[CLUE-Talk] Iraq Stuph

[Kevin Cullis]

On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 23:28, Matt Gushee wrote:
> I'm sorry, but you're oversimplifying. You start out well, but then sink
> back into platitudes. There is no such thing as "the threat." What
> exists are a number of different potential or real threats, military,
> political, and economic--some severe, perhaps, some not so severe. And
> it seems to me that the location, form, and severity of that threat are
> crucial in determining an appropriate response.

UH? A threat is a threat and I've been treatened with economic, bodily,
politically, so again, a threat is a threat.

> 
> One more thing: I don't think the phrase "9/11" is at all helpful in
> this debate. Whatever it once meant, that date has become a rhetorical
> weapon used to stir up emotional responses. 
> 
> > > pushing for invasion. You do remember, don't you, that it was all
> > > supposed to be about Weapons of Mass Destruction--until it became
> > > embarrassingly obvious that there were few if any such to be found? Then
> > > the reason switched to "liberating the Iraqi people." Which, if you ask
> > > me, could be a legitimate reason for having started the war. But that
> > > was *not* why this whole thing got started. Doesn't that bother you at
> > > all?
> > 
> > >From my point of view, a threat is a threat
> 
> So (I was asking Match, but since you saw fit to jump in, I'll pick on
> you instead) your answer to my question is no, it doesn't bother you?
> Let me follow up a bit. I don't doubt that you sincerely believe that
> this war will do, overall, more good than harm. But suppose--
> hypothetically speaking--you, in your sincere belief, were being
> manipulated by cynics whose objectives were entirely different from
> yours? Don't you see that as a problem?

I never trust anyone 100%!!  People can turn on a dime and give you nine
cents change in your face.  Hoever, some give less change.  :-0

> 
> Okay, then, a bit less hypothetically: I gather you agree that the
> publicly stated reasons for the war have shifted in a politically
> expedient fashion. At least, you haven't challenged me on that point.
> Well, then, if that is the case, doesn't it mean that the American
> people have been manipulated into supporting this war? If not, what does
> it mean?

Yes, I agree that the "selling" of the war has changed somewhat, but I
look at the facts as I see them and watch the aftermath of what was said
and done to determine the gap in reality and the "selling" to determine
my level of agreement or disgust.

> > > 
> > > Are you sure that Baghdad had to "fall" for meaningful change to take
> > > place in Iraq?
> > 
> > Yes, I do!  It means that "democracy" will happen a little bit sooner
> > now and the rest of the Arab nations will be looking hard at how it
> > progresses as we get it going.  I will venture to say that the results
> 
>   ....
> 
> Okay. We'll just have to see what really happens, won't we? One
> question, though. Is the real goal democracy, or is it laissez-faire
> capitalism, or both (I'm not among those who think the two are
> synonymous)?

My hope is that we take our US governmental framework plus 200+ years of
effort and help Iraq apply it to their country.

Kevin

-- 
Kevin Cullis <kevincu at orci.com>