|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Patti (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
Really? Wherever you went to camp must be different than where many of my friends went. They spent 20 years in the Engineer Corps and they said they are never to question orders and to just do what their superiors tell them. If they disagree that's just oh well, too bad, so sad. They were lucky that their ranks were higher up and they didn't have as much to deal with as others did, in their words. We've had some interesting conversations over the years, and some of the mose revealing have come once they have been out of the military having finally gotten their retirement after being held over in Iraq for an extra eighteen months.
Patti
|
Feb 26 '08
1:40 am PST
|
|
Patti (Reply to this comment)
by colonialpara
I just re-read this and I have to disagree.
NONE of us and I repeat NONE of us signed on to follow orders BLINDLY!
That's a quick way to wind up the Disciplinary Barracks at Ft. Leavenworth.
To blin dly follow orders equates us with the Nazis of WW II and I don't know too many American GIs who fall into that horrible category.
BLINDLY? I don't think so....................
Paul Connors
|
Feb 04 '08
1:26 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Good piece, but.... (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
No, it doesn't convince me either. The point was that if I can say that it's possible that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen, then I could also feel it's possible that people knew about 9/11 and allowed it to happen to further their agenda.
I don't say it's true and I don't say it isn't - I just think there's a strong argument to be made that this was the case and it's impossible to prove a negative.
Patti
|
Sep 17 '04
11:26 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Good piece, but.... (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
A history teacher in high school in the 80's was the first one who entertained this notion by saying he personally didn't believe there was any way our people could have missed the Japanese ships coming across the Pacific.
The Pacific Ocean is large. The position is plausible, but not convincing, at least to me.
|
Sep 16 '04
12:24 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Good piece, but.... (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
I didn't say I believe it, I said I heard it. A history teacher in high school in the 80's was the first one who entertained this notion by saying he personally didn't believe there was any way our people could have missed the Japanese ships coming across the Pacific. The more I read on the subject, the more I could entertain the possibility that the scenario is true.
This country was very isolationist at the time and it would have taken a major catastrophe to get us to take sides in the conflict. Pearl Harbor provided that, so in my mind it's conceivable that our government (on whatever level) could have allowed the attack to occur knowing how public opinion would have been changed. There's no proof, and I doubt there ever would be.
It's got nothing to do with racism or bashing FDR. It's trying to have a perspective on history without buying everything as blandly as it's written in the textbooks.
Patti
|
Sep 15 '04
12:33 am PDT
|
|
Re: Good piece, but.... (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
Actually, I missed that. I've seen evidence presented that the SIGINT (Signal Intelligence) people had determined an attack was to occur, but word didn't get to FDR until a few hours after the attack There's no credible evidence that FDR knew of the attack, or that the SIGINT people had more than a few hours warning.
|
Sep 14 '04
7:10 am PDT
|
|
Good piece, but.... (Reply to this comment)
by alexdg1
Hi.
I loved your column, but I respectfully disagree with you on one seemingly trivial point.
You say you've heard and therefore believe that FDR had advance warning of the Pearl Harbor attack and yet let it happen to drag America into World War II. Unfortunately, this accusation is about as accurate as the tale that Mossad (or even the United States) was behind 9-11. This bit of revisionism has been around since World War II, stemming from FDR-bashers, isolationists, and even racists who couldn't believe the "Japs" could conceive, much less carry out, such a daring operation as the Pearl Harbor attack om their own.
|
Sep 13 '04
9:31 pm PDT
|
|
A Fine Job, Patti (Reply to this comment)
by colonialpara
Well said and heartfelt, too.
Keep those of us serving in your prayers, especially those of us from LI (like me).
Thanks,
Paul Connors
formerly from Stony Brook, NY 11790
|
Sep 12 '03
2:00 pm PDT
|
|
Re: For the most part... (Reply to this comment)
by mustangman5
BTW, a lot of what I disagreed with is already stated by the person's comment below my last comment.
|
Apr 26 '03
3:56 pm PDT
|
|
Hey man, nice read (Reply to this comment)
by mustangman5
Hey, we have opposing positions regarding the war, but at least your argument has the country's welfare in mind, and isn't just mindless babble like some of the excuses I went over in my commentary. I agree and disagree with you on a few things.
First of all, let me just say that your idea that we NEED to find weapons of mass destruction is a little misguided. However, I agree with the concept of not doing something that is frowned upon by the rest of the world without proof.
