Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
Author Message
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #1
Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
Let the antisemitism accusations fly!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...e31086.htm

Leave Us Out of Another Middle East War

By James Abourezk

April 15, 2012 "Information Clearing House" --- One of the most vivid memories I have of my service in the U.S. Senate was of an early Democratic caucus. It was in January of 1973, not long after President Richard Nixon and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, had ordered the carpet bombing of Hanoi in an effort to strong arm the Vietnamese into surrendering. It was a horrendous and savage attack on a nation of peasants who chose to try to expel an army of foreigners from their land.

There was a debate in the Democratic Senate caucus about how or whether the war should be ended. What was impressed on my mind was what was said by two of my colleagues—Danny Inouye of Hawaii, and Missouri Sen. Stuart Symington.

Senator Inouye, who was visibly shaking as he spoke, made one of the most telling points when he denounced the bombing as motivated by anti-Asian racism. “Had they bombed Germany, or Norway, or some European country,” Inouye said, his deep baritone voice quivering with anger, “there would be a great outcry in this room and throughout the country, but the weak response tells me that to Nixon and to the press it’s O.K. to bomb Vietnamese because they are nothing more than a bunch of ‘gooks.’”

Inouye had struck a nerve. As he spoke, I noticed a number of senators looking down at the floor.

Danny knew of what he spoke. He gave his right arm, literally, in World War II, when he was sent to Italy to fight the Nazis. After the war, he wound up in the Percy Jones Army Hospital in Battle Creek, Michigan, the same hospital as a fighter pilot from Rapid City, South Dakota. In fact, their hospital beds were next to each other. The pilot, Tom Lehnert, was flying a P-47 fighter over Germany when he was shot down. His plane actually was hit just below the pilot’s seat, where it started burning, ultimately burning both of Tom’s legs. He didn’t lose his wits, however, as he flipped the plane on its back and unhooked his safety belt, allowing him to parachute out that way. He spent the war in a German hospital before continuing his post-war rehabilitation alongside Danny Inouye.

During the 1973 caucus debate, Wisconsin Sen. Gaylord Nelson inveighed against both the bombing and the war by chiding one of the pro-war senators who had advocated all-out war against the Vietnamese, slapping him on the shoulder as he said, “Had we listened to my friend here, I’m afraid we’d be in much worse condition today than we are.”

But along with Danny’s words, another speech that strongly clings to my memory was delivered by Senator Symington. Tall and distinguished, with a shock of gray hair, Symington was one of the few senators who actually looked like a senator. His wife had died during the previous year, an event that had deeply affected him. He rose to speak. “I’ve had occasion,” he began, his voice heavy with emotion, “to spend a great deal of time with my grandchildren over the recent holidays. As we watched the news of the bombing, one of the little ones asked me, ‘Grandpa, why are we killing so many people with our airplanes?’ I had to try to explain to him why some people thought killing was necessary. It was an effort that forced me into deep thought about the entire concept of the war in Vietnam. I’ve decided that I am no longer able to explain to my grandchildren the fact that my country has now become the bully of the world.”

At that, Symington abruptly ended his speech and sat down, his emotions eluding his self-control. He put his head in his hands and, in front of the entire gathering of U.S. senators, sobbed unashamedly.

The United States was in Vietnam in force because our government believed that the North Vietnamese should follow orders from us, rather than from the Communist government of Ho Chi Minh that ruled North Vietnam.

According to Wikipedia, at the end the butcher’s bill for the Vietnam War came to some two million South Vietnamese civilians killed, although there are various estimates of a lesser number. And this death count includes the bill when North Vietnam consolidated its power as the war came to an end. The number of North Vietnamese killed during the entire war was some 1.1 million dead. One million, one hundred thousand killed.

And the number of young American men killed came to well over 60,000. The wounded, both those with visible wounds and those with wounds we could not see, far exceeded this number. The new American technology used during the Vietnam War brought back to life—but not in one piece—those who would have died in earlier wars.

