The Nobel Peace Prize

Reagan was not only not responsible for the collapse of the Soviet State, he and his people were stunned when it happened.

Precisely what he and his fellows declared to be impossible happened; the people of Eastern Europe, perceiving that the Soviet State had rotted away from within, simply put an end to it.
They needed no help from without. It was over, and everyone knew it.

Except Reagan.

 

Joseph argues:
Oh yeah, but Arafat is totally legitimate, right?

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, I can't agree with you on that one.

So was I. That's the hazard you have to accept when you build strawmen, Joseph. They tend to turn on you. Be smarter next time.

Um, it was Reagan and Daddy Bush who gave support to Saddam, not Clinton. They knew that he was brutalizing his people, gasing Kurds, and all the rest, and they gave him military and intelligence support.

Would you like to learn about it?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reagan freed millions of people in Russian and Europe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C'mon, Joseph. Remember who you're talking to. Reagan's advisors had the good sense to continue the policy of containment that (as George Marshall predicted) would eventually bring down the Soviet State. That's about it. In the end, the people of the Warsaw pact freed themselves, because the Soviets during the 70s bankrupted the system.[/QUOTE]

Nope. You are wrong. Containment didn't bring down the Soviet Union. Reagan confronting the evil empire and giving an international voice to the millions of double thinkers, dissidents, and political prisoners in the USSR did.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharansky was a political dissident in the Soviet Union who fought to make it a free society and gain the freedom to emigrate for the Jewish Refuseniks. He continues to fight today for Democracy and human rights all around the world, including for the Palestinian people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sharansky is a fine man. But he has not been as successful as Carter in promoting peace.[/QUOTE]

Actually, he has been quite successful working as a dissident in the Soviet Union in promoting peace.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush did not start the war. The terrorists did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've confused Iraq and Afghanistan, again.[/QUOTE]

You have mistakenly separated the war on international terror, again. It is not just an issue in Afganistan. As has been discussed before, it is very clear that Saddam harbored and supported terrorists linked to Al Quaeda like Abu Nidal before the war in Iraq began. I know you really don't like to focus on that reality because it doesn't help your pacifist detente ideology, and also helps justify your willingness to turn a blind eye to the human rights atrocities under Saddam. But, I will continue to bring it up as long as you try to ignore it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, Bush has freed million of people from tyranny and terror
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you learned earlier, he has made it impossible for the Christian community in Iraq, and they are fleeing in droves. He has also made it possible for terrorism to gain a foothold in Iraq, to the point that elections may have to be delayed.[/QUOTE]


Elections will not be delayed and a fear society will fall and give way to a free society. Democracy will overcome tyranny and terror in Iraq just as it did (under Bush's watch) in Afganistan. If you would like to debate the Iraqi Christian situation, perhaps you might consider going back to that thread and answering the several posts which have recently been made by others and myself. Or, are you avoiding that thread for some reason?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and is building Democracy in Iraq. This more than qualifies him as a peacemaker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People who start wars are never going to be regarded as peacemakers. No matter how much spin goes into it.[/QUOTE]

Once again, that is your opinion. However, I would argue America brought about peace in Germany by going to war with them. Lincoln brought about the beginning of civil rights for Black Americans with the Civil War. Today, even you cannot dispute the fact that millions of people who were once oppressed by the Taliban and Saddam are now building free societies. Afganistan just held free elections where for the first time in a long time, women were allowed to vote. I know this doesn't seem like such a great thing here in America where we take many things for granted. But in Afganistan, it is tremendous. Freedom is overcoming tyranny and terror in Afganistan. Further, Iraqis no longer are filling millions of mass graves. There are no more rape rooms sponsored by the Iraqi government. There are no more people have their tongues cut out, or being put feet first in a shredder machine so the thug government officials could listen to them scream as they were being chopped to bits. No. As bad as you might like us to believe things are right now under the evil Americans, your message really doesn't ring very true to reality. Your message has about as much basis in reality as the message of Michael Moore, Moveon.org, and John Kerry. And finally, free elections will occur on time, or possibly even early (as we witnessed back in June with the handover of power) in Iraq and democracy will take root and will grow from there. And your theories of containment will hopefully be consigned to the ash heap of history along with Communism and the tyranny and terror of the fear societies that the Taliban and Saddam worked so hard to maintain.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your mistake is to think that lasting peace only comes through detente and peace treaties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said that, but then your specialty is strawmen.[/QUOTE]

If peace is not achieved through confronting evil and defeating it, then how do you think it is achieved? Containment? Relaxation of strained relations? This is detente. It doesn't work BTW.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask Israel how well that policy has worked for them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's been an extraordinarily successful process. Egypt continues to be at peace with Israel. They trade, and visit each other's countries. Recently, when an Israeli patrol mistook some Egyptian soldiers for terrorists, and shot them, the two governments handled it with calmness and reason. Of course, you have to remember, that the Bush agreements were not handled with the same degree of skill that the Camp David agreements were.[/QUOTE]

Yes Camp David. Gave the Palestinians 90% of what they wanted with no call for democratic reforms in human rights for the people of the Palestinians. Let's see. What was the outcome of those negotiations? I believe Arafat referred to it as the second intifada. Only a fool or pro-terrorist supporter believes that agreement was a success.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Barbarian observes:
C'mon, Joseph. Remember who you're talking to. Reagan's advisors had the good sense to continue the policy of containment that (as George Marshall predicted) would eventually bring down the Soviet State. That's about it. In the end, the people of the Warsaw pact freed themselves, because the Soviets during the 70s bankrupted the system.

