article by Woody Harrelson; his take on Iraq & war.

[Jake the Dog]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,813189,00.html. an interstesting read, at least to me. i realise this is a contentious issue and please believe me i'm not at all trying to stir anything up here. i'm really actually interested in whether such an article would ever be published on US website or in print media.

comments?

 

[ihsan]

Interesting reading, Jake.

But I'm almost certain that Bush will launch the war regardless of the circumstances. So the bleeding hearts liberals (as to quote someone on SR) and most people of the world will lose. Plus the already ocean-deep dissent and hatred of the US by the Muslims, specifically the Arabs thus will multiply.

He will lose everything he is betting for if he backed off from this commitment . To him, the only road ahead is Iraq.

 

[P5-133XL]

I'm sorry but as my view on this is that Bush is dead wrong in going to war with Iraq. I understand that he is scared of the potential of Iraq supplying weapons of mass destruction that will be used on us. I understand that he feels we left the job half-done last time. However, it is my premis that violence begets violence. We can win this war like we did the last and all it does is delay the revenge and make more enemies. In the end we will be faced with the same problem (except potentially worse because of new technologies that become common in the intervening time) in 5-10 years regardless of the outcome of the new war because we will not commit genocide.

We need to deal with this diplomaticly and convince Iraq that it is their interest to take a better course of action than supporting terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. Iraq needs to know that there is actually a way out of the hole they are in and that striking out at their oppressors won't accomplish anything good for them. They need to deal and we need to deal, just to get past all the baggage and move forward in a productive non-destructive way.

 

[James]

I can post an article from my dad on this topic ("What If Bush Isn't Crazy?") if people are interested.

 

[Cliptin]

I'd appreciate it James.

I believe the premise is that Sadam would come after us the first chance he got. If he is really not the threat the UK seems to think he is then I'd say just leave him alone.

 

[Tannin]

Yes please , James. Your father is always worth reading, or at least it seems so to me after looking at that last article of his you posted.

I'm damned if I know what the right answer is on this one. Bush, I'm quite sure, is gunning for Iraq simply because to do otherwise would draw attention to his failure to catch Bin Laden and, deeper than that, his apparent lack of sparkle on domestic policy. He may have justified it to the world and to himself in other ways, but in the end it's all rationalisation.

On the other hand, if someone takes Saddam out, then it's no skin off my nose if they are doing it for all the wrong reasons - so who cares?

On the other, other hand, there is a great difference between the anti-Iraq efforts of Bush and of Shrub. Bush was, above all else, acting in concert with the wishes of the Arab majority. Saudia, the UAE, Egypt, even Syria all took part and all were very, very concerned for their own safety. The US supplied most of the miitary hardware and the lion's share of the fighting men, but make no mistake, it was the US (and friends) helping the Arab states kick Iraq out of Kuwait..

It didn't just have the grudging permission of Saudi Arabia (and the smaller Arab states), it didn't just use Saudi territory, it was something the US. the UK, the other Western nations and the Saudis (together with their Arab allies) worked out together, and actively, willingly participated in. There were Saudi and Yemeni and Egyptian and Kuwaiti and Bahreini soldiers fighting side by side with the US Marines; there were Saudi F-15s and Tornados and AWACS aircraft sharing the sky with the USAF, the RAF and the Armée de l’Air. And it was mostly Saudi and Japanese money that underwrote the entire, incredibly expensive exercise.

I don't think most people appreciate the huge difficulty the Saudis faced in inviting the Western nations to send troops to holy soil, nor the tremendous moral bravery that King Faud showed when he, largely against the clear advice of his subordinates, took the original decision, and then backed it up from time to time in the months that followed. He was risking everything: there was a real and justified fear that the Saudi regime would fall or at least face very serious internal problems because of his policy. In the King's view, that risk was the lesser of two risks: he found himself in the position of having to bet the kingdom, and showed that his family didn't get to be kings in the first place by being afraid of calling the tough ones.

George W Shrub, on the other hand, is more-or-less going it alone. He does not lack the miltary capacity to do this, nor even the financial capacity, but I fear two things about a unilaterial US (and assorted foreign lackeys whose commitment means nothing much other than that they will do whatever Big George asks) commitment.

First: the obvious. It will give crushing power to the argument of those Arabs who say that the US (and its lickspittles) is a very powerful, very selfish, very dangerous threat to the Arab world, and that it is indeed The Evil Empire. If I were Osama bin Laden, and for some reason I did not think that the appalling practices of the Israelis were sufficient to keep a steady flow of desperately commited young men coming into my terrorist training camps for years to come, then I would be hoping and praying that GW Shrub does exactly what he plans to do. To be sure, it will also convince a good few Western-leaning Arabs that the US (and its allies) are committed to helping the causes of peace and democracy, but Bin Laden and his clones do not care how many supporters the US has, only how many enemies. If you are not part of the solution, in Bin Laden's view, then you are part of the problem.