In the Iraq disaster, in excess of 4,500 Americans died, and tens of thousands came home in pieces, with arms, legs, part of their faces and skulls missing, and with horrendous mental problems.

We have not yet been given the butcher’s bill for our misadventure in Afghanistan, but it will be finally delivered within a couple of years.

There are estimates of several hundred thousand Iraqis who met their deaths during our invasion and afterward. Some 1.5 million Iraqi refugees have fled to Syria and Jordan to escape the sectarian fighting, and countless Iraqi civilians have been maimed and wounded. When I visited Iraq in 2002 in what was a somewhat successful effort to get the Iraqis to allow the weapons inspectors back in the country, I visited a children’s hospital in Baghdad and saw little Iraqi children who were suffering from cancer caused by depleted uranium ammunition that our country used on the Iraqis during the first Gulf war. I saw a small Iraqi girl—about the same age as my own daughter then—whose cancer caused blood to run from her mouth. Her mother sat on her bed, trying to comfort her. I never knew whether or not she survived.

The Saddam Hussain government did allow the weapons inspectors back into Iraq, after George W. Bush had said that failure to do so would bring an American attack. After Iraq complied with the U.S. demand, Bush ordered the attack anyway, which to me was solid evidence that he had planned to destroy Iraq no matter what.

Today our government is arguing with Israel as to whether or not we will support Israel’s threatened attack on Iran. What is as certain as the sun will come up tomorrow morning is that, no matter what our position is, if Israel attacks, America will be blamed for it. I guess that, because we furnish money and weapons and protection in the U.N. for Israel, such collaboration would be difficult for us to deny.

For those who make such decisions, we can only hope that our government will do what it can to protect American interests with respect to Iran. I know it’s difficult in an election year to say no to Israel, but we are talking here about saving American lives, and saving our economy, which will surely go deep into the tank when crude oil prices spike to unheard-of levels as a result of such an attack.

Even more, gasoline prices currently are shooting up to the heavens because, as the press blandly reports, of “the tensions around Iran.” No one yet, either in the media or in the government, has asked exactly who is creating the tensions which drive up gasoline prices and, consequently, the prices of everything else we buy. It’s as though we are witnessing a Grimm Fairy Tale where, although the king has no clothes on, virtually everyone swoons because of the beautiful (invisible) robe worn by the king.

The media and the politicians are so inured to laying off criticism of Israel that no one can bring themselves to identify what is hurting us and our economy. And I will venture to say that nothing I write here will change matters in this respect.

And there is almost no protest here against Israel’s saber rattling about Iran. But our government could, if it could somehow grow a pair of gonads, tell Israel outright that both American money and American political and military support will end should it decide to drag America into another Middle East war as it did in Iraq. It is my view that Bibi Netanyahu would drop the question of an Iranian threat once he has to consider the greater threat posed by the U.S. cutting off the gift of billions of dollars each year.

It’s a question of whether our elected leaders will protect Americans or Israel. Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first.

Senator James Abourezk is a member of the board of the Council for the National Interest Foundation, he served South Dakota in the U.S. Senate between 1973-1979. Notably he was the first Arab-American to become a Senator. He also served South Dakota’s second district in the House of Representatives between 1971 and 1973. Currently he is a senior partner in Abourezk Law Offices, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2012 09:08 AM by Max Power.)
04-16-2012 09:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
Quote:According to Wikipedia

03-lmfao03-lmfao

Quote:We have not yet been given the butcher’s bill for our misadventure in Afghanistan

Wasn't this the important war according to Obama?

What he's written doesn't scream anti-semite like your posts do. At least he didn't blame the Jews for us going to Iraq like you have.
04-16-2012 09:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
Quote:Senator Inouye, who was visibly shaking as he spoke, made one of the most telling points when he denounced the bombing as motivated by anti-Asian racism. “Had they bombed Germany, or Norway, or some European country,” Inouye said, his deep baritone voice quivering with anger, “there would be a great outcry in this room and throughout the country, but the weak response tells me that to Nixon and to the press it’s O.K. to bomb Vietnamese because they are nothing more than a bunch of ‘gooks.’”

