VoyForums

Natural Pain Relief

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:45:13 09/14/02 Sat
Author: bolagard
Author Host/IP: h-64-105-50-237.DLLATX37.covad.net / 64.105.50.237
Subject: Re: A good Op-Ed from the NY Times on the Iraq situation
In reply to: Richard 's message, "A good Op-Ed from the NY Times on the Iraq situation" on 22:28:51 09/13/02 Fri

Well, this piece you've copied does prove one thing: Nicholas Kristof is one of those starry-eyed Kennedy admirers who extoll the virtues and "camelot" appeal of the Kennedy clan, while conveniently overlooking any vices. Other than that fact, there's not much else to say about Kristof's letter, except that it appears he wouldn't agree with anything President Bush says.

Kristof says: "He cited no evidence of any immediate threat, no reason that invading Iraq is any more urgent today than it was in, say, 2000, when Mr. Bush as a candidate huffed and puffed about Saddam but never shared with voters any plans for an invasion."

Actually, President Bush outlined the violations of UN resolutions which Iraq have committed. Iraq continues to flout these resolutions, and ignore the promises they made during their surrender to stop hostilities during Desert Storm. That alone is reason enough for the UN to send troops into Iraq. Add to that the fact that Saddam has increased his ability wage war, has stated his goal of doing anything he can to destroy America, and is working feverishly to attain nuclear weapons.....and America has a vested interest in seeing that he is stopped, even if UN member nations aren't serious about their resolutions. Mr Kristof uses the subjective term "immediate threat." What exactly is an immediate threat? When did Hitler become an "immediate threat" to France? Was it when he attained power in 1933, with the stated goal of conquest and domination? Was it when he began rearming in violation of the surrender treaty of WW I? Was it when he showed that he had no intention of honoring his word and the treaties and agreements made with him were worthless? Or was it when his troops began parachuting behind the Maginot Line? The concept of "immediate threat" must be looked at in proper context; for example, automobiles pass within a few feet of one another on the highway, and no one is alarmed. On the other hand, if two airliners pass within a few hundred yards of one another, it is considered a major event, an immediate threat. What constitutes an immediate threat in one case would be a non-event in another. I think Mr Kristof is using the term "immediate" wrongly; an immediate threat is one which requires immediate action to prevent its having a devastating effect, even if that effect might not be seen for years. By waiting for Saddam to build a nuclear stockpile, we would only be insuring the worst possible scenario. While Kristof apparently wouldn't consider the Iraqi threat "immediate" until mushroom clouds appear over US cities, or until Saddam has nuclear capabilities with which he can control his neighbors in the Middle East, the threat is immediate now, because it requires immediate attention to divert such a fate. I don't remember Bush's "huffing and puffing", but Kristof is right about one thing: the threat was immediate enough that bill clinton should have acted in 2000 (actually before 2000). Do you think Kristof could offer examples of this alleged "huffing and puffing", or do you think he just wrote that because he is a partisan hack? Another reason to eliminate Saddam is his disdain for human rights and his treatment of the Kurds and other minorities. Maybe my memory isn't very good, but I don't recall bill clinton's ever proving that the Croatians or Serbians posed any "immediate threat" to the US when he decided to bomb them into submission. If ethnic cleansing and human rights violations were good reasons to use American armed forces then, why wouldn't they be good reasons now?

Kristof continues: "To begin with, Kennedy used the U.N. spotlight to offer specific, incontrovertible evidence of an urgent new threat — and then he opted not for an invasion of Cuba but for an internationally supported naval quarantine.

