Ovelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 4 Posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1334 times:
A US Diplomat resigned this week, protesting Americas 'Fervent Pursuit of War'.
Quotes from the resignation letter to Mr Powell:
"No one has any illusions that the policy will be changed. Too much has been invested in the war."
"We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners."
"No one of my colleagues is comfortable with our policy. Everyone is moving ahead with it as good and loyal. The State Department is loaded with people who want to play the team game — we have a very strong premium on loyalty."
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 21 Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1332 times:
We Stand Passively Mute
by U.S. Senator Robert Byrd,
delivered to the U.S. Senate
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the
brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to
lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of
events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging
in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it
materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate
time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not
imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It
appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism,
making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's-- hit list. High level
Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq.
What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tie the vital
economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances,
and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation,
suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed
after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur.
Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face.
Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The
mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and
taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire
financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have
slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This
Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better
protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again
marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all
time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the
traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient
art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity
of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types
of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on
terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can
attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland
which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those
nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its
hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet
again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This
Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much
greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always
secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's
oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom
do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear
arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to
terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous
disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation
an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous
consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration
of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world
is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the
destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous.
There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population
of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly
only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber
is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as
usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens
are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the
judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the
highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in
Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own
making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1331 times:
You seem incapable of even reporting information without provoking a fight. As is well-known, there are many within my country that are opposed to going to war alone. I count myself among them. I do not like the idea of launching a pre-emptive war alone. But if we do, I will stand behind our President and armed forces 100%
A significant portion of anti-war "peace" protesters are driven by their general dislike and jealousy of this country and utter hatred for that Texas cowboy, George Bush. These are the same fools that argue that the US is going to war to seize Iraqi oil. The behavior of France in the UN is intended to check US power, regain lost influence, and clearly not to minimize the suffering of the Iraqi people.
I think you are well-aware of the distinctions but intentionally like to obfuscate certain facts in order to gain traction for your own baseless anti-US biases.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1312 times:
Ovelix, if he truly feels that way, and cannot consciously stay in government service because of differences with the administration, I applaud him for standing on his convictions, and he should leave the service of an administration that he doesn't agree with.
Nothing "anti-US" about that. Maybe if more people would have done this, this stampede to war wouldn't have taken place. Unfortunately, there is a large sector in office now-mostly GOP-that relishes this chance for another fight with Saddam Hussein. I have not been convinced of this need to rush to war, although, personally, I think war with Saddam is inevitable. But the GOP seems to think otherwise.
Ovelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1309 times:
The fact I pointed is that everything in the Iraq debate that most Europeans here say, it is the same that the US diplomat said too.
A senior US Diplomat, with inside knowledge, says "The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests" or "we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam"
"The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally"
Seems familiar? It is what I and others have been posting here for months. And we were labeled "Anti-americans", even here and now, two posts above, by you. But now, according to you, the diplomat just has "an opinion". Yeah, right.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1301 times:
Ovelix, as far as I'm concerned, this diplomat cares for the United States. You, and the other loud voices on here agianst the U.S. don't give a flying frack about the U.S., it's security, it's interests, or it's safety. That's the difference.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1301 times:
It is his opinion. Just an opinion. I will bet money this guy won't go around saying that the war effort is some grand plan to seize oil fields. Nor would this guy compare Bush to Hitler. That is the difference.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1292 times:
Actually, it is far more credible coming from the mouth of a patriotic American rather than from a cheese-eating-surrender monkey. (One of my favorite terms).
In all seriousness, there is a significant part of this world that is reflexively anti-American. In the eyes of those people, the USA can do no right. Some anti-war folks are motivated by love for this country and others are motivated by their contempt for it.
Ovelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1286 times:
Thank you very much for your kind words.
Aplha, I will give a flying frack about the U.S., it's security, it's interests, or it's safety the day that USA respects the rest of the world's security, interests, and safety. When your SecDef stops insulting countries and Heads of State, when your media stops asociating Iraq and 9/11, when your government stops the systematic distortion of intelligence and systematic manipulation of American opinion.
And, please give your opinion N799, is Mr Kiesling lying, where in his letter says something that is untrue?
Say what you want about me and my "bias" and my motives. It seems that a US (former) senior diplomat and me, share the same view in this particular subject.