For the Arab world, it is a case of "better the devil you know". No-one likes Saddam. No-one trusts Saddam. But he hasn't actually done any particular harm to them for quite some years now, and the alternatives, post-Saddam, are hoplessly vague and fraught with risk. I'm not sure what the Arabic is for "let sleeping dogs lie", but I bet that it's being said quite a bit just now.

Now, the second concern I have, which is much less obvious. Only in the last decade or so have we seen the US finally turn away from its past practices. First, let us remember, the US was expansionist and nakedly imperialist. Then, particularly in the wake of the Civil War, the US turned isolationist: it was still imperialist, of course, but largely by stealth, by commercial rather than purely military means. The third great phase in US foreign policy began when they themselves felt threatened by outside events. (I'm talking about the two World Wars here, of course.) It began with a mix of fear and altruism and led swiftly to a US posture based on the rhetoric of democracy and the policies of naked greed. The US sponsored and supported countless vicious despots - Saddam Hussein and the Shah of Iran amongst them, of course - and inflicted many grevious blows on smaller countries which had the temerity to stand up to them (consider Chile and Vietnam as but the most conspicuous examples amongst a great many).

Only in the last ten or twenty years - in the post-Vietnam era, really - has this changed. The US gradually began to be a responsible world citizen, gradually stopped supporting most of the worst of its petty puppet tyrants, gradually began to at first consider, and then actively engage in UN efforts to keep peace and further genuine democracy. The Gulf War was but the crowning achievement in a period when the US has genuinely and more-or-less honestly tried to do the right thing a good deal of the time. Old habits die hard, of course, and no-one is saying that the US now acts rightly at all times or does not always have one eye on self-enrichment, but on the whole in the last few years, the foreign military excursions of the USA have been aimed at doing good in the world.

To a considerable extent, I put this down to the success of the Gulf War. Here was a cause with which almost everyone agreed, in which the US could play the unquestioned key role (everyone likes being the star), in which the US strengths (air power and logistics) could be shown in their best light, and which was very, very successful. Not only was Saddam kicked humiliatingly out of Kuwait, his military power was broken beyond hope of recovery, and it was achieved with (on the allied side) a tiny, tiny casualtiy list. On a scale of 1 to 10, this was a 10 out of 10 war.

Best of all, it was paid for by the Saudis. Here was a huge win in both PR and military terms, and someone else was kind enough to bankroll it!

In addition, the US discovered that they could, after all, work with other nations, that even their notoriously arrogant military people were capable of working hand in glove with those of other nations and making a success of it. Flushed with success, the US as a nation discovered that it liked having foreign wars, and even more astonishing, that their new found cooperative skills were such that not a few foreigners actually liked working with them.

Now those who know me well will read my habitual tone of mocking cynicism into these words, and rightly so, but make no mistake, this newfound ability of the US to be a good global citizen is a very, very good thing.

And this, finally, leads me to my second point. What happens after the US (and assorted no-account sidekick nations) bomb Iraq back into the stone age?

Why, nothing much at first. Saddam is gone (no tears to be shed over that) and some other regime takes his place. It might even be a moderately pro-Western regime, though I'd bet London to a pile of bricks that it won't be. What else happens? There is a strong movement towards polarisation in the Arab world. The pro-West leaning ones, of course, will stay discreet and speak in soft voices, as always, and the anti-Western ones will be careful to never give themselves away too much in any one place (i.e., they won't gather in any place that is too easy a target for the laser-guided munitions) but they will be much, much stronger in their belief that the West in general and the US in particular is an evil, viscious regime. Lacking overt power (what good did Saddam's leigons do him?) they will resort to covert means.

Got a pile of old newspapers handy? Flick back and read the one dated September 11th 2001. Read it several times, for you can expect to be seeing it again quite often.

But we are still thinking too narrowly here. What happens when we lift our gaze from the Arab world and look more globally? We see the same sort of things happening all over. Arabs are not the only Muslims in the world, and Muslims are not the only relatively poor people with a grudge or two to hold against the USA. (Anyone remember Bali?)

But it's in the USA itself where the final risk exists. Think about it: vast, vast expense, massive commitment of weaponry and manpower, no doubt some casualties amongst the military men and quite a lot more at home (September 11th style, of course) and all for ... what?