"Yes, Kennedy did consider a lot of alternatives, including military strikes," recalled Theodore Sorensen, a key aide to Kennedy during the crisis. "But after considering the innocent civilians who would be killed, considering the international law that would be broken, Kennedy rejected that possibility." "

So, "to begin with", eh? How convenient for Mr Kristof that he has apparently never heard of Kennedy's failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba a year or so before the missle crisis. A less forgiving historian than Kristof might even make the case that Castro invited the Russians to put missles on his island because of Kennedy's failed attempt to invade his country. Perhaps he feared another Kennedy-style invasion or attempt on his life. As for Sorenson's view, one can only say WOW! A presidental advisor who says something to make his boss look good....who'd a thunk it? What else would you expect Sorenson to say, that his boss tried to assasinate Castro, tried to invade Cuba, and after failing miserably, was afraid to try again once Russia got involved so he went to the UN?

Kristof again: "In his speech yesterday, President Bush displayed Kennedy's toughness, resolve and even eloquence. But he did not display the other qualities of statesmanship: humility about the risks of miscalculation, a passion to avoid war.

Graham Allison, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government who has written a book about the missile crisis, noted that Kennedy had stipulated that the missiles absolutely had to be removed from Cuba. But Kennedy turned first to diplomacy and a blockade. He offered the Russians a graceful exit and thus saved lives and avoided a dangerous spin into the unknown."

After Kennedy's failed invasion of Cuba, one can not honestly say he displayed "a passion to avoid war." At best, Kennedy had a passion to avoid war with the Soviet Union. And wasn't there something else in the newspapers during Kennedy's tenure as President? Hmmm.....what was it? Let's see....passion to avoid war? No, that doesn't sound right......hhmmmm....could it be Kennedy's escalation of the Vietnam War? That's it! In 1961, (the same year as Kennedy's attempted invasion of Cuba and overthrow of Castro) Kennedy authorized the use of US Army Green Beret troops in Vietnam. And of course, you all remember agent orange, the cancer-causing defoliant first used in 1962....sprayed over large areas of Vietnam, on farms and civilian populations....authorized by that consummate lover of peace with "a passion to avoid war", President Kennedy! Another note: That egghead from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Graham Allison, wrote: "But Kennedy turned first to diplomacy and a blockade." Is this guy for real? Can someone really become a professor at Harvard's School of Government without knowing that a blockade is an act of war? Surely, he knows it is; he just hopes his words will be read by people who aren't educated enough to know it. Basically, he is touting Kennedy's "diplomacy and blockade" (an act of war) to show Kennedy's "passion to avoid war".....all the while completely ignoring Kennedy's escalation of the war in Vietnam and his failed invasion of Cuba. Is anyone dumb enough to fall for such vacuous rhetoric?

Kristof: "Before launching a war, Mr. Bush still needs to show two things: first, that the threat is so urgent that letting Iraq fester is even riskier than invading it and occupying it for many years to come; second, that deterrence will no longer be successful in containing Saddam.

How would J.F.K. have handled Iraq?"

Actually, since Saddam signed the surrender agreement with the knowledge that his failing to comply with any portion of it would mean a resumption of hostilities, all President Bush needs to show is that Saddam has failed to live up to any part of that agreement. For example, he could show that Saddam has kicked the inspectors out of Iraq. That alone justifies Saddam's destruction. He could show that Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction on thousands of his own people, another justification for his destruction. As for the referenced "deterence", since when has Saddam been deterred from continuing to build his strength and his stockpile of biological and poison gas arsenal? When has he been deterred from continuing his efforts to achieve nuclear capabilities? When has he been deterred from violating human rights of people who were guaranteed safety by the UN? When was he deterred from kicking out UN inspectors? Before one continues deterence, he must first have deterence.
As for the silly question "How would J.F.K. have handled Iraq?", who cares? JFK is dead. Whether he would have embraced Saddam and called for "continued deterrence", thereby buying time for Saddam and assisting his bloody campaign of murder and domination, or launched a Bay of Pigs-style invasion of Iraq, the question has no relevence to the debate. Who knows, maybe Kennedy would have already sent in the Green Berets with buckets full of cancer causing chemicals, like he did in Vietnam in 1962.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
 * Notice: Posting problems? [ Click here ]
 * HTML allowed in marked fields.
* Message subject (required):

* Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:

Choose Message Icon: [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.