Like I said in my commentary, the armistice of 1991 with Saddam prohibiting him from having or using weapons of mass destruction also speaks of a lot of other things, including the possession of any missile system with a range of 900 miles. Also with the inspections, he is not allowed to dictate what is or is not "off-limits" to the inspectors. BOTH he has.
Currently, it's a solid fact that he has Al Samoud 2 missiles and have used them against us in the beginning of the war. These missiles are against the armistice.
Also, during the inspections, he had areas that he deemed "off-limits" to the inspectors. These places accounted for almost 15% of the total land mass of Iraq, which is a hell of a chunk of land to be free from our scrutiny, he could have been doing many things in such a great area.
Not to mention he has been skimming from the "Oil for Food" program for his own profit.
Basically, violation of any ONE of thse things is considered an act of war, and he has violated somewhere along the lines of a dozen or more. The weapons of mass destruction one was just in the spotlight, and it's what people pay the most attention to.
But technically, there was no legitimate reason for France or Russia to oppose us given these facts. That's why I'm in support of the war, but at the same time, you're right, this probably wouldn't be a great thing for our country, but sometimes you just have to do what is needed regardless the negative effects you would receive.
Again, well-deserving of the VH rating.
|
Apr 26 '03
3:55 pm PDT
|
|
For the most part... (Reply to this comment)
by pilotpat
...a well-written set of ideas. I disagree with a lot, but not as much as you might think.
- I'd be cautious about calling the present administration "never elected." Truth is, it was. The electoral college was frankly, a brilliant idea created by a bunch of people who recognized that although majority rule had its strengths (thus the House of Reps), the strength of the future country may lie in rural production, and to go with a simple majority rule could strip that rural population of its voice, thus the policy of the EC and 2 senators/state no matter what the population.
- As far as the common conception that Republicans, and our current administration among them, are warmongers. I have "put up" vs. "shut up" many times, and have been in the line of fire my share of times. You know who sent most of us to go do that in the past half century? Bill Clinton. During his administration, we used the military as a substitute for effective policy. Through the majority of his administration, we had troops in disastrous combat situtations in EVERY CONTINENT save Antarctica SIMULTANEOUSLY.
- Don't remember? Let's go back to a few examples... Action in Somalia started as a successful guarding of food convoys under POTUS 41. Clinton took over and nearly immediately changed it into a hunt for Aidid, but refused to send in the type of equipment required and requested (like Tanks/APC's). His SecDEF said, "It wouldn't look good." Evidently, the body of our Rangers getting drug through the streets looked better.
... Haiti - oh yeah. Forgot about that one. What exactly were we doing?
... Bosnia - we never quite figgered out what we were doing there, but at least we dropped a lot of bombs. Said we'd be home in a year. About 5 or 6 years later, we decided to move our "diplomacy" a bit further East to "discuss" Kosovo with Serbia. Still never figgered out what we were doing there, but at least we dropped a lot of bombs. But Kosovo got liberated, you say. Uhh... yeah, right.
... Indonesia - what? We were in Indonesia? Oh yeah. What were we doing there? Nobody's sure. Took #43 to work with the Indonesian gov't to actually set up a set of objectives, and then turn the majority of the thing over to them.
... North Korea. I woke up one morning while NK was heating up (at the time, we were trying to provoke them as much as possible, running EMPTY bombers at their borders, and then turning around last minute - interesting use of the military) and found out that we had decided to diffuse the situation by giving them more nuke reactors, with the promise that they wouldn't do bad things like use their now surplus reactors to make plutonium. Be good, please. Bonus was that i got to see Pres Clinton looking through binoculars with the lens caps on and acting as if nothing was wrong.
... I could go on, but this is a comment, not an opinion.
By the way, welcome to my WOT. A worthy adversary (and a good Travel reviewer of the NorthEast as well).
Cheers,
Pat
|
Apr 24 '03
4:40 am PDT
|
|
Re: Just to let you guys know... (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
If you think it's such a terrific idea, then why not volunteer to go over and fight as a soldier? I have to wonder how many "pro-war" people would change their tune if the draft were reinstated.
Personally, I value the lives of the citizens of this country way too much to have them die so that Halliburton execs and stockholders can get rich.