Typical of the victim mentality.. It does not matter if the foundational aspects of your point are correct if you can feel good saying it!

The Bombing of Hamburg in Operation Gomorrah (45,000 dead), and the bombings of Kassel (10,000 dead), Darmstadt (12,500 dead), Pforzheim (21,200 dead), Swinemuende (23,000 dead), and Dresden (25,000 dead).

The entire rant is based on a racist premise and it's factually incorrect... They burned Frankfurt to the ground and used carpet bombing to "force the Germans to surrender"
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2012 09:47 AM by Bull_In_Exile.)
04-16-2012 09:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
(04-16-2012 09:37 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Wasn't this the important war according to Obama?

What he's written doesn't scream anti-semite like your posts do. At least he didn't blame the Jews for us going to Iraq like you have.

shhhhh facts are not welcome... Liberals exposed to facts are like cockroaches exposed to light.
04-16-2012 09:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #5
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
Quote:Typical of the victim mentality.. It does not matter if the foundational aspects of your point are correct if you can feel good saying it!

The Bombing of Hamburg in Operation Gomorrah (45,000 dead), and the bombings of Kassel (10,000 dead), Darmstadt (12,500 dead), Pforzheim (21,200 dead), Swinemuende (23,000 dead), and Dresden (25,000 dead).

The entire rant is based on a racist premise and it's factually incorrect... They burned Frankfurt to the ground and used carpet bombing to "force the Germans to surrender"

You're taking the quote out of context. The difference is that our bombing of Germany was in self defense (Threat to America posed by Hitler =/= Threat to America posed by Ho Chi Minh).

If you didn't have your engineer tunnel vision you could see this. 03-thumbsup From the article:

"It was a horrendous and savage attack on a nation of peasants who chose to try to expel an army of foreigners from their land.

"The United States was in Vietnam in force because our government believed that the North Vietnamese should follow orders from us, rather than from the Communist government of Ho Chi Minh that ruled North Vietnam."



Quote:shhhhh facts are not welcome... Liberals exposed to facts are like cockroaches exposed to light.

What facts? Those aren't facts, just more lies. I expect better from you Bull.
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2012 10:28 AM by Max Power.)
04-16-2012 10:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
(04-16-2012 10:20 AM)Max Power Wrote:  You're taking the quote out of context. The difference is that our bombing of Germany was in self defense (Threat to America of Hitler =/= Threat to America of Ho Chi Minh).

No I am taking the quote exactly as he meant it... The US is racist they would not do this to Europeans... Yea forget the fact we started a war with Spain in the 18th century (using a similar pretense mind you)... Obviously we would never start a war we did not have to fight with white people.... Except we have

Forget firebombing in Europe we would only do that to brown people (except we have done it to white people)..

The historical accuracy of the narrative is not important. The agenda was!

Quote:If you didn't have your engineer tunnel vision you could see this. 03-thumbsup From the article:

My "engineering Tunnel" vision gives me better perception than you're white guilt goggles..

Quote:"It was a horrendous and savage attack on a nation of peasants who chose to try to expel an army of foreigners from their land.

No I ignored what was a terribly oversimplified view of the war *that JFK and Lyndon Johnson got us into*. It's not productive to engage the temper tantrums of a child.

Quote:"The United States was in Vietnam in force because our government believed that the North Vietnamese should follow orders from us, rather than from the Communist government of Ho Chi Minh that ruled North Vietnam."[/b]

No we were there for the same reason we went into South Korea. To stop communism from spreading to a nation (south Vietnam) that did not want it.

You can say it was none of our business, you can say we should not have been there and those are arguable points. What you can't say is that we were there because we wanted *north* Vietnam to do as we said. Hence when the treaty was signed in Paris the Commie north was left alone, until they decided to break the treaty.

Quote:What facts? Those aren't facts, just more lies. I expect better from you Bull.

