TWB Quote of the day.

[TWB]

I am gonna try this for a while. Each day posting a quotation that I like, or hate. Maybe some commentary, I dunno. If you have a favorite quote feel free to post.

I love quotations as they are the soundbites of the written word.

Here is my quote of the day:

Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice.
-Baruch Spinoza

I think about this as we our federal governmental representatives not only prepare for a conflict in Iraq, but "terrorism." Do we collectively consider "peace" a virtue? Is it a priority for our leaders, and should it be?

 

[weed]

Yes, peace should be a priority. It should be a given that we intend on leaving for our children.

Unfortunately it is not likely to be so in my time with so many refusing to see the necessity of peace...through peace. But maybe....if we teach our children right....some day....

 

[TWB]

To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)

 

[TWB]

I guess things often amount to how you look at things. The following was a description of the movie Wizard of Oz in a newspaper television guide:

Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again.

 

[SINthysist]

I notice he leaves room for War as Peace...

A great argument for playing offense. Sun Tzu is equally balanced in opposition saying at once war is failed diplomacy but one should place one's enemy in a position to be defeated and then do just that through spies and deceit to destroy the moral of the enemy and his armies.

I think this is our game currently. The psychological softening up of a people and a madman's army. So our armies can just march in and take over.

 

[SINthysist]

By upsetting the war plans of his enemy, the just ruler secures peace and prosperity for his own people.

 

[SINthysist]

The United States is very CONFIDENT it can issue some BENEVOLENT JUSTICE towards the peoples of Iraq and go a long way towards securing PEACE for a helluvalot of people, not just our own....

 

[weed]

I'll take a psychological war over a bloodwar anyday.

 

[weed]

I guess things often amount to how you look at things. The following was a description of the movie Wizard of Oz in a newspaper television guide:

Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again.

Yeah, she was into opium, too.

Poor Toto

 

[TWB]

By upsetting the war plans of his enemy, the just ruler secures peace and prosperity for his own people.

There are different ways to do this, other than a military assault, which appears to be where we are heading. Killing people in Iraq is not accomplished with a peaceful state of mind, in my opinion.

I bolded a paragraph in another thread here, there is no evidence that Saddam is not containable with deterrence. The war in Kuwait might be evidence in contradition to that, but I think the last 10+ years are evidence to the contrary of that argument.

I do not trust this administrations view of benevolent justice any more than I would have the Roman Empire's, or any other "superpower." I read the "Bush Doctrine" this morning and it's export of this "Benevolent Justice" is simply a call to take the US's determination of what is right or face the consequences.

It is arrogant, presumptuous, and a recipie for war. It is not written with a peaceful heart. It made me ashamed to be an American, something I do not say lightly.

 

[SINthysist]

It's not going to be much of an assault...

 

[TWB]

I have a difficult time quanitfying "much" or "not much" of an assault. It is like being pregnant: you is or you ain't. As far as the assault, there should be principles followed in order to have one, and Bush is re-writing rules whcih have stood the test of time. The parallels to the Roman empire are stunning.

 

[SINthysist]

It's hard to have a peaceful heart when YOU represent a nation that lost 3,000 citizens on a day that included attacks on your life too...

One can be too peaceful...

Bullies prey on the weak.
Muggers select the meek.
Tyrants take advantage of appeasers.
Isms of all sorts will go to war on Nations whom appear vulnerable.

If we do not stand-up to this middle-eastern terrorism, and it's not just Palestine, it's not just Iraq, it's not just Libya, it's just not Saudi Arabia, it's just not Jordan, it's just not...,

Well, you get my drift. Eventually SOMEONE HAS TO STAND UP TO THIS PREFERRED METHOD OF DIPLOMACY BY THE DESPOTIC LEADERS OF THIS REGION or they'll never stop using terror, hostages, etc. as legitimate tools of the state.

 

[TWB]

Yeah, she was into opium, too.

Poor Toto

Toto partook. Vicious Killer, druggie dog.

 

[SINthysist]

Yeah and the Peace it brought to the world at the point of the sword. Hell the original barbarian conquests were by barbarians just wanting in to be protected from even worse barbarians!

If nothing else, they taught the English to bath...

 

[SINthysist]

Hell-o? The War Has Already Started
Geoff Metcalf
Monday, Sept. 16, 2002
For years I have been talking and writing about the distinctions in "form over substance" and "perception versus reality." Mainstream media malfeasance has been a common theme of my columns, radio talk programs and commentary.

Notwithstanding the monumental silence of what Drudge would call ABCCBSNBCFoxNewsCNNNYTWashPost et al., the next Iraq war has already started.

MSNBC reports the "President says United States will act with or without world support." Hey, "Been there … done that … already have the T-shirt."

