"And that's the way it is"

[foraker]

Etched in my mind is watching him as he read the daily body counts from Vietnam....

 

 

Walter Cronkite Decries War in Iraq

6 hours ago

Retired television anchorman Walter Cronkite arrive at CBS's 75th ...More...

 

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. - Veteran newsman Walter Cronkite said Americans aren't any safer because of the U.S.-led war on Iraq.

 

"The problem, quite clearly, is we have excited the Arab world, the Muslim world, to take up arms against us," Cronkite said Saturday, adding that this excitement far exceeds the anger that existed among terrorist groups prior to the war.

 

Cronkite made the comments after receiving an award from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation during the group's gala at Fess Parker's Doubletree Resort.

 

He said the Nov. 2 presidential election will be one of the most important since perhaps the Civil War because it comes on the heels of a drastic change in U.S. foreign policy and a ballooning national debt.

 

The war on Iraq marked the first time the United States has conducted a pre-emptive invasion and occupation of another country, he noted.

 

Asked what it will take to achieve peace, Cronkite said, "It certainly has to include, as a major factor, diplomacy."

 

The 87-year-old retired news anchor, dubbed "the most trusted man in America," was given the foundation's Distinguished Peace Leadership Award for "courageous leadership in the cause of peace." Past recipients include the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Jacques Cousteau and Jordan's King Hussein.

[scott_harpell]

I'd hate to say it, but these bastards were already itching for a reason to go to war with us. We might as well give em one and get it over with as opposed to tip-toeing around worrying about it. Were in it now, elt do it right this time and be done with it.

 

The war on Iraq marked the first time the United States has conducted a pre-emptive invasion and occupation of another country, he noted.

 

Fact checker is gonna get fired over that one; that is for sure.

 

"The problem, quite clearly, is we have excited the Arab world, the Muslim world, to take up arms against us," Cronkite said Saturday, adding that this excitement far exceeds the anger that existed among terrorist groups prior to the war.

 

And they hadn't taken arms against us previous to Iraq? 9/11

[sexual_chocolate]

Scott, use your reasoning mind please.

[scott_harpell]

What? 75% of the article is based on incorrect facts. Things like that usually make me skepticle of a position.

[cj001f]

The war on Iraq marked the first time the United States has conducted a pre-emptive invasion and occupation of another country, he noted.

Where else?

[selkirk]

The problem is the only way to "do it right and be done with it" on the course Bush has set us on will be to carpet bomb the entire middle east. This isn't a war we can we win using only guns and tanks. Were going to need to think and be diplomatic as well, thinks the Shrub doesn't appear to be very good at. Your right, there were factions over there itching to go to war with us. But by going after government, and affecting the civilians strongly were lending legitimacy to their cause and there statements, as well as pushing some moderates towards extremism.

 

War's against governments can be won purely militarily, once the government falls the military backing falls. But wars against the populace itself (in this case were calling them terrorists, in the case of the Revolutionary War we called them Patriots) are much more difficult and require more than force. We need to cut off the supply of recruits to the extremists. And if they're willing to run suicide bombing missions, obviously the threat of death isn't sufficient.

[chucK]

Hmmmm....who to trust?

 

Walter Cronkite, "most trusted man in America", or Scott Harpell, who claims Cronkite is liar without even backing up his assertions.

 

Who to trust? Walter Cronkite? Scott Harpell? Hmmmm....tough decision.

[dberdinka]

Unfortunately Scott you are one of the few right-wingers left around here, so I guess it's up to you to present their views and opinions. Based on a lot of your posts I'm curious if you'd be willing to answer the following question in a thorough manner. I don't think there is a single right answer but I'd love to know where you're coming from...

 

What was the motiviation or reasoning behind the 9/11 attacks?

 

Thanks

 

DB

[scott_harpell]

The war on Iraq marked the first time the United States has conducted a pre-emptive invasion and occupation of another country, he noted.

Where else?

 

Did Vietnam attack us? Did Korea attack us? Did Yugoslavia attack us? Shall I go on? Don't give me the humanitarian crap because it is just that. We have never done anything for humanitarian reasons in our 200+ year history.

[Dru]

Do you understand the meaning of pre-emptive, invasion, and occupation?

[scott_harpell]

What was the motiviation or reasoning behind the 9/11 attacks?

 

For sure there was but was it justified? You will find few that will say yes. You are asking for diplomacy to be used against people that declare jihads on authors, murder women and children (intentionally) and blow up civilian instalations? Please. What angle are you going to take with these people? I'd die to hear it. We have seen what diplomacy can do with Kofee Annan's inability to mobilize the UN. THe only thing that speaks to these people is power.