I think it entirely possible that if the US (and it's toadys) do go it alone in Iraq, that there will then be a public backlash once the bils come rolling in. It's easy to be a world-stage hero when your victory is easy, when your opponent is especially evil and stupid (not even Saddam could be that stupid twice running), when everyone rushes to pat your back and say what a great job you did, and when (as most people forget) the Saudi Arabian Government is paying for it all.

So, my second fear is this: that the US, only just arrived in the world as a helpful global citizen these last twenty years or so, will as suddenly depart and treat us to an instant replay of the 1920s idiocy of isolationism, or worse, an instant replay of the 1960s-style diplomacy by Agent Orange.

Should GW go ahead and tackle Saddam? I don't know.

If the United Nations backs it, then yes, I support it. If not, then the risks of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction seem to me to be smaller than the risks of doing something about them.

 

[Cliptin]

I was introduced to this poem recently. It may not be directly applicable but someone has to throw the thread off topic so it might as well be me.

Dane-Geld
By Rudyard Kipling

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"

 

[James]

WHAT IF BUSH IS NOT CRAZY?

I am a left-leaning, elitist, decaffeinated latte drinker, but I prefer shiraz to chardonnay. I have written and lectured on the folly of US policy in the Middle East. But I am also a sceptic and I have been professionally involved in international security affairs – especially nuclear affairs - for twenty five years. The spectacle of that idiotic–looking President stumbling for words to convince us that a nuclear armed North Korea is less of an evil than Saddam’s Iraq has stretched my credulity to breaking point.

What if it is all a bluff? What if the rumours that we hear from the US were true, that George W Bush is no fool, instead he has an intellect to match his academic credentials and political success? What if the super power has not suddenly turned rogue? What if the strange quiescence of the Egyptian, Saudi, Turkish, Jordanian and Syrian leaders were due to the Americans having spoken to them quietly and said:

“Don’t worry. We haven’t gone berserk and forgotten everything we previously knew. We know that if we destroyed the central power in Bagdad, the Kurds in the North and the Shia majority in the South would revolt and set the whole region to flame. We know that if we tried to occupy the country we would soon find ourselves repressing these two popular rebellions and facing Kurdish and Shia terrorism on top of the Sunni Islamist terrorism that gave us 9/11. We know these wars would destabilise all your regimes and put the world’s oil supplies at risk. We know that the consequent rise in the price of petrol would devastate the world economy.

All we are trying to do is A) win the Congressional elections and B) scare Saddam Hussein into accepting effective weapons inspection. You want B as much as we do and you are not going to piss us off by getting in the way of A, now are you?”

If all this were true then the scene would be very different from what it appears.
Then “Dubya” could be the creation of a sophisticated political machine.
Denied by his physique the possibility of a glamourous role, George Bush jr may have seen that the persona he had to adopt, to win the presidency, was that of a lovable (to middle American red-necks) regular guy. No intellectual, in fact, reassuringly less smart than the average Joe, but sharing all his ignorant prejudices and with a heart in the right place. The reality behind the persona might then be a clever political manipulator – or even a team of clever political manipulators.

His apparently irresponsible war talk would be moderated by a cynical confidence that it can be modulated and calibrated to keep it just hot enough to serve purposes A and B, not so hot as to actually cross the brink. An optimistic reading of the otherwise bizarre twists and turns in the President’s declaratory position, supports this thesis. The thesis is also supported by an optimistic evaluation of some of the maddest sounding propositions emerging from Washington.

Thus for instance the naming of the US general tasked to do for a post-war Iraq what Macarthur did for Japan: transform it into a West-leaning democracy. Actually, this is less crazy than it seems. Thirty years ago the three adjoining oil-rich, socially-backward countries of the Middle East were all trying to drag themselves out of the middle ages. Each adopted a different route and each failed for its own distinctive reason. The Shah’s Iran imploded when the pace of modernisation overstrained the deep-rooted traditionalism of Iranian society. Saudi Arabia failed because of the resilience of medieval attitudes and the corrupting influence of excessive personal wealth for its small native population. Iraq, under the despotic but secular power of the Ba’ath party, came the closest to success, before Saddam diverted the nation’s energies to support his predatory forays against neighbouring countries. The harvest of the past 20 years has been blood, devastation and paranoid repression; but prior to that Iraq had achieved a level of education, public health, female emancipation, modern agriculture and incipient industrialisation unrivalled in the region (except for Israel). A Ba’ath party freed of its present bloodthirsty leader and of the consequences of his follies could resume the modernisation task. Democracy, self – destructive as it would be in today’s Iraq, might ultimately take root after two or more decades of progress down that route. A US occupation force could be viable if it worked hand in glove with an Iraqi administration that had undergone only a cosmetic change of leaders. For most Iraqis this outcome would be a good deal. It is at least plausible enough to make Saddam consider what he has to do to fend it off.

