Gerald Ford: "I don't think I would have gone to war"

[Mad Chemist]

You're argument is ridiculous on the face of it. 'If living under a dictatorship is so onerous?' I could care less if 99% of the people in Whogivesacrapistan absolutely love living under a dictatorship; the 1% who don't a) are having their rights violated and b) likely don't have a mechanism to address that themselves. So yes, I call for outside interference, the same way I believe in "interfering" when somebody's beating their wife or or robbing someone or kicking the crap out of a dog. Whether that interferance take the form of removing the oppressive government, dropping in weapons by the pallet load, applying economic and diplomatic pressure, or helping those people leave depends on the situation. You make the statement like it's some sort of dichotomy, self determination or assistance; like you can't have both, which is nonsensical. Your call to 'leave them to choose their own course' is shorthand for 'I got mine, screw them'.

This doesn't make any sense. Trample the rights of the 99% in order to help the 1% that agree with you. Smells like freedom to me.
However, if there is a popular uprising (like the Shia rebellion after Gulf War1) then support should be lent.
SELF DETERMINATION that's the key. It's impossible to liberate people who don't mind subjugation. An active widespread resistance movement is necessary to unify people, prevent intervention from being seen as occupation, and to set the foundation for a STABLE and POPULAR govt. If there is no active resistance then thaere is no basis to support "regime change". It doesn't matter how terrible the the existing government is.

 

[ceetee]

You're argument is ridiculous on the face of it. 'If living under a dictatorship is so onerous?' I could care less if 99% of the people in Whogivesacrapistan absolutely love living under a dictatorship; the 1% who don't a) are having their rights violated and b) likely don't have a mechanism to address that themselves.

So who ya gonna go after next? Do you have some vast list with every tyrant's name on it, ranked in order from "most despicable" to "least"? If those 99% of that country's population are satisfied with their system, then the remaining 1% should either rise up, shut up, or leave.

So yes, I call for outside interference, the same way I believe in "interfering" when somebody's beating their wife or or robbing someone or kicking the crap out of a dog.

So you go fight. Don't send my kids.

If you can't understand that seeing someone beating his wife is entirely different than invading a sovereign nation, then you need cleaner glasses. You go fight.

Whether that interferance take the form of removing the oppressive government, dropping in weapons by the pallet load, applying economic and diplomatic pressure, or helping those people leave depends on the situation.

But that's not what you're calling for, is it? There's also a vast difference between helping a subjugated people rise up, and being an invading army. I'm all for helping slaves free themselves. I'm not gonna go free them myself, because they'll just pick a new master once I'm gone.

Your call to 'leave them to choose their own course' is shorthand for 'I got mine, screw them'

I never wrote "leave them"... I wrote "Let them be free."

 

[junyo]

This doesn't make any sense. Trample the rights of the 99% in order to help the 1% that agree with you. Smells like freedom to me.

You're not trampling to rights of anyone. Just because most people agree to strip that 1% of it's rights, doesn't make it legitimate; it's just the tyranny of the masses, and one of the reasons straight democracy doesn't work. Since they never had a right to impose their government upon the minority, removing their power to impose it deprives them of nothing.

 

[Thin Black Line]

I knew this would be coming and it is very simple old boy. The people I mentioned are idiots, and I gave examples of it. The President is not.

+1. The current president makes Machiavelli blush with envy --and that's
quite hard for a skull to do.....

 

[ceetee]

You're not trampling to rights of anyone. Just because most people agree to strip that 1% of it's rights, doesn't make it legitimate; it's just the tyranny of the masses, and one of the reasons straight democracy doesn't work. Since they never had a right to impose their government upon the minority, removing their power to impose it deprives them of nothing.

Using that logic, anyone that didn't vote for Bushco has every reason to revolt against the government, regardless of the rule of law. Since "straight democracy" doesn't work, what would you prefer? A monarchy? A communist state? What? :banghead:

 

[junyo]

So who ya gonna go after next? Do you have some vast list with every tyrant's name on it, ranked in order from "most despicable" to "least"?

Actually, yeah, I do.