Wait Obama did not call Afghanistan the war worth fighting, "the right war"

Obama says: During the presidential campaign I called Afghanistan "the right war." Let me say this: with the full information resources of the American presidency at my fingertips, I no longer believe that to be the case.

I expect better of you counselor
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2012 10:34 AM by Bull_In_Exile.)
04-16-2012 10:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #7
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
(04-16-2012 10:30 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  No I am taking the quote exactly as he meant it... The US is racist they would not do this to Europeans...

Your WWII analogy though isn't apples to apples. One was a war we were dragged into, the other we initiated.

Reading the article and the quotes in the context the author frames them, an apples to apples comparison would be if we carpet bombed Stockholm just because they went red. The Hawaiian senator's argument is that there would be a larger outcry if we were carpet bombing Swedes for the same purpose.

Quote:Yea forget the fact we started a war with Spain in the 18th century (using a similar pretense mind you)... Obviously we would never start a war we did not have to fight with white people.... Except we have

The issue is massacre of white people not done in self defense and whether it's more palatable to Americans than massacres of brown people. Again, you miss the point.

Quote:My "engineering Tunnel" vision gives me better perception than you're white guilt goggles..

No it makes you miss the forest from the trees.

Quote:No I ignored what was a terribly oversimplified view of the war *that JFK and Lyndon Johnson got us into*. It's not productive to engage the temper tantrums of a child.

If you think it's oversimplified, fine, you don't have to agree with it. But don't ignore it as it part of the larger context.

Quote:No we were there for the same reason we went into South Korea. To stop communism from spreading to a nation (south Vietnam) that did not want it.

You can say it was none of our business, you can say we should not have been there and those are arguable points. What you can't say is that we were there because we wanted *north* Vietnam to do as we said.

That's fine, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. The senator's point though is that if a white nation was carpet bombed like this in a war with the same justification, the reaction would be different. Imagine if 800,000 Poles or Norwegians died in a war we initiated for reasons as spurious as the ones given for Iraq. I'm sure you disagree but I'm confident the outrage would be much greater, and that's shameful.

Quote:Carpet bombing of Europe is a lie? I expect better of you counselor...

No, the Ninerfan quote you were agreeing with had nothing to do with carpetbombing.
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2012 10:51 AM by Max Power.)
04-16-2012 10:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
(04-16-2012 10:42 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Reading the article and the quotes in the context the author frames them, an apples to apples comparison would be if we carpet bombed Stockholm just because they went red. The Hawaiian senator's argument (and I'm not saying I agree) is that there would be a larger outcry if we were carpet bombing Swedes for the same purpose.

So lets get this straight... if the pink soviet people marched on West Germany you don't think carpet bombing would have been involved? The implication was *clearly* a racist intent.

Quote:The issue is massacre of white people not done in self defense and whether it's more palatable to Americans than massacres of brown people. Again, you miss the point.

Max to pretend wars of aggression are not *sometimes* defense is silly, its not worth going into. War is war and the US has been both on the instigation end and on the dragging end and done awful things in both situations. All nations have.

Quote:If you think it's oversimplified, fine, you don't have to agree with it. But don't ignore it as it part of the larger context.

It's nonsensical gibberish.. I'm not going to argue a baseless point in sense of a larger nonsensical point. Your not seeing the forest Max your seeing a bunch of fake trees from a distance and yelling *forest*.

Quote:That's fine, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. The senator's point though is that if a white nation was carpet bombed like this in a war with the same justification, the reaction would be different.

And his point was based on ignoring history. The carpet bombing of Dresdon was very unpopular despite the fact we were not the aggressors with Germany / Japan (unless you count oil / steel embargo's on the Axis and military aid to the allies as non aggression).

Quote:I'm sure you disagree but I'm confident the outrage would be much greater, and that's shameful.

No, I don't disagree. If Iceland invaded Ireland in 1990 and tried to lay waste to their sole means of support. If we have to use the military to push them out, and if they continues for a decade to fire at US jets. we would be in a war posture.