While America's atrophied fourth estate has been fixated on the Potomac two-step, London's Telegraph last week reported, "About 100 American and British aircraft took part in an attack on Iraq's major western air defense installation … in the biggest single operation over the country for four years." (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/06/wirq06.xml)

Despite the epic myopia of mainstream media, THAT raid was a classic demonstration (or should be) to even the most neophyte military observer of "preparing the battlefield."

The so-called "horse trading" going on is classic form over substance. "In order to gain international support for military action, the Bush administration will have to engage in intensive horse-trading. Powell and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw made clear that discussions on a new Security Council resolution were in a very early stage and have not yet focused on specific wording or addressed the key issue of possible military action against Iraq." BULLFEATHERS!!!!

"Possible military action"? Military action against Iraq is inevitable. It is no longer a question of "if" but merely "when."

The London Telegraph (regarding last week's raid) wrote, "The raid appeared to be a prelude to the type of Special Forces operations that would have to begin weeks before a possible American-led war."

"Preparing the battlefield" is a broad brush. It includes anything and everything to reduce the enemy's capacity to fight. That means destroying or disrupting:

Air defense capacity;
Command and control (communications);
Supply and logistics (ammunition, food, water, gasoline).
Notwithstanding the talk about talking about talk … and the Washington Post stroke about "… but will turn to diplomacy first." Diplomacy my Airborne butt! We are bombing the snot out of them NOW!
Two hundred forty miles west of Baghdad, near Jordan, 12 aircraft dropped precision-guided bombs on the H3 airfield. Flying out of Kuwait, nine American F15s and three RAF Tornado GR4s hit the targets.

At least seven types of aircraft took part.

Fighter cover was provided by US F-16 Fighting Falcons.
RAF Tornado F3s came from Saudi Arabia.
RAF VC10 tanker aircraft flying from Bahrain were among the support aircraft.
These also included EA6b Prowlers, which send out signals to confuse enemy radar, and
E3a Awacs aircraft that co-ordinate operations and carry out reconnaissance of any response.
RAF Tornados also took part in the reconnaissance.
American central command refused to go into detail about the number of aircraft involved in the raid.
Now THAT is an effective method of "diplomacy" … the preferred counterpoint to any and all Neville Chamberlainish appeasements.
The official spin was "Coalition strikes in the "no-fly" zones are executed as a self-defense measure in response to Iraqi hostile threats and acts against coalition forces and their aircraft."

The Pentagon called the raid a "response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern "no-fly" zone."

Since Iraq has reportedly made 130 attempts to shoot down coalition aircraft this year and, as the president noted, "Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations 16 times. Not once, not twice, 16 times, he has defied the United Nations. Enough is enough,"… what the hell took us so long?

The attack on what was described, as an "air defense command and control facility" was the first time that a target in western Iraq had been attacked during the patrols of the southern "no-fly" zone. Previous air defense target strikes had been in the south.

The Telegraph reported, "In a further sign that America was preparing for war, a Pentagon official confirmed that heavy armor, ammunition and other equipment had been moved to Kuwait from huge stores in Qatar." "Preparing"??????

The war has already started! We just haven't gotten the memo yet.

In Louisville, Kentucky, the president said that, besides having talks with Mr. Blair, he would be meeting the leaders of France, Russia, China and Canada. He told them that "history has called us into action" to oust Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq. Now he has tried to shame the United Nothing into support.

He says the standoff is as much a test of the United Nations as of Saddam. "The United Nations deserves another chance to prove its relevance. This is a chance for the United Nations to show some backbone," Bush said, but he added: "Make no mistake about it, if we have to deal with the problem, we'll deal with it." And we ARE.

Hey, RIGHT NOW, the U.S. and Britain are in the process of 'preparing the battlefield' for the inevitability of intensified combat in Iraq.

The "perception" and spin may be that we are "talking" and attempting to win consensus from world leaders and the American people. However, the "reality" is we are (right now) engaged in a for-real shooting war. The war has already started.

 

[TWB]

It's hard to have a peaceful heart when YOU represent a nation that lost 3,000 citizens on a day that included attacks on your life too...

One can be too peaceful...

Bullies prey on the weak.
Muggers select the meek.
Tyrants take advantage of appeasers.
Isms of all sorts will go to war on Nations whom appear vulnerable.

If we do not stand-up to this middle-eastern terrorism, and it's not just Palestine, it's not just Iraq, it's not just Libya, it's just not Saudi Arabia, it's just not Jordan, it's just not...,

Well, you get my drift. Eventually SOMEONE HAS TO STAND UP TO THIS PREFERRED METHOD OF DIPLOMACY BY THE DESPOTIC LEADERS OF THIS REGION or they'll never stop using terror, hostages, etc. as legitimate tools of the state.