So far the bombast has produced a lot of angst amongst my fellow travellers but in concrete terms its likely result is a return of the UN weapons inspectors, with a strengthened mandate and, if not a Security Council resolution to that effect, enough sound and fury to suggest that retribution will be immediate and painful, if the inspectors are frustrated. This is a good outcome for the planet.

It is all very reminiscent of the nuclear stand-off during the Cold War. We knew then that, in any circumstances, even in retaliation for the obliteration of New York, it would be irrational for the United Sates to fire nuclear weapons at the Soviet Union; but successive Administrations spoke irrationally enough for the Soviets to think that they just might. This shadow of a doubt was enough to force the Soviet leadership to avoid extremes of recklessness. When, none-the- less, Brezhnev still overstepped the mark (by trying to steal a march through an illegal weapons program), Reagan countered with the Star Wars program. Once more, apparent madness; but with the only result that the Soviets abandoned the game.

Finally, consider the weird situation around North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. There are two versions of the story. If you read Rumsfelt, North Korea “has two nuclear weapons.” If you read well briefed boffins, “ten years ago evidence was found, the most pessimistic interpretation of which was that they just might have a quantity of Plutonium, which just might be enough to make two nuclear weapons, provided they had technical capabilities comparable to those of the United States”. The reactor which resident IAEA inspectors have monitored ever since then was in an advanced state of delipidation. It had none of the hallmarks of advanced competence or adequate funding. Since then, North Korea’s industrial capabilities and financial resources have gone backwards. Some sceptical observers thought that the crisis in 1993 over the traces of plutonium found a Nyong Yong was exploited by a faction in the North Korean leadership seeking better relations with the West. This explains the suggestions that the recent North Korean “admission” that it has been experimenting with uranium enrichment is in fact a peace offering. The North Korean record is less appalling than Saddam’s, not because they have been less monstrous or less reckless; but because they have never had anything like the means available to him. Enriching Uranium to weapon grade is a highly expensive and technically challenging undertaking, at which Saddam failed. If Bush’s advice is that the recently declared enrichment attempts are no more than a poker player’s bluff, and if the unprecedented efforts being made by the US and other governments that have access to US intelligence, to acquire vaccines, rest on concrete evidence of Saddam’s bio-weapons program –then the difference in his response to the two threats becomes rational.

So maybe, just maybe, George W Bush is a competent cynical manipulator, such as the world needs in the White House.

… But he still scares me; because if any of the above optimistic speculation is wrong, we are all in deep, deep trouble.

 

[Jake the Dog]

certainly makes you think, and worry, doesn't it? thanks for posting it James.

 

[Tannin]

Thankyou James. I find your father's view very persuasive. Further, it goes some way toward providing me with a convincing explanation of what had seemed very difficult to explain before. (What exactly is is that Bush is trying to achieve.) I most certainly hope he is right.

 

[The Giver]

Aside from the snotty personal remarks regarding President Bush, The Giver is in agreement with your Dad's assesment of the situation regarding Iraq thus far. However, rather than being a competent cynical manipulator, The Giver would suggest that Mr. Bush has character, leadership skills and determination. Just as President Reagan had.

 

[Mercutio]

... and I think that the ability to correctly pronounce the word "nuclear" should be a constitutional requirement of any nation has such armaments.

Honestly, The, I don't see what character Mr. Bush has. I really don't. Nothing makes me think he's anything more than the shallow frat boy business majors I knew in college. I also don't see leadership skills. Mr. Bush has not to my knowledge engaged congress in any sort of bipartisan manner and I think he's absolutely abused any moral authority he might've had from 9-11, especially in choosing to prosecute the current situation in Iraq.

 

[The Giver]

... and I think that the ability to correctly pronounce the word "nuclear" should be a constitutional requirement of any nation has such armaments.

Honestly, The, I don't see what character Mr. Bush has. I really don't. Nothing makes me think he's anything more than the shallow frat boy business majors I knew in college. I also don't see leadership skills. Mr. Bush has not to my knowledge engaged congress in any sort of bipartisan manner and I think he's absolutely abused any moral authority he might've had from 9-11, especially in choosing to prosecute the current situation in Iraq.

Well considering your political leanings it's not surprising that you see nothing good in the man. There really is no better example of the man's leadership skills than to read what James' father credits him for above. As for character, the man is decisive, determined, and resolute in seeing through what he believes is right.