Patti
|
Apr 06 '03
1:54 pm PDT
|
|
Re: A Good Expression of Your Concerns (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
Thanks. I think there is a big difference between having blind faith in our government and being a traitor. Many people walk in that gray area.
Patti
|
Apr 02 '03
3:53 am PST
|
|
A Good Expression of Your Concerns (Reply to this comment)
by DAnneC
. . . many of which I share.
Regards,
DAnneC
|
Apr 02 '03
3:07 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ummm.... (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
You wrote: I am curious, though. On one hand, one person argues that the Gulf War never officially ended - no treaties signed- so this is actually just a continuation of the fighting from 12 years ago. And now it is argued that there was an agreement that was broken...
It's a matter of definition. The active war ended with a cease-fire agreement. That cease-fire agreement was the one being violated. I don't see an inconsistency.
|
Mar 31 '03
5:14 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can it get worse? (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, but virtually no production takes place in Manhattan. It's mostly financial and administrative-type jobs, with a good smattering of arts, tourism, real estate, technology, and telecommunications.
Patti
|
Mar 30 '03
4:05 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Ummm.... (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
Sorry, but the truth is that we did give them these weapons to use as "defense" against Iran.
Patti
|
Mar 30 '03
4:01 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Ummm.... (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
They killed 300 civilans in that Soviet Airliner. I remember it distinctly because I was at camp and the sister of one of our counselors was on the plane. I remember being terrified for months that World War III was about to start and because I lived near NYC I was right where one of the first targets was.
In my eyes, that is a bigger crime - the slaughter of 300 civilians - than overflying a no-fly zone.
I am curious, though. On one hand, one person argues that the Gulf War never officially ended - no treaties signed- so this is actually just a continuation of the fighting from 12 years ago. And now it is argued that there was an agreement that was broken...
Patti
|
Mar 30 '03
4:00 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Can it get worse? (Reply to this comment)
by cerberus435
New York has lost over 800,000 jobs in the last two years.
Jesus Christ Patti. You can't expect us to rebound quickly after losing so much of our production in lower manhattan!
|
Mar 30 '03
7:08 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Ummm.... (Reply to this comment)
by cerberus435
Gary, the Reagan administration supplied WMD to Saddam in the eighties.
Whoo-hoo... don't go there. The admin gave weapons and aid, but nooooo fucking way did they give NBC's to a volatile country... especially one who attacked neutral shipping in the Persian Gulf during the mid 80's and used chemical weapons against the Iranians.
|
Mar 30 '03
7:00 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Ummm.... (Reply to this comment)
by cerberus435
The shootdown that you refer to is the "KAL Shootdown at the Sea of Ohkotsk." On that day, 2 PVO Mig-21s took off, under orders of the PVO, to intercept and destroy the contact that was breaching into Soviet airspace.
The Soviets acted this way because, in light of the Cold War, American spy and surveillance planes were infiltrating Soviet airspace. When the two MiGs went into the air, they were expecting an E or R class American plane.
What they did was shoot down a Korean Airlines jetliner. This was done during the Cold War, where hostilities between the US and the USSR were still taking place.
Iraqis shooting at Coalition fighters after AGREEING WITH THE TERMS OF THE CEASE-FIRE, was a breach of the agreement.
|
Mar 30 '03
6:49 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: International approval? (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
But will the end result really be what is best for the Iraqi people? And for us? Only time is going to tell for sure.
Patti
|
Mar 29 '03
2:17 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Nice essay! (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
I guess you missed the part where I said I supported the invasion of Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. Of course, that was completely botched. The Taliban is almost back up to their pre-invasion power in the majority of the country.
Oh, and here's the link to Halliburton's Press Release about getting the contract to stop the oil fires in Iraq: http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2003/kbrnws_032403.jsp You remember them, they're the company that Cheney was CEO of before he ran for VP. Of course, I'm sure that has nothing to do with them getting this government contract...
Patti
|
Mar 29 '03
2:10 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry to upset you Patti... (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
No, unlike you I just do not have blind faith in my leaders. Someone I greatly admire said (about 20 years ago) Blind faith in your leaders - or in anyone - will get you killed... and I most definitely still believe that.
We'll just wait and see what happens. I saw one of the generals from CENTCOM on CNN the other night and he said flat out that they thought they'd be in Baghdad by now. Gee, how come they didn't "know" they wouldn't?