[cj001f]

Did Vietnam attack us?

Yes. Gunboats attacked one of our ships.

Did Korea attack us?

The North Koreans invaded South Korea. We returned the status quo, like Gulf War I

Shall I go on?

Please do

[scott_harpell]

Did Vietnam attack us?

Yes. Gunboats attacked one of our ships.

Did Korea attack us?

The North Koreans invaded South Korea. We returned the status quo, like Gulf War I

Shall I go on?

Please do

 

That is some good American history you have for Vietnam. Many schooled in other countries might as why there were destroyers within range of Vietnam. So, Korea didn't attack us then. Is that what you are saying? You didn't adress Yugoslavia either.

[scott_harpell]

Might I add that the Gulf of Tonkin is between China and Vietnam. Quite the place for a destroyer to be.

[selkirk]

Your right scott, diplomacy isn't going to work with the real extremists. "people that declare jihads on authors, murder women and children (intentionally) and blow up civilian instalations" However it's not this people that we need to convince with diplomacy. I'd be willing to be that they're numbers are really rather small compared to our military, and your right, we need to track them down and get rid of them where-ever they are and when-ever we find them. But i'm fairly confidant that we can deal with those people, it may take a while but military action can take care of them. The threat isn't the ones that are already extremists, the real threat lies in their recruiting power. I firmly believe that people aren't born as violent extremesists. They're recruited, they're trained and they're brought into the fold. It's those recruits that we need to target with diplomacy. So long as their are people that can be recruited to their cause from the main stream then we can't win. (Gaza, Palestine, West Bank, inner city gangs you name it.) This isn't a simple power structure we can crush and move one. It's more persistant because it's at it's base it's a revolt by the populace. We need to cut of the recruiting lines, and turning them all into martrys isn't the way to do it.

 

One of my favorite sayings is that you shouldn't piss of the peasants, they outnumber you. The only way's to win that kind of war is to kill them all, or to convince them that there isn't a reason to fight you. Somehow I don't think anybody wants to carpet bomb Iraq, Iran, Palestine, and all the countries that would be pissed off at us if we did do that, so we had better start convincing people that were benign and not worth fighting to oust from the area.

[scott_harpell]

You must understand that many poeple feel that the only way to end the hatred is to en dth propaganda. Thi sis largely from extremist religious leaders. Israel is being condemned for this (I don't side with Israel; only in this regard). When a religious leader calls out for terrorism and mass murder, I feel he should be eliminated. There will be no end to this cycle unless the propaganda stops. You cannot talk diplomacy to these people. True you might be able to reach to common man, but how are you going to do this? by giving him a can of corn a day that says U.S.A. on it? How are you going to do this. This is why diplomacy in this case is idealist crap. There is no way for this plan to move into action.

[Jim]

But you know this has nothing to do with Iraq. They:

 

Didn't attack us

Had no means to attack us.

Were under wraps until we got there

[scott_harpell]

But you know this has nothing to do with Iraq. They:

 

Didn't attack us

Had no means to attack us.

Were under wraps until we got there

 

1) Neither has 80+% of the other countries we have warred.

2) That was not determinable and this is clearly illustrated by the position of Kerry pre- war and now during the war.

3) Clearly not the case. Perhpaps dormant might be a better word. I don't think we should ever let dormant aggressors do so ever again. We have seen the consequences of that mistake.

[scott_harpell]

I might also point out the posturing that Saddam made prior to the war. He implied that he did in fact have these weapons as he stated that he had, "a surprise waiting for the invading infidels." If you want to get down to it, the best case scenario, we did find WMD and he was planning a huge offensive on the states and we subverted that. Worst case scenario, we ended the reign of a tyranical leader who has tortured and killed more bodies than will ever be shed in this war.

 

I truly feel that a war against these militants was inevitable and am not really against this war even at this point.

[selkirk]