If then they were rumored by world intelligence agencies to be building up unconventional means of war and we went in I suspect it would play out in pretty much the same way.

Doves would opposed it, Hawks would support it, Progressives would call us evil, and Libertarians would ask what the F does this have to do with us.

Quote:No, the Ninerfan quote you were agreeing with had nothing to do with carpetbombing.

I fixed that quote before you responded... well while you were responding it seems...

Did Obama *not* call Stan the "right" war?
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2012 10:52 AM by Bull_In_Exile.)
04-16-2012 10:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #9
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
(04-16-2012 10:52 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  So lets get this straight... if the pink soviet people marched on West Germany you don't think carpet bombing would have been involved? The implication was *clearly* a racist intent.

You mean if the Soviets had invaded West Germany in the Cold War we would have carpet bombed Soviet cities in retaliation? Well, NATO might have, but the difference like I said is that it wasn't a war of choice. Carpet bombing Dresden or Stalingrad after they attack us (and could very well defeat us in all out war) is different than carpet bombing Ho Chi Minh City into submission because they won't bend at the knee (or nominally a manufactured tugboat incident).

Quote:Max to pretend wars of aggression are not *sometimes* defense is silly, its not worth going into. War is war and the US has been both on the instigation end and on the dragging end and done awful things in both situations. All nations have.

So? Are you arguing the Vietnam War was in self defense or not? I'm not pretending all wars of aggression aren't in self defense, but this one certainly wasn't.

Quote:It's nonsensical gibberish.. I'm not going to argue a baseless point in sense of a larger nonsensical point. Your not seeing the forest Max your seeing a bunch of fake trees from a distance and yelling *forest*.

It's nonsensical to believe that outrage would be greater if we carpet bombed white people (in a war of choice) than brown people (in a war of choice)?

I know it isn't pleasant, but if we're going to be brutally honest here, we all know it's true. Admitting the problem is the first step to progress, and I'd like to start the steps as soon as possible before we start more wars, costing both us and the nations we attack dearly, as we did in Iraq and Vietnam.

Quote:And his point was based on ignoring history. The carpet bombing of Dresdon was very unpopular despite the fact we were not the aggressors with Germany / Japan (unless you count oil / steel embargo's on the Axis and military aid to the allies as non aggression).

If anything that supports his point. There's far more outrage against the bombing of Dresden, even though the Axis Powers attacked us (which at least was the commonly held perception). And hell, we were justifying that bombing as having military value (Dresden was a heavy industrial center).

Meanwhile, we are fighting a war of choice in Vietnam and carpet bomb Vietnamese with no military value (unless "bomb them into submission" counts), and there is less outrage.

Quote:No, I don't disagree. If Iceland invaded Ireland in 1990 and tried to lay waste to their sole means of support. If we have to use the military to push them out, and if they continues for a decade to fire at US jets. we would be in a war posture.

If then they were rumored by world intelligence agencies to be building up unconventional means of war and we went in I suspect it would play out in pretty much the same way.

Doves would opposed it, Hawks would support it, Progressives would call us evil, and Libertarians would ask what the F does this have to do with us.

And if we carpet bombed them? How would that compare to carpet bombing in Vietnam or Cambodia?

Quote:I fixed that quote before you responded... well while you were responding it seems...

Did Obama *not* call Stan the "right" war?

Alright well I saw the quote out of context. Yes he did say it was the right war (in contrast to Iraq at least).
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2012 11:13 AM by Max Power.)
04-16-2012 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #10
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
If he is so pro-American, why is he still parroting the propaganda shared by a now-deposed and executed dictator and al Qaeda?

While his portrayal of Sen Innouye's tale is very touching, it belies the fact that Innouye should've been very familiar with the story of Dresden and other WWII tactics, given his service there.

As "a member of the board of the Council for the National Interest Foundation", it seems like he would be well armed to discuss whether or not war with Iran would be in our National Interest or not, but he doesn't even address the situation at all until 2/3 of the way through his polemic. It should be telling about the circles he travels in that he doesn't even bother to assert that it is not in our interest, but allows the reader to make the assumption that that is the case. It's as if the raison d'etre for the "National Interest Foundation" is as an anti-Israel PAC.