 

[Fushigi]

As for character, the man is decisive, determined, and resolute in seeing through what he believes is right.

I would call it stubborn & pig-headed, myself.

I'm with Mercutio on this one. GWB is moving the US from being a world citizen that some believe to be a bully (that status being one of opinion) to being an actual bully (that status being observed fact). To some in the world there might not be any change in perception, but I for one am saddened by his actions.

- Fushigi

 

[Mercutio]

That means a lot coming from someone who lives in DuPage county, IL.

 

[P5-133XL]

The problem with the theory that it is all a bluff to force weapons inspections is with the basic problem of expectations. Applying this type of threat to one nation creates the expectation from others that if it can happen once, then It will happen again. Countries that are in our dis-favor always have to contend that the US might apply unwarrented force or the threat of force against them. If countries start to run scared of what the powerful will do to them then what happens to trust and cooperation - it goes out the window. Bullies are not friends, or partners, they are isolated, to protect oneself, because you can't trust that they won't turn on you.

If we are applying this threat to only one nation and then saying to others, that they should not worry because it is all a big bluff then that information will get back to Iraq and invalidate the threat. The nations we would be telling are exactly the nations that would then inform Iraq of what our true intentions actually are. Those are the nations that are at risk of the same thing happening to them and thus are the most likely to react the worst to our threat. This threat has to at least look serious to everyone, if it is to have any positive effect at all.

I'm sorry, but even the threat of unilatteral action against a nation is unacceptable. It threatens the basic underpinnings of our world society. We want partners, not because they are scared of what we may do if there is a disagreement, but because it is in everyones best interest to be friends and to cooperate. If we create an enviorment where force and the threat of force is acceptable, then what happens to us when we are no longer top-dog?

I understand, that not everyone is nice and has good intentions towards us. But that is not enough to justify the threat or the action of destroying them in a pre-emptive strike. Before, anything like this should occur, it is necessary that Iraq have actually done something signifigent to us. It is no different than executing people because they are not nice, don't have nice friends, and own a gun. Even threatening to execute such people is not an acceptable choice. It creates an enviornment that premptive strikes are acceptable and each one of those "not nice people" that feel threatend will react accordingly.

The proof must be overwhelming such that everyone, even those that are not our friends don't run scared that we are actually running amok. Afganistan was probably at that level, but Iraq is not and I don't approve of what we did in Afganistan either but at least there was a moral and ethical arguement that it was the correct response. There was direct harm on 9/11 and one could trace it directly to Afganistan.

What does it say about us that we are threatening with no such justification- it does not indicate anything good, that I can see. Bush has just made a very bad mistake. The US and the World will pay over and over again for a very long time because of this mistake. At best he is feeding the Terrorists ultimate growth hormones.

 

[Tea]

Excellent post, Mark

 

[Cliptin]

I understand, that not everyone is nice and has good intentions towards us. But that is not enough to justify the threat or the action of destroying them in a pre-emptive strike. Before, anything like this should occur, it is necessary that Iraq have actually done something signifigent to us. It is no different than executing people because they are not nice, don't have nice friends, and own a gun. Even threatening to execute such people is not an acceptable choice. It creates an enviornment that premptive strikes are acceptable and each one of those "not nice people" that feel threatend will react accordingly.

In my mind, this has always been about terrorism. There must be a link from Iraq to a terrorist group before I would condone a pre-emptive action. It doesn't make any sense otherwise.

 

[Cliptin]

I am appalled that a professional diplomat would refer to any nation's leader by a pet name.

 

[Tea]

If we are not to accept James' father's view, how else can we account for the conspicuous silence of the other Arab states? This seems to me a key question. Sure, they will be under significant US diplomatic pressure, but that seem to me insufficient to account for their silence. Anyone have an alternative hypothesis to offer?

 

[Tea]

He's a retired diplomat, Cliptin.

 

[P5-133XL]

In my mind, this has always been about terrorism. There must be a link from Iraq to a terrorist group before I would condone a pre-emptive action. It doesn't make any sense otherwise.

Even with lots of links to terrorist organizations it does not rise to the level that a threat of invasion is acceptable. Those terrorists would have to have done an equivilent of a 9/11 and that is not the case. one can't execute people because of suspison that something might happen: something bad must happen beforehand.

In the US, you don't go arresting people because they might do something wrong. You don't even arrest people because they associate with other bad people. Here Bush is bypassing, the bad act, the arrest (accusation), the trial (proof) and going straight to lets kill um because they aren't good people, doing what we tell them to do, and associate and support bad people, people we thing are terrorists. Untill the bad action occurs, the arrest, and the trial we shouldn't be even thinking of execution.

