violate the four posts a day limit?  Just curious.

Anywho, I guess I missed all those changing war rationales you insist Bush 
has employed.  The administration's position has seemed to me to be 
reasonably consistent.  We are building facilities because we cannot 
maintain a presence there for ANY length of time without them.  Why so 
suspicious Sunil?

You oppose an arguably noble goal because "people are dying?"  The veterans 
of this conflict that I have spoken with have been unanimous that the cause 
is worth fighting for.  I'm afraid I am not as comfortable dismissing their 
judgment as you appear to be.

Have a cool Tuesday,   -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
> =======================================================
>
>