[Vision2020] Tet Offensive

[Tony]

Sunil, you seem particularly sensitive this morning- have you considered 
switching to decaf?  Unless I am loosing touch with my own posts, there was 
not one single insult in my last one to you.  I do not recall if Hussein's 
attempt to kill our president was discussed in congress on the record, but 
it would stretch credibility to suggest that a premeditated attempt on the 
life of a national leader was never a part of their calculations.  And yes, 
Sunil, I am quite aware that Bush Sr. is still with us.  Clearly I meant to 
write "attempted" murder rather than murder.  Is such an act sufficient 
cause to go to war?  I definitely think that is a question that would be 
appropriate for congress to debate.

I trim trees and shrubbery Sunil.   Hope that helps.

Best,  -T
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Tet Offensive


> 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
>>>=======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>
>