And as far as you comparing Bush to Jesus, that's a laugh. When Jesus was faced with being nailed to the cross, he didn't go into the city with guns blazing or rally people to attack those who were about to betray him. Instead he humbly accepted his fate. Bush could learn a lot from Jesus. Everyone says he prays, but I doubt he's listening. God doesn't always answer our prayers in the way we want him to, and unless those praying are open to hearing what God has to say, praying is useless.
Patti
|
Mar 29 '03
2:05 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Well Done! (Reply to this comment)
by Susie-34668
I will be checking with my daughter when I phone tomorrow. Also my Dad at the weekend. They keep me up to date with British News.
Susie.
|
Mar 27 '03
1:17 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: International approval? (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Patti,
You're right. We've done wrong by the Iraqi people in the 80s. And we've screwed over plenty of other nations. And Hussein is far from the only dangerous tyrant.
My ultimate position is that all the nations of the world should unite in dethroning all such tyrants. I wish the UN would do that. But perhaps human civilization just isn't ready to look beyond the nation-state.
You're right that the administration's motivations are questionable. But I think they're doing the right thing, if for the wrong reasons. Personally, I don't care if Bush gets off on finishing his Daddy's dream or whatever. I just care that Iraq gets liberated.
|
Mar 27 '03
9:31 am PST
|
|
Re: Nice essay! (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
Thanks Brian. I liked all of your points as well - put them together much better than I did.
The problem I have with the punch in the nose theory (and the subsequent admitting that a group of people in a car ran two people with peace signs off the road) is that it is a violent intimidation to anyone who expresses an opinion different than them. If you look up the history of Germany once the Nazis were voted into power, this is the exact type of tactics they used to suppress any dissent at the way the country was being managed and what was happening there.
If someone wants to have a different opinion than me, that's fine. If someone wants to have blind faith in the un-elected leader of our country, that's fine. However, the minute those people start advocating the use of violence against people who don't agree with them, it stops becoming fine.
Patti
|
Mar 27 '03
4:38 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Thank you! (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
If we had not had anti-war protests while the war was going on in Vietnam, the war would probably have lasted much longer. Are we getting ourselves into another Vietnam? Another situation we will not be able to control or win? I don't know, but I think that's a possibility.
We have freedom of speech in this country, and demonstrations should go on - peacefully. As I said, I feel that I have more regard for our soldiers since I believe their lives are worth more than letting the American oil companies have access to the Iraqi oil fields.
If they would really understand that's what the vast majority of the protesters are saying, they should feel comforted that their lives are valued that much, and that many people feel we need to meet a higher threshhold before asking them to give their lives. But then they are probably being fed newsbites from the man who thinks he is on a religious crusade.
Are there some protesters that are self-serving? Of course, just as their are politicians that are. No one side is completely pure. However, the vast majority of protesters don't want our men and women killed over this.
I'd invite you to watch the movie "Born on the Fourth of July". Great movie that touches on this very subject.
Patti
|
Mar 27 '03
4:19 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: International approval? (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
That's a lot of the reason why I have problems with all of the spin being put on this. Hussein was doing the same things to his people before he invaded Kuwait. He was doing it with weapons we gave him, and our country just looked the other way.
I would agree if it were entirely for humanitarian reasons, but I don't buy that since there are too many other countries that have more desperate situations - such as North Korea where the people are starving while any aid being sent in there is being redirected to the army to keep them strong.
While the White House calls this Operation Liberate Iraq, that's not what it's about. That's just a nice-sounding image for the media.
Patti
|
Mar 27 '03
4:11 am PST
|
|
Re: International approval? (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
I would hope that the United States is held to a higher standard than most of the rest of the world. I don't look at things that have happened in history and think that justifies any action in the future, especially if it was something that was universally condemned - such as the USSR invasion of Afghanistan.
We are now the world's only superpower, and along with that comes a heck of a lot of responsibility. We are setting ourselves up as the world's policemen, and who decides what countries need to be invaded? Or is it only the countries that have a commodity (oil) that the current administration has made its fortune on?
The cost of this is going to be primarily on the shoulders of the American people as well, unlike the Gulf War. We can't give seniors prescription drug coverage in this country, but we can spend billions to go after Hussein?
Thanks for your comments, though. They were very interesting. I just think our responsibility to the world - and to Iraq - would be different if all those oil fields weren't there.
Patti
|
Mar 27 '03
4:07 am PST
|
|
|
|