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 54 Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1279 times:
But that's inevitable N79969. If you have power that is so far ahead of the rest, then you're going to be held responsible by some for all the ills of the world. If you act, then you shouldn't have done, if you don't act, then why didn't you? Every "superpower" through history has been perceived in the same way, admiring yet contemptuous. It's the penalty for being the most powerful nation.
By the way, I have to say that while the sentiment is just a touch harsh, the term "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" has brought nothing but smiles on this side of the Atlantic (and Channel!)!!
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1270 times:
Aplha, I will give a flying frack about the U.S., it's security, it's interests, or it's safety the day that USA respects the rest of the world's security, interests, and safety.
Translation: the day that the U.S. Government doesn't put the saftey, security and interests of the U.S. and it's people first (which, by the way, is it's primary job), but puts the rest of the world on an equal footing, no matter what the consequences, then I'll support the safety, security and interests of the U.S.
Ovelix, then you'll never give a flying frack about the U.S., because that's not the job of our government. If it's a choice between the people of the U.S. and someone else, the people of the U.S. comes first. It always has, and it always will. And that is true for ANY goverment worth it's salt-Greece included.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1267 times:
You are correct. The US is the proverbial side of the barn. If blame is hurled on any ill in the world, the US will probably be hit. While I accept the reality, I think we have to defend ourselves from the more ludicrous accusations.
Do you really think that you and Mr. Kiesling are motivated by the same feelings? Perhaps, but I seriously doubt it. He has a strong opinion and I respect it because the man is a patriot.
The fact that you share his opinion is almost happenstance given your chronic distrust of this country.
JetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1263 times:
And you America-loathing loud-mouth types like you are precisely why much of the ranting about war is being dismissed by the other side. If you really want genuine messages like the Diplomat's heard, then stuff the 'war-for-oil' & 'daddy's-revenge' crap. No one with any real concern for the outcome takes that nonsense seriously, and I suspect the Diplomat would be the first in line to tell you to stuff it so he may be taken seriously. The left-wing radicals are their own worst enemy. Why else are they trying to convince us that middle-class-never-been-to-a-protest soccer moms are the core of the protests. puu-leeeeze.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1243 times:
What are you talking about? Nothing has really changed. France is still offering useless ideas in the UN at the usual clip and showboating. The difficult debate on how to proceed in Iraq continues in this country.
Do you have dyslexia?
BTW N79969 is a really nice aircraft to fly. If any of you pilots visit Tucson, Arizona and want to go fly, this C172K is a real pleasure to fly. You hardly ever have to trim. I miss that plane.
Ovelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1241 times:
Ovelix, then you'll never give a flying frack about the U.S., because that's not the job of our government. If it's a choice between the people of the U.S. and someone else, the people of the U.S. comes first. It always has, and it always will. And that is true for ANY goverment worth it's salt-Greece included..
Agreed. The problem is that USA, as a superpower, supports and protects its interest by, many times, harming other countries, human rights and international law. As I have many times said, a superpower cannot be a decent country (its government that is) at the same time. I would say exactly the same for USSR's actions if they were still around. Then I would be "anti-american" and "anti-soviet" at the same time. Wow!
Of course Mr Kiesling and I don't share the same views on everything. We happen to agree here.
This is not an opinion-editorial. Mr Kiesling has inside information, had untill recently the role of implementing his country's foreign policy, he loves his country and he is not a liar, as you would agree too. That makes him a reliable source of facts and opinion. The same opinion that many of us here, regardless of motive, have been saying. That "this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally". Ovelix wrote in Dec 15: "9/11 is conveniently used by your government to back you all behind your president"
JetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 12 Reply 22, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1224 times:
"No one with any real concern for the outcome takes that nonsense seriously, ('war-for-oil', 'daddy's revenge').." Yes I do!
Then don't expect to be taken seriously by people that are paying attention. That's stuff is just hysterical anti-bush rhetoric.
"... and I suspect the Diplomat would be the first in line to tell you to stuff it so he may be taken seriously." How do you know? Have you talked to him?
Giving you the benefit of the doubt about your English, when I say "I suspect..", that means I'm guessing based on what I know; I'm not proclaiming a fact, so relax.
"The left-wing radicals are their own worst enemy. Why else are they trying to convince us that middle-class-never-been-to-a-protest soccer moms are the core of the protests." Because YOU are being told by YOUR media WRONG information about the protests that took place in OUR countries.