And, 30 seconds with Google renders the appropriate code words to confirm that:

About Us

http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/about-us Wrote:CNI seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values, protects our national interests, and contributes to a just solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is CNI’s goal to restore a political environment in America in which voters and their elected officials are free from the undue influence and pressure of foreign countries and their partisans.

(even though they are less honest explicit than they apparently used to be)...

Council for the National Interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for...l_Interest Wrote:Mission and goals

The Council describes its mission as "to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values, protects our national interests, and contributes to a just solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as to restore a political environment in America in which voters and their elected officials are free from the undue influence and pressure of foreign countries, namely Israel."[6]
04-16-2012 11:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #11
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
Not wanting to join Israel in a war =/= anti-Israel

Questioning the influence of AIPAC on our own foreign policy and decisions to go to war =/= anti-Israel
04-16-2012 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #12
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
Do you believe America's interests and Israel's interests are aligned perfectly?
04-16-2012 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #13
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
(04-16-2012 11:57 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Not wanting to join Israel in a war =/= anti-Israel

Questioning the influence of AIPAC on our own foreign policy and decisions to go to war =/= anti-Israel

No, founding or joining an organization dedicated to combating Israel makes one anti-Israel. Casting one's anti-Israel agenda as pro-American makes one dishonest.

(04-16-2012 11:58 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Do you believe America's interests and Israel's interests are aligned perfectly?

I neither attempted to make that case, nor suggested that it is not legitimate to make that case.

I do however think it's ironic that this former politician appears in the garb of a patriot, given the Blame-America-First bent shown by this 's portrayal of Iraqi children who were abused and exploited as political pawns of a former dictator. This kind of un-critical Blame-America-First mindset is exactly the fertile recruiting grounds that were exploited by al-Qaeda in the leadup to 911. And, by ironic, I mean despicable, moronic, and self-serving.
04-16-2012 12:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #14
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
Define "combating Israel."

Seems to me all they want to "combat" is Likud/AIPAC/Bibi's attempts to drag us into another Middle East war. Their mission statement says they want us to contribute to a "just solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict," a position many people would consider pro Israel.

If we don't have perfectly aligned interests, it follows that there are times we should oppose AIPAC/Likud's influence on our foreign policy. You may disagree, but this appears to be one of those occasions, in the senator's eyes anyway. And I agree, in that a war with Iran may be in Israel's best interests but most certainly is not in ours, especially if we have to do the heavy lifting.

I think it's okay to admit we're not perfect and sometimes blameworthy. Liberals recognize America's faults and seek improvement through constructive criticism; conservatives refuse to see any faults in our actions and love America like a 3 y/o child loves mommy. The latter views the world with blinders on and is not a particularly productive outlook.
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2012 12:24 PM by Max Power.)
04-16-2012 12:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
Quote:Carpet bombing Dresden or Stalingrad after they attack us (and could very well defeat us in all out war) is different than carpet bombing Ho Chi Minh City into submission because they won't bend at the knee (or nominally a manufactured tugboat incident).

No, it's really not max... I doubt the people who dies at Dresden saw a wall of fire and said... "Thank goodness I'm a civilian in a just war otherwise this might suck"

Once war is engaged it does not matter if you were the aggressor or not, that's one of the awful truths about war. You take the same actions to win a war as you would weather or not you started it.

Quote:So? Are you arguing the Vietnam War was in self defense or not? I'm not pretending all wars of aggression aren't in self defense, but this one certainly wasn't.

In the long view the people who started that war probably thought it was about defense, about stopping the flow of communism. Much like the Korean war.

The Japanese can arguably claim that Perl Harbor was a defensive strike. They were trying to take us out of the war because if we fully engaged, and we were already putting the screws to their industrial capacity, then they were in trouble.

A week earlier and WWII ends for the US right after perl with a few thousand causalities.