I agree completely about removing the extremist leaders. When they start calling for violence or start instigating. I also agree with ending the propoganda, it's pointless and worthless. But I think there is much more to diplomacy than spewing empty propoganda, and only part of that is humanitarian aid. I feel we've pretty much wrecked what infrastructure they had and until the time comes that they can function independantly again we need to do what we can to rectify it. (cans of corn, building roads etc). But the biggest part is immediate self determination, and getting all the partys involved and interested to the same table. My current impression is that the US led effort lacks legitimacy there. The way we've treated prisoners, the way we chose to invaid and the assets we chose to secure (oil over weapons), in addition to the way we've handled things since we've been there. It all comes across as unilateral decisions made in our own best interests, and every one else who has a stake in the matter can piss off. So long as it appears that we are there protecting and establishing our own interests with the wellfare of the populace as a secondary or tertiary consideration, then were invaders and nothing else. And this can't be just fluff propoganda. It seems a nearly immediate election, even if only for temporary posts, with something akin to the german system where the number of overall votes for a given party determines the number of voting seats that party recieves would be appropriate due to the fractured political system there. Or possibly even just inviting every interested party and give them all voting rights... (that's right, even the ones who don't want us there) And most importantly, we need to abide by their decisions and edict, not set our own... and make that absolutely clear. Our interests need to be secondary... They (the Iraqis', or even the Iraqi's with advisors from neighbouring muslim countries) set the priorities, troop training, where our construction efforts go etc. Our primary goal has been accomplished (no more Saddam, no WMD's), now we get out as fast as possible. We would certainly need to set some ground rules and enforce them ruthlessly, though even those would need to be agreed on by the members of the council or parliament, with the understanding that if there is a majority vote that goes against one of our own edicts, were gone in a heartbeat. (i.e. no violence against us, other ethnic or political parties etc.)

 

At all costs we need the orginazation running the show there to have legitimacy in the eyes of populace. Whether that takes muslims from other countries to make decisions right now, or a council of iraqi's or whatever) and currently we don't even have legitimacy in the eyes of half of americans... how do you think the Iraqi's feel?

 

Saddam may have been asshole, but at least he was their asshole. Were being assholes and were not even theirs. (Think of how we would treat an invading power who overthrew our government and started setting up a new one, even if we hated and feared the old on. I'm a liberal democrat, and even i'd be taking up arms to get the invaders the hell out.)

[Jim]

But the UN inspectors and the IAEC specifically stated that he had none. We were lied to by Bush and company. There was ample evidence of this at the time and the press went for a ride. So now, other than Saddam was a bad guy, we have no excuse for invading.

 

If we were to carry your logic forward why not invade those countries where we are sure there are WMDs such as N. Korea. Bush is carrying on an imperialist agenda that has put us at more, not less risk.

[scott_harpell]

But the UN inspectors and the IAEC specifically stated that he had none. We were lied to by Bush and company. There was ample evidence of this at the time and the press went for a ride. So now, other than Saddam was a bad guy, we have no excuse for invading.

 

If we were to carry your logic forward why not invade those countries where we are sure there are WMDs such as N. Korea. Bush is carrying on an imperialist agenda that has put us at more, not less risk.

 

but Jim. THe UN was not given total access to as depots. How were we to know they even knew what they were talking about. You don't think that Saddam did this on purpose to scare us into thinking he did in fact have these weapons? Too bad it worked a little too well. I believe you are far too hung up on your partisan b.s. with your 'bushco' this and that. Things are not as simple as you would like to believe. Roosevelt lied to start a war, Johnson lied to start a war. There is shit we just aren't privvy to Jim. What you have to ask yourself is who is going to take care of you and who has your best interests at heart. You can spout off all the rhetoric in the World, but I will tell you that I woul rather face these wackos then live the rest of my life on my tip-toes trying not to piss them off. I think they are cowards and evil evil people. Have you seen what they did to that architect? Cut off his head. Not with a sword, but with a pocket knife. THESE PEOPLE CANNOT BE DEALT WITH BY REASON!. The only thing they understand is the sword and I will support someone that is willing to give it to them. I feel sorry for the people who are stuck, powerless, in the middle, but ultimately it is for their own good. It's too bad that they don't like us but that isn't the business we are in.

[scott_harpell]

If we were to carry your logic forward why not invade those countries where we are sure there are WMDs such as N. Korea. Bush is carrying on an imperialist agenda that has put us at more, not less risk.

 

Jim get real. You are full of it. Imperialist? Do you even realize the kind of rhetoric that comes out of your mouth? Give me a break.

[selkirk]

I kind of agree with Scott on this point... were beating a dead horse about weather or not the war was justified and everyone has a different opinion (that's not going to change any time soon). Were there, now what do we do? Even as dem. I honestly believe that Bush thought Sadam was a threat. Was the info wrong? yep, but from all the posturing, even with the weapons inspection, there was enough to question it. If the posturing had come from someone reasonably stable, and without Saddam's history, the outcome might have been different.

 

The real question is, what the hell do we do now?

 

And I think your wrong to some degree on this point Scott, we definitely need the sword, but it's rarely been a deterant, and it's almost never been enough to win. We may not be in the business of making people like us, but at the moment it seems we are in the business of making people hate us and fear us, and that's not a path that ends pleasantly either.

[cj001f]

1) Neither has 80+% of the other countries we have warred.

80%? where do you come up with this crap?