If those 99% of that country's population are satisfied with their system, then the remaining 1% should either rise up, shut up, or leave.

So you can be be deprived of your rights by popular opinion. Gotcha.

So you go fight. Don't send my kids.

If you can't understand that seeing someone beating his wife is entirely different than invading a sovereign nation, then you need cleaner glasses. You go fight.

If your kids don't want to fight they probably shouldn't join the completely voluntary military. Either that, or by your logic, if sufficient number of us say that should go, they can either "rise up, shut up, or leave."

But that's not what you're calling for, is it?

Since I wrote it, I think I am.

There's also a vast difference between helping a subjugated people rise up, and being an invading army.

Yep, one is a goal, the other is a possible method. Your willing to give lip service to the goal, but limit the possible methods available to achieve it.

I'm not gonna go free them myself, because they'll just pick a new master once I'm gone.

All that and psychic too.

I never wrote "leave them"... I wrote "Let them be free."

...as long as it involves no effort on your part. With a world of good intentions and a nickel you've got... a nickel.

 

[junyo]

Using that logic, anyone that didn't vote for Bushco has every reason to revolt against the government, regardless of the rule of law. Since "straight democracy" doesn't work, what would you prefer? A monarchy? A communist state? What?

The US is not a straight democracy, and never has been. It's a constitutional republic where individual rights supercede popular consent.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Of course, EX-President Ford was not privy to the intelligence that convinced Bush and Rumsfeld to go to war so his opinion is largely irrelevant. I just think it is disgusting that if he were in agreement to it, the media wouldn't even mention it.
IMHO, the WMD thing was just a smokescreen. The real reason was to give the terror networks a target as far away from the US mainland as possible equipped with the people best able to deal with it. And to me, that's reason enough.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Of course, EX-President Ford was not privy to the intelligence that convinced Bush and Rumsfeld to go to war so his opinion is largely irrelevant.

Considering this year's Senate report that pre-war intel was manipulated it
also goes to show that the truth and the real reasons for going to war were
irrelevant

 

[gopguy]

I just think it is disgusting that if he were in agreement to it, the media wouldn't even mention it.

Phil you nailed it on the head. Just another chance for the lib media to bash Bush. Had Ford agreed would would not hear about it.....

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Reading what little has been published of that four hour interview, I feel that Ford's responses were very well crafted. That leads me to believe there is more to this. I'd like to see all that was said about this issue in that interview - including Woodward's questions - in order to put it all into context. I get the impression that only that which tends to demonstrate that Ford disagreed with going to war in Iraq has been released. I believe Ford might have been taken enough out of context here to support the anti-war agenda.

As long as Woodward holds on to the interview and spoons out only that which he wishes, well, I'll take all this with a grain of salty skepticism.

Woody

It doesn't matter how big or small the pile. If it smells like it, it is it.

 

[Clipper]

"Don't send my kids"...

...That's what it usually boils down to. Mamma & Daddy expected junior to go into the service, get paid, clothed, housed & fed, get free dental & medical, learn a skill & how to get along without mommy & Daddy holding their hand every second and even get help with college during and after their service. But we didn't plan on them having to go in harm's way! That's unfair!!!

It's enough to make me sick. The average soldier serving in Iraq is doing an heroic job in hideous conditions, and generally supportive of the mission, while there are thousands of parents here (most of whom don't even have kids in the service) who undermine what they do, and dishonor the memory and sacrifice of the dead. Believe me...Those kids knew the job was dangerous when they took it...I did, and these kids do too.

Nobody has to enlist. However, I have always supported a return of the draft...Not to fill the ranks of fighting soldiers, but to require all young people to complete Basic Training. Run 'em through basic and teach them to get along without Mommy & Daddy, take responsibility for themselves, be a member of a team, learn to shoot & maintain weapons and discover they're tools, not evil murder-makers. Then turn 'em loose with that quick life lesson and let those who want to, stay. I think we'd have a new generation of adults with at least a clue...But Mommy & Daddy have spent too much time lacing up those apron strings to allow that...Junior might want to move out of the basement and have a life of his/her own...