The pre-emptive solution should not be an option: It is too scary and produces too many bad consequences.

 

[James]

The most telling event for me in this whole debate was when the Australian defence minister was asked by a journalist to describe any situation in which an invasion of a soverign country did not contravene international law.

After standing speechless for a few seconds, he opened and shut his mouth a few times, looked lost, and then admitted he couldn't think of a single one.

Aside from the snotty personal remarks regarding President Bush...

I am appalled that a professional diplomat would refer to any nation's leader by a pet name.

Hmm, deja vu from the last article of his I posted. I really think you guys both need to calm down a bit.

First, this is my father's opinion and I think he should be able to express that in any way he sees fit.

Second, my opinion is that I have respect for my father's views on international relations, since he has 36 years of experience in doing it and some very substantial achievements in that time. I also feel that he always was good at telling apart those who know what they are doing and those that don't, and all his time in diplomacy has further honed those skills, which are essential in his line of work after all. He doesn't come up with his opinion of world leaders on the basis of a couple of articles in Time and a few columns in The Canberra Times. Apart from his own knowledge of the area, and his professional interest in the subject which makes him read and discuss these subjects widely (he also teaches courses in diplomacy at two universities), don't you think he also still knows a large number of "senior administration officials" around the world?

Third, he doesn't like Bush and he doesn't like Howard (Australia's PM). He doesn't respect them personally or professionally. This article was never intended to be a dispassionate, weigh-both-sides sort of thing as I said earlier, this is personal opinion. His views may be different from yours - fine, but assess them on the merits of his arguments at least.

 

[James]

Honestly, The, I don't see what character Mr. Bush has. I really don't.

Well considering your political leanings it's not surprising that you see nothing good in the man.

To be fair, considering your political leanings it's not surprising you see nothing bad in the man either. I think my father's hope is that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Cliptin]

He's a retired diplomat, Cliptin.

Nevertheless. I still call the Queen "the Queen" out of respect for her subjects. How anyone can expect to be taken seriously after demeaning another countries head of state is beyond me. Softmoric.

 

[Jake the Dog]

if James can do it then so can i!

seriously though, i would like to quote my dad: "Slapende honden bijten niet" - translation from Dutch to English: Let sleeping dogs lie.

my dad, coincidentally also a retired diplomat, pretty much summed up what he considers the general feeling is in Holland and my small part of the world, on the topic whether the West should try and neutralise Iraq and Iran. i fully agree with him.

i fear that Bush will shake the beehive.

 

[Cliptin]

Even with lots of links to terrorist organizations it does not rise to the level that a threat of invasion is acceptable. Those terrorists would have to have done an equivilent of a 9/11 and that is not the case. one can't execute people because of suspison that something might happen: something bad must happen beforehand.

Keep in mind that the US is the focal point for militant terrorist groups. Although many counties have joined the US in participating in whatever it is that the militants are fighting against, the US is the focal point. That being the case, we can expect more large explosions on our soil. Perhaps NY or SF. Who knows.

Now, what if the explosion is of the nuclear type? While I'm not sure if it would affect me personally, It certainly would affect the residents of those cities. Some will say it is impossible. Something is only impossible until it is done the first time. This is a matter of national self-defence.

 

[Cliptin]

i fear that Bush will shake the beehive.

The very worst thing that could happen is that the Islamic world galvanizes into a unified entity acting with one mind. If I'm aware what this would mean to oil supplies and national productivity in countries like Japan, Taiwan and other countries who only import oil then national leaders are too.

 

[Tannin]

What's with this ridiculous respect business? I thought America was the Home of the Free? Good Lord, sometimes I call the Queen "the Queen", sometimes I call her "Liz". If it weren't for the fact that she happens to be an upright, honest and throughly decent old stick, I'd call her "the old bag". I have no truck with this "respect the person who happens to hold the office" caper. Whatever for? Respect the office itself, sure. Respect the holder of that office if he happens to be worthy of it. But, as deal old Abe once observed, "The President, like any other man, still puts his trousers on one leg at a time."

Good Lord, "Shrub" is mild. Should I not call Saddam Hussein "the Butcher of Bagdad" in respect for his crimes? Not call the Right Honourable Sir Robert Gordon Menzies (Australia's longest-serving Prime Minister) "Pig Iron Bob" in respect for his achievements in selling raw iron to the Japanese so that they could re-export it to us in value-added, more explosive form? Should I not call President Richard M Nixon "Tricky Dickie" in honour of his crimes?


