Re: US Troop Levels in Iraq Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
Nick Arnett wrote: On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:45:39 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote the two combat veterans in the bunch, interestingly enough - both from Iraq, one from first Iraq, the other from the second) vociferously disagree with me on that. I'm pretty sure that just about any Marine will tell you that the whole job could be done by one platoon. And mean it. Marines are special. Heck, I have a friend who didn't make it out of Marine boot camp without career-ending injury, and she used to deal with stress from coworkers by sitting back and figuring out if she could take them out if she had to. :) (There wasn't anyone she worked with at that time that she couldn't have) She's also one of the most dangerous people for an attacker to try to attack, as *all* of her martial arts training has been to kill, not to disable and flee. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 05:13 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: It depends on how you define imminent. Sanctions were in imminent danger of being lifted If sanctions were in imminent danger of being lifted, how did we manage to start a whole war there? Seems to me that it's a given that we had the capability to keep the sanctions in place even without international cooperation, since we managed to go much, much further than just sanctions. Isn't this a bit ridiculous as an argument for war or imminent danger? We had to take extreme measures because the less-extreme measures that *we* had in place were in danger of ending? If we could go to war without U.N. approval, we sure as heck could keep sanctions in place without U.N. approval. All this argues for is keeping the sanctions going, to prevent the danger from Iraq from *becoming* immiment. I am pretty sure that this is not true. What is true is that in any event, the US did not impose multilateral sanctions on Iraq. The UN Security Council did so. During the late 90's and early '00s there was a *serious* movement led by France, China, and Russia in the UNSC to lift sanctions.This led up to Colin Powell proposing smarter sanctions at the UNSC in 2001. Moreover, I believe that these sanctions required periodic renewal.. if in fact periodic renewal was required, then France, China, or Russia could have vetoed the extension of the sanctions. At any rate, even if periodic renewal was not required, France, China, or Russia were more than free to unilaterally decide to abrogate the sanctions, and could use their veto on the UNSC to avoid any consequences for this.You may recall an incident in the early part of this century when China was caught violating the sanctions by selling anti-aircraft equipment to Iraq. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US Troop Levels in Iraq Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 05:13 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: I think that the fact that al-Zarqawi is able to evade the US in an country that has a large amount of US military presence Large amount? Talked to any military people about this? We are and have been vastly under-staffed for the job we're trying to do there. Intitution tells me that's a major reason we're seeing so many troops return with PTSD. We are spread very, very thin over there. None of which at all contradicts the term large amount. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 08:12 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:19:18 -0400, JDG wrote The problem with the above is that when a child needs to get a permission slip for an activity, the child doesn't seriously consider the opinions of his or her parents, the child gets, well, *permission.* That's the point! Bush was saying that if the United States sought other nations' participation in the decision to go to war, we would be acting like a child, submitting to other authorities, disallowed to think for ourselves. We can't do that because we're a grown-up country, not a child. International relations cannot be modeled as a set of parents and children, so Bush and Cheney's use of the metaphor was wrong. But it was politically clever because the truth in the metaphor makes the whole statement seem true. Advertisers do this all the time -- say something true that is irrelevant... and say it again and again. The falsehood isn't *in* the metaphor, the falsehood *is* the metaphor because it implies that serious consideration of other nations' wishes would reduce us to the status of a child... which is baloney. It was not reasonable to reduce the whole question of how we cooperate with our *brother and sister* nations to asking permission, since that is a context of submission, not negotiation. There you go again, conflating serious consideration with asking permission. As best as I can tell Nick, yours and Dave's arguments requires the non-existence of people arguing that UNSC re-authorization was a *prerequisite* for Gulf War II. In fact, as you well know, there were a *great*many*people* making this argument. Why do you continue to dismiss the possibility that Bush was arguing against precisely this line of argumentation, and continue to insist upon conflating asking permission with serious consideration? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Troop Levels in Iraq Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
--- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 05:13 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: I think that the fact that al-Zarqawi is able to evade the US in an country that has a large amount of US military presence Large amount? Talked to any military people about this? We are and have been vastly under-staffed for the job we're trying to do there. Intitution tells me that's a major reason we're seeing so many troops return with PTSD. We are spread very, very thin over there. None of which at all contradicts the term large amount. JDG For that matter, I've talked to a _lot_ of military people about this, and, while I think we're grossly under-staffed over there, in no way is that a unanimous opinion. Of the four military officers who are currently military fellows at MIT, for example, the Marine and the Army officer (the two combat veterans in the bunch, interestingly enough - both from Iraq, one from first Iraq, the other from the second) vociferously disagree with me on that. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:57:07 -0400, JDG wrote What is true is that in any event, the US did not impose multilateral sanctions on Iraq. In light of we have actually have done, can there be any doubt that we could have and would have imposed *unilateral* sanctions? Are you saying that despite the fact that we were willing to go to war regardless of international support, we might *not* have been willing to impose sanctions any more? We'll bomb your cities, invade your country, occupy and run it... but we won't impose sanctions? Why not? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Troop Levels in Iraq Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:58:51 -0400, JDG wrote We are spread very, very thin over there. None of which at all contradicts the term large amount. Oh for heaven's sake, John. The statement was about being able to find a fugitive. In that context, we do not have a large number of troops in Iraq. Perhaps you have some other context in mind, but in that context, it isn't even debatable, is it? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:26:55 -0400, JDG wrote Why do you continue to dismiss the possibility that Bush was arguing against precisely this line of argumentation, and continue to insist upon conflating asking permission with serious consideration? I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that the metaphor a child asking for a permission slip from an adult is apropos to the United States seeking consent of the United Nations? You seem to be saying that it is not a reasonable metaphor to describe the relationship between our country and the U.N. If that's so, then how can you defend Bush and Cheney's repeated use of the metaphor? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Troop Levels in Iraq Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:45:39 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote the two combat veterans in the bunch, interestingly enough - both from Iraq, one from first Iraq, the other from the second) vociferously disagree with me on that. I'm pretty sure that just about any Marine will tell you that the whole job could be done by one platoon. And mean it. Marines are special. Nick Card-carrying member of the Marine Corps League ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:48 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3 On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:57:07 -0400, JDG wrote What is true is that in any event, the US did not impose multilateral sanctions on Iraq. In light of we have actually have done, can there be any doubt that we could have and would have imposed *unilateral* sanctions? Are you saying that despite the fact that we were willing to go to war regardless of international support, we might *not* have been willing to impose sanctions any more? We'll bomb your cities, invade your country, occupy and run it... but we won't impose sanctions? Why not? Perhaps because we thought that sinking French, Russian, German, and Chinese ships was a bad idea? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