Quote:It's nonsensical to believe that outrage would be greater if we carpet bombed white people (in a war of choice) than brown people (in a war of choice)?

Yes..

Quote:I know it isn't pleasant, but if we're going to be brutally honest here, we all know it's true.

There was a whole lot of rage in the US during Vietnam for those brown people... I know it isn't pleasant, but if we're going to be brutally honest here, we all know it's true.

Quote:If anything that supports his point. There's far more outrage against the bombing of Dresden

Really max? Find me the marches in Washington after Dresdon? please..

Quote:And hell, we were justifying that bombing as having military value (Dresden was a heavy industrial center).

So carpet bombing a city to hurt a nations industrial capacity is ok from a military perspective... Bombing the capitol to end the war is not a military objective?

Quote:And if we carpet bombed them? How would that compare to carpet bombing in Vietnam or Cambodia?

About the same... Doves will be sad, Hawks will be happy, progressives perpetually think were evil no matter what we do, and Libertarians would have been screaming bloody murder from the onset.
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2012 12:46 PM by Bull_In_Exile.)
04-16-2012 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Smaug Offline
Happnin' Dude
*

Posts: 61,211
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 842
I Root For: Dragons
Location: The Lonely Mountain

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #16
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
Interesting, Max.

I read that whole thing, and noted that two words were missing: "Lyndon" and "Johnson".

If Vietnam was Nixon's war, then all our engagements now are Obama's.
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2012 01:26 PM by Smaug.)
04-16-2012 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BlazerFan11 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,228
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 367
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
(04-16-2012 12:44 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Interesting, Max.

I read that whole thing, and noted that to words were missing: "Lyndon" and "Johnson".

If Vietnam was Nixon's war, then all our engagements now are Obama's.

Maybe someone could post a visual representation of the cost of new policies under LBJ/Nixon.
04-16-2012 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #18
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
Quote:No, it's really not max... I doubt the people who dies at Dresden saw a wall of fire and said... "Thank goodness I'm a civilian in a just war otherwise this might suck"

Once war is engaged it does not matter if you were the aggressor or not, that's one of the awful truths about war. You take the same actions to win a war as you would weather or not you started it.

What does the POV of the people in Dresden have to do with our discussion? We're arguing about the POV of the American who READS about the Dresden bombing (and the Vietnam bombing).

I disagree. In Vietnam, we could have pulled out at any time we wanted. In WWII we were engaged in a fight to the death.

Let me put it this way. If we stopped bombing Ho Chi Minh City, could that cause bombs to fall in Los Angeles? And if we stopped bombing Dresden, could that cause bombs to fall in New York City?

Quote:In the long view the people who started that war probably thought it was about defense, about stopping the flow of communism. Much like the Korean war.

I'm not talking about ideological defense (and on a world stage). Self defense implies kill or be killed.

Quote:The Japanese can arguably claim that Perl Harbor was a defensive strike. They were trying to take us out of the war because if we fully engaged, and we were already putting the screws to their industrial capacity, then they were in trouble.

A week earlier and WWII ends for the US right after perl with a few thousand causalities.

Agree (although Americans at home didn't see it that way at all, and remember that Americans' POV is the issue here). Not certain whether we could have bounced back.

Quote:There was a whole lot of rage in the US during Vietnam for those brown people... I know it isn't pleasant, but if we're going to be brutally honest here, we all know it's true.

The rage was among progressives on the left like me (and this is a center right country). The rage wasn't coming from the average American. If we carpet bomb Sweden when they pose no threat to us, there is outrage from the average American. That's the difference.

Quote:Really max? Find me the marches in Washington after Dresdon? please..

Look, even if the average American wasn't as outraged, the lack of marches can be explained by the fact he thought WWII was a necessary war. It strengthens my argument but isn't necessary for it.

Quote:So carpet bombing a city to hurt a nations industrial capacity is ok from a military perspective... Bombing the capitol to end the war is not a military objective?