The Thought Police are here, are there,
in the shadows at the corner of your eye their uniforms are lurking.
Look under beds when you're all alone,
Check your mail - don't touch that phone!
Be nice, be good,
Say "Sir, I obey" (as a patriot should).
They are in your hearts and in your minds,
ghostly echoes on your modem lines.
Never discuss, or hope, or pray,
never say quite what you mean to say -
cause the Thought Police are here, are there,
The Thought Police are everywhere.

 

[P5-133XL]

I understand we are a focal point. I understand that the Terrorists may be equiping themselves with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and are likely to target Washington or NY or LA. none of that matters.

One does not attack on a country on suspision alone. If we can, then the bad guys can and we are no better than the bad guys. We can not use the same rationalizations that the bad guys do, regardless of the consequences or we are the bad guys and they can be considered the good guy with a mere point of view change.

Invasion of a country is no better than terrorist acts. Threatening to invade or actually invading to force our way, simply destabilizes the world in a way that in the end may be far worse than just NY city being destroyed by a nuclear weapon.

I believe that what Bush is doing creates an enviornment that encourages and creates lots of the worst type of enemies that are actually very likely to do the worst-case senerio and do it repeatedly and feel justified in doing it. We may be able to cipple them and delay the worst case senario but at the same time we are incresing its likelyhood drasticly for the future. We need the moral high-ground and stooping to the level of the terrorists does not improve our situation in any way. Even if what we do is genocide to get rid of every potential terrorist and supporter. We can't get all of them and the process of trying simply creates more bad guys at a faster rate than we can kill them off. It is a lose-lose-lose-lose-lose situation that we are striving for and in the end we are likely to get it and everyone loses.

 

[Mercutio]

Well considering your political leanings it's not surprising that you see nothing good in the man.

John McCain has character and leadership traits that I can respect. So did Bob Dole (to a lesser extent). To name a few others on your side of the fence, Orrin Hatch, minus his songwriter's stance on copyright, seems like a decent fellow, as does Arlen Spector.

On the other hand, both the Bushes make me cringe. Dole and McCain both earned their positions through service to the US in its military and by holding elected office for years. George Sr. weaseled his way from diplomatic and intelligence positions into senior positions in government without ever being elected to anything, while George Jr. seems to be entirely a product of the privilege afforded by the friends of his father.

There aren't very many political entities I'm less pleased with than the Bushes (and most of the ones lower on the list have a title that starts "Former Republican Senator from Indiana"). Maybe it's a product of my limited lifespan, but it seems that we elect a Bush, that Bush spends far more time on foreign campaigning than domestic issues, and the US has a recession. That looks like the trend to me, anyway.

Reagan was different. Everyone knew Reagan was hollow. But he was a great puppet. I remember his time in office pretty well (I was a weird little kid), and even then it seemed like he was a great, charismatic leader who more-or-less followed along with whatever his advisors said.

 

[The Giver]

James,

The Giver has addressed the substance of your father's comments which he found insightful and well said for the most part. Certainly your father is entitled to his opinion as regards the personal attributes of President Bush. However please keep in mind that just as you, Tannin, and your Father are free to state your opinions here, Clipton and The Giver are entitled to as well.

In regards to your Father's "snotty" remarks about Mr. Bush, The Giver would point out that no one has been more desirous of, or sensitive to the need for civil political intercourse here at SF, or at SR, than you yourself have been. As such it seems somewhat surprising that you object to those here who find fault with your Father for being less than respectful in his personal remarks regarding Mr. Bush. Lastly, you, your father, The Giver, and everyone else are free to express our opinion's here as we see fit provided that doing so does not violate the forum rules (not that your Dad or Tannin have done so in their remarks here).

Tannin,

What's with this ridiculous respect business? I thought America was the Home of the Free?

You know very well that freedom of speech does not give one the right to violate our forum rules (not that you have). Being respectful is not "ridiculous" as you say but rather a requirement of membership here at SF. Much of what The Giver has written above to James could have just as easily been written to you regarding your objections to Clipton's posts. Clipton is just as free to object to your comments regarding President Bush, as you were to make those comments in the first place.

 

[Tannin]

Clipton is just as free to object to your comments regarding President Bush, as you were to make those comments in the first place.

Oh, quite so. He is indeed free to object to my posts (so long as he does so in a civilised way, of course, which being Cliptin, he always does), just as I am free to object to his ojection, and you yourself are free to object to my objection to Cliptin's objection! That's what free speech is all about.. I find it absurd that two otherwise intelligent and civilised gentlemen take objection to the term "Shrub". You don't find it absurd. So be it. If we all agreed all the time, why would we ever bother coming here?