Riiiiiight. Propaganda. Is that how you explain all opinions that differ from yours? Give it a rest. Get rid of your America-loathing left-wing wackos and let's see who's left. Then we can talk about that.
Ovelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1211 times:
Riiiiiight. Propaganda. Is that how you explain all opinions that differ from yours? Give it a rest. Get rid of your America-loathing left-wing wackos and let's see who's left. Then we can talk about that
Yes propaganda. Why is it so difficult for you to understrand it?
The resigned diplomat says "we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam"
And the Senator says "Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur."
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1208 times:
Because YOU are being told by YOUR media WRONG information about the protests that took place in OUR countries.
God, but nonsense like this gets old. I watched the news after the protests, Schonerama. All were very fair (including Fox, believe it or not), they didn't pepper it with rantings about Anti-Americanism. They reported the marches around the world. They reported the marches here at home. They basically said these were marches protesting a war in Iraq. What more do you want?
Americans don't have government-controlled news sources. There are dozens of major newspapers in cities all over the country; there are 5 major networks on the national level; there are local and national talk shows of all shapes and sizes. Despite your idiotic believe that somehow this isn't the case, and that we can't make up our own minds, as opposed to you obviously superior, open-minded and mature Europeans, what you say here is utter garbage!
25 Ovelix: Another "anti-american" comment by Mr Kiesling. But, of course, Alpah1 and N799 know better than him what happens in Europe.... "I urge you to listen
26 N79969: "Agreed. The problem is that USA, as a superpower, supports and protects its interest by, many times, harming other countries, human rights and intern
27 N79969: Kostas, Mr. Kiesling's statement is precisely an opinion-editorial.
28 Ovelix: N799 the United States stands out as a force for good. Unlike past powers, we have not sought to seize territory and enslave people LOL!!! Excuse me!!
29 JetService: Ovelix, were talking about today's America, not centuries ago. Nearly every country on the planet is "preeminently decent" as N79966 describes. There
30 Ovelix: Ovelix, were talking about today's America, not centuries ago Well, N799 wrote: In history of world, I think the United States stands out as a force f
31 N79969: Ovelix, Your selective ignorance is utterly amazing. The US has not conducted itself like the colonial powers of Europe: Belgium, France, UK, Italy, a
32 Schoenorama: To JetService: "No one with any real concern for the outcome takes that nonsense seriously, ('war-for-oil', 'daddy's revenge').." Yes I do! "Then don'
33 Ovelix: we have the ability and resources to seize land and appoint governors. We have absolutely no desire whatsoever to do that Right. Installing pro-US gen
34 JetService: Ovelix, what has the letter told us that we didn't already know? This doesn't shed light on anything new. All you tried to do with this letter and clo
35 N79969: That is his opinion, great. Big deal. He quit his job. What else do you want to hear? I may agree or disagree with him. It does not matter. "we have t
36 Banco: Simply throwing the "colonialist" line around is a daft way of progressing the argument. The "colonialism was all bad" school of thought is often disc
37 N79969: Banco, You make a good point. However, the US is continually accused of imperialist/neo-colonialist policies by the citizens of the former colonial po
38 Banco: N79969, I did actually read a fascinating article that arued that part of the problem with the USA was that it IS an imperial power (by virtue of bein
39 N79969: Banco, I don't think superpower status axiomatically makes us an imperialist. I think that an imperialist physically seizes land and political power a
40 Banco: I've had a look for the article and can't find it. A shame. No, it wasn't arguing in those terms. What it was saying was that the Us currently has a h
41 N79969: Banco, Another thing that differentiates US policy from true imperialist policies is that benefits flow both ways in our hegemony. Post WWII, we left
42 Banco: Steady now. It wasn't just the US that did that, although you certainly contributed the lion's share. Don't diminish other nations. Brtian bankrupted
43 N79969: None of what I said was meant to detract from Britain's heroic actions in WWII. I certainly appreciate Britain for what it did and what it does today.
44 Banco: Interesting thought. And yet, I would have thought that the US's best interests (which after all is any government's first priority - it's own country
45 N79969: I think that US foreign policy is enlightened self-interest. I don't think the US helped to rebuild Europe simply so they could buy our merchandise. R
46 Banco: "Simply so they could buy our merchandise"? No, I dont think that for a moment. You've summed it up well in calling it enlightened self interest. The
47 Indianguy: I hope Saddam takes the dacha on the Crimean Sea courtesy of Russia. Powell suggested it again yesterday Amen to that! but I would also want to see B