Yes. The former (Dresden, if you buy it was to harm their industrial capacity) is a strategic military objective, the latter (bombing indiscriminately to scare a population into submission; there's another word for that you know) is not.

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
© and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions provides a widely-accepted definition of military objective: "In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage"

Quote:About the same... Doves will be sad, Hawks will be happy, progressives perpetually think were evil no matter what we do, and Libertarians would have been screaming bloody murder from the onset.

I'd wager a lot of so-called "hawks" would be more sensitive to indiscriminate civilian massacre. Have to agree to disagree on this one I guess.
04-16-2012 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #19
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
(04-16-2012 12:44 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Interesting, Max.

I read that whole thing, and noted that two words were missing: "Lyndon" and "Johnson".

If Vietnam was Nixon's war, then all our engagements now are Obama's.

This is more of a hawk/dove issue than a GOP/Dem issue. Obviously there are and have been GOP doves (Ron Paul, Robert Taft) and Dem hawks (LBJ, Lieberman, Hillary?).
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2012 02:01 PM by Max Power.)
04-16-2012 01:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #20
RE: Former Senator: Surely it’s not too much to ask that they put their own country first
What an honest debate would look like is to first characterize the conflict in some manner and attempt to get an agreement on what the long and short term goals the various parties have in the conflict. It would then be to discuss what the interests of each side of the conflict and only then discuss what actions make sense.

The Republican debates seem to be useless in this regard, as does the discussion here in this thread to date. The title of the thread and polemic in the opening post, particularly so.

Here is my swag at it....

For Iran, their long-term goal is to be a regional power, essentially with hegemony stretching from Afghanistan through Egypt - inclusive or exclusive of Turkey (i.e. well beyond the Euphrates to the Nile). Their regime is the most antithetical to the US in the world, including Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia. Iran has shown itself more than willing to strike US interests throughout the region, including inside of Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Their typical tactics include the use of terrorist proxies throughout the region, including all of the above named countries as well as the Palestinian territories and Syria, and to lesser extents, the gulf states. Their medium-term goals include procuring nuclear weapons, primarily as deterrent to the kind of response that Iraq experienced in Gulf War I (as Saddam said, his critical mistake was invading before he got a nuclear weapon).

Israel's interests are basically maintaining the status quo, with militarily weak neighbor states with strong authoritarian control over their populations. They need secure borders (essentially impossible given the geography). They essentially want terrorist organizations starved to the greatest extent possible and the Palestinian territories to be as quiet as possible. They want a two state solution with as few concessions as feasible, but would accept some difficult concessions if they came with recognition and a permanent agreement. Iran threatens virtually every one of those goals, and it's no surprise that Israel views them as a threat to their existence, because they (Iran) are.

The US interests are primarily the continued availability of oil into the world market - Iranian hegemony could pose a threat to that. Secondary to that is containing regional conflict involved and preventing the worldwide expansion manifested by worldwide terrorist groups. The US has some interest in supporting and defending its allies - even here the Gulf States are more at risk than Israel. There is probably some interest in preserving the presence of US oil companies in the region, but (as in Iraq), that is secondary, and less important to the US than it was to other countries in establishing agreements (since abrogated) with the Saddam regime.

To me, it is clear that containment of Iran is critical to US interests in the region, especially since there is greater likelihood in the next 20-50 years of serious conflicts arising due to oil supply. Just as clear is that containment is far more difficult if Iran is successful in their pursuit of nuclear weapons, but that is just a means to an end for them, not the end itself. There is certainly some intersection of interests between the US, the Gulf States, and Israel ... it would be foolhardy to disregard that intersection altogether simply because of the perception that something is also in Israel's interest (or any other ally for that matter).

Now, you can agree or disagree with my portrayal of the interests, motives, and tactics of each of the parties, and you can make your own conclusions from them. But, at least you should be able to follow the line of argument in a more sensible manner than simply saying we must not do X because it is in our ally's interest to also do X (whatever your genuine reason for making such an argument may be).
04-16-2012 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.