But I'd like to see someone actually deal with the matters I raised in my previous post - if "Shrub" is bad, then why is it OK to say "The Butcher of Bagdad" and "Pig-Iron Bob", and "Tricky Dickie"?

And Tea would like to see someone respond to her impromptu poem. She was very proud of that one, and is now nowhere to be seen. Climbed the tallest tree around, no doubt (she does that when she's upset), and I guess she is sitting up there sulking about it. I'm nt sure if I should put her dinner on or not.

 

[The Giver]

But I'd like to see someone actually deal with the matters I raised in my previous post - if "Shrub" is bad, then why is it OK to say "The Butcher of Bagdad" and "Pig-Iron Bob", and "Tricky Dickie"?

The use of "Shrub" is seen as diminutive;

Main Entry: 2diminutive
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 : indicating small size and sometimes the state or quality of being familiarly known, lovable, pitiable, or contemptible -- used of affixes (as -ette, -kin, -ling) and of words formed with them (as kitchenette, manikin, duckling), of clipped forms (as Jim), and of altered forms (as Peggy); compare AUGMENTATIVE
2 : exceptionally or notably small : TINY
synonym see SMALL
- di·min·u·tive·ly adverb
- di·min·u·tive·ness noun

Belittling in other words and therefore offensive when it is used to personally insult someone who many of us here in America admire.

The difference between the other political figures you mention and the use of the term "shrub" is that no one here objects to those terms being used. Quite simple really. If you do object to the use of "The Butcher of Baghdad" etc., please say so and hopefully you will receive an equal amount of cooperation from your fellow members here who use these derogatory terms as that which you grant those who object to your use of the term "Shrub". It is a matter of being courteous one imagines in the final analysis.

And Tea would like to see someone respond to her impromptu poem. She was very proud of that one, and is now nowhere to be seen. Climbed the tallest tree around, no doubt (she does that when she's upset), and I guess she is sitting up there sulking about it. I'm nt sure if I should put her dinner on or not.

Oh indeed, The Giver gives it four out five bananas for style and content. Well done. 8)

 

[Jake the Dog]

or ... you simply look at it as wordplay Giver. it seems like you want to take with the most negative intent.

a small woody plant less the size of a bush is often called or considered a shrub. as such, a can be considered junior to a bush as Dubya is the junior to Bush Snr. why not look at it as simple like that?

anyway, i was hoping someone might give their opinion to my original question but haven't as yet so i'll ask again: would such such an article as Woody Harrelson wrote ever be published on US website or in print media?

 

[The Giver]

or ... you simply look at it as wordplay Giver. it seems like you want to take with the most negative intent.

a small woody plant less the size of a bush is often called or considered a shrub. as such, a can be considered junior to a bush as Dubya is the junior to Bush Snr. why not look at it as simple like that?

Clearly it was not used as a term of endearment or for the sake of expedience. As yet there has been no denial that it was in fact used in a negative context by those who did so. Having said that, it is apparent to this member that there is a cultural / communication gap between the Australian and American members on occasion and perhaps this is yet another example of that.

James for example does not care for the use of the term "Down Under" to refer to Australia. The Giver was not aware that this was considered insulting to some Australians as it is not used in a negative way here in the States at all. At any rate, The Giver has not used it since even though neither he or anyone else at SR or SF used it in a diminutive fashion to belittle the Australian membership or with any bad intentions whatsoever.

anyway, i was hoping someone might give their opinion to my original question but haven't as yet so i'll ask again: would such such an article as Woody Harrelson wrote ever be published on US website or in print media?

Simple - Harrelson paid to have it published in the New York Times. It's controversial as are other such moronic statements such as Woody's which are made by the Hollywood in-crowd and are great fun to kick about when made.

 

[Jake the Dog]

thanks for the reply Giver.

just one question though, do you consider Woody's article moronic because it goes against what seems to me be the popular view and certainly against the views that Dubya holds?

 

[The Giver]

Jake,

Actually The Giver owes you an apology. He had not read the article you link to thinking it to be what was actually an advertisement which Sean Penn paid to have run in the Washington Post recently. The Giver will read Woody's article and post back with his opinion later but for now he withdraws his above comments.

 

[The Giver]

Jake,

Well The Giver's opinion is that it is narrow minded and very biased assessment of the U.S. / Iraq situation. Woody is not only ill-informed but, sadly, one suspects also a bit brain damaged from all the drug abuse.

 

[Jake the Dog]

would such such an article ever be published on a US website or in US print media?