You are lumping in Sadam with the terrorist attacks on the towers and pentagon. You know the folley.

Bush started to do it (retaliate v. terrorism), but now, in his short-attention span kinda way, he is not pursuing the war on terrorism with nearly enough vigor, and has his sights on Sadam, who is a bad guy, but is not exactly a big threat right now, and I question whether he ever will be.

Bush was planning this prior to 9/11. It has nothing to do with terrorism, and he does teh US a disservice by claiming it does. Frankly, his first strike policy is going to give despots all over the world an excuse for attacking other countries when they feel threatened. It is stupid.

 

[weed]

It's hard to have a peaceful heart when YOU represent a nation that lost 3,000 citizens on a day that included attacks on your life too...

One can be too peaceful...

Bullies prey on the weak.
Muggers select the meek.
Tyrants take advantage of appeasers.
Isms of all sorts will go to war on Nations whom appear vulnerable.

If we do not stand-up to this middle-eastern terrorism, and it's not just Palestine, it's not just Iraq, it's not just Libya, it's just not Saudi Arabia, it's just not Jordan, it's just not...,

Well, you get my drift. Eventually SOMEONE HAS TO STAND UP TO THIS PREFERRED METHOD OF DIPLOMACY BY THE DESPOTIC LEADERS OF THIS REGION or they'll never stop using terror, hostages, etc. as legitimate tools of the state.

There is a notion some people have that peace and strength can go together. In fact, I would argue the strongest people are those that resolve their conflicts without violence or vengance. When we lower ourselves to the level of our adversaries they become the winners.

Especially since it is not just Iraq we should show a little self-discipline in using this excuse to come down on Hussein.

 

[SINthysist]

No, much more than that TWB, I'm lumping pretty much the entire region into the same boat. The entire region is a region of rule by thug. There's some secular thugs, there's some religious thugs, there's some "Royal" thugs, and one thug pretending to head a Democracy. Freedom is non-existent, knowledge as tightly controlled as our own dark ages. Every penny they get goes into their pockets and the pockets of their armies and these are the guys you're supporting.

Why? You hate Republicans I guess. Corrupt, evil Republicans, who are so cartoon-character evilish that we can easily see them banding together in vast conspiracies that can only be defeated by the Democrats conspiring together to bring them down and thusly in one fell stroke end war, disease, famine, and pestulance returning the world to it's proper temperature and natural ecological balance, the last person having sipped the final cup of that last batch of cool-aid...

 

[TWB]

There is a notion some people have that peace and strength can go together. In fact, I would argue the strongest people are those that resolve their conflicts without violence or vengance. When we lower ourselves to the level of our adversaries they become the winners.

This is beautifully said.

 

[SINthysist]

Tell that to the ghosts of the Polish Ghettoes and Auswitz...

 

[TWB]

No, much more than that TWB, I'm lumping pretty much the entire region into the same boat. The entire region is a region of rule by thug. There's some secular thugs, there's some religious thugs, there's some "Royal" thugs, and one thug pretending to head a Democracy. Freedom is non-existent, knowledge as tightly controlled as our own dark ages. Every penny they get goes into their pockets and the pockets of their armies and these are the guys you're supporting.

Why? You hate Republicans I guess. Corrupt, evil Republicans, who are so cartoon-character evilish that we can easily see them banding together in vast conspiracies that can only be defeated by the Democrats conspiring together to bring them down and thusly in one fell stroke end war, disease, famine, and pestulance returning the world to it's proper temperature and natural ecological balance, the last person having sipped the final cup of that last batch of cool-aid...

So we are going to go run it? What happenned to not engaging in Nation Building? This argument seems to lend creedence to European and other fears that Bush just wants to run the world.

It has nothing to do with Republican hating. Republicans have questioned Bush's policies. I can't argue with prejudice. Your lumping everyone into one pot and then trying to call me a republican hater to justify is not an argument and does not warrant any rebuttal.

 

[SINthysist]

See, beautiful words are all you have to offer...

You guys need to polish up for the funerals.

Lot's of beautiful words will be needed.

 

[TWB]

See, beautiful words are all you have to offer...

You guys need to polish up for the funerals.

Lot's of beautiful words will be needed.

Nice sarcasm. How many US deaths has Saddam caused? What is the evidence that he is suicidal and would use weapons of mass destruction which would prompt a US response? Since he has them, why hasn't he used them over the last 10 years?

What evidence is there, even if he gets nukes, that he would use them? It is not his pattern. He went into Kuwait thinking that we were not going to do anything. He has been disabused of that notion.

 

[*bratcat*]