You think that scared the Soviets into being good? Real leaders did that before. Churchill, Truman, Kennedy. Didnt' work. What did work was containing the Soviets until the system rotted from within.

What happened was what Reagan and his people said could never happen. The people of Eastern Europe, seeing that the Soviets had lost the means and therefore the will to hold them, just took down the system themselves.

Barbarian observes:
Sharansky is a fine man. But he has not been as successful as Carter in promoting peace.

Carter didn't "promote" peace. He made it happen.
good intentions are praiseworthy, but results count.

Barbarian observes:
You've confused Iraq and Afghanistan, again.

C'mon, Joseph, even Bush has now admitted that Saddam played no part in 9/11. Save it for someone gullible.

When Joseph gets in trouble, he pulls out the straw and starts stuffing. I'm not a pacifist, and I think detente was a mutual fraud. But you already knew that, didn't you?

I already told you that Saddam was brutal and a dictator, and evil. You're thinking about Reagan and Bush...

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:
The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
National Security Archive, George Washington University.

Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis...Iran had submitted a draft resolution asking the U.N. to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use. The U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to lobby friendly delegations in order to obtain a general motion of "no decision" on the resolution. If this was not achievable, the U.S. delegate was to abstain on the issue.

There's a lot more. Reagan's appeasement strategy failed with Iran,and it failed with Iraq.
But it did require him to look the other way when Saddam used gas on his own people and on the Iranians, and to provide military aid under the table.

Glad we could air that out, Joseph. The above is only a small part of it. Would you like to hear more?

Barbarian on the consequences of Bush's war:
As you learned earlier, he has made it impossible for the Christian community in Iraq, and they are fleeing in droves. He has also made it possible for terrorism to gain a foothold in Iraq, to the point that elections may have to be delayed.

That would be good. But given the latest round of bombings, that seems unlikely.

Barbarian observes:
People who start wars are never going to be regarded as peacemakers. No matter how much spin goes into it

(Joseph again tries to conflate Afghanistan and Iraq)

Sorry. You aren't going to get by with that.

Ah, strawman number...? Do you really believe Americans are evil, Joseph? Or were you pretending I did?

Barbarian observes:
I never said that, but then your specialty is strawmen.

Carter did it by taking the leaders of Israel and Egypt and having them sit down and talk it out until they got to a workable peace with each other. Granted, that's way beyond Bush's ability, but it's the best way.

Beats having WWIII. And we won. Results count.

Without real progress in settling differences, that does no good. Even Bush can relax relations. Getting a lasting peace is for better men than Bush.

Barbarian observes:
It's been an extraordinarily successful process. Egypt continues to be at peace with Israel. They trade, and visit each other's countries. Recently, when an Israeli patrol mistook some Egyptian soldiers for terrorists, and shot them, the two governments handled it with calmness and reason. Of course, you have to remember, that the Bush agreements were not handled with the same degree of skill that the Camp David agreements were.

A lasting peace between Israel, and the greatest of the Arab military powers. It essentially ended any possibility of another general Arab/Israeli war. The most powerful of Israel's enemies ended their hostilities.

Only a fool or a pro-terrorist supporter believes that it is not. What offends you so much about Israel's most powerful enemy making peace with them?

I think I know. A democrat made it happen. So, therefore, it must be wrong, even if it greatly increased Israeli security.

Your principles should be more compelling than your political biases.

 

The greatest peacemakers on earth today are our men and women in uniform. Diplomats are only as effective as the implied force behind them. Finishing wars has established some rather long lasting instances of peace on earth. To the true peacemakers let us give thanks!

So long as we're on the right side, and there's no other reasonable choice, let's do whatever it takes to win the wars we have to fight. These are just wars. So long as this nation continues to walk in the ways of the Lord - which is always at risk - He will bless and protect us.

Patrick

 

There is a link between Rumsfeld and Saddam, as you see above. Should we then bomb the Pentagon? In fact there is a link between George W. Bush and Osama, a much tighter one than between Saddam and Osama. (Osama's brother bailed young Dubya out of a financial bind) "Links" are easy, and useful for those who wish to be deceptive. Showing that Saddam and Osama were collaborating is quite another thing.

Joseph tries a little false witness...

Barbarian observes:
When Joseph gets in trouble, he pulls out the straw and starts stuffing. I'm not a pacifist, and I think detente was a mutual fraud. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Barbarian notes that the best use of military power comes from gaining your objective without using it. War is always better than no war, if you can meet your objectives without it. If that's pacifism, some of the greatest generals in history were pacifists.

It worked. We won.

No, Barbarian opposed detente, but that obviously will not stop Joseph from misrepresenting what Barbarian thinks, in spite of numerous reminders. It does not reflect well on Joseph's character.

Because Barbarian feels wars are sometimes worth it. I supported Bush's war, until I discovered that he lied to us about why he wanted it.

You know that I'm not a pacifist. I've advocated military action in the past in threads you've commented on. C'mon, Joseph. Everyone knows it. You know it. Be a man and admit it.

I already told you that Saddam was brutal and a dictator, and evil. You're thinking about Reagan and Bush.

No, you just made that up. I said that he left them alone, not because he was being benevolent, but because he didn't care about religion, and as long as they didn't get in his way, it didn't matter to him.

See above. You aren't a very honest person, Joseph.

You invented an opinion for me, and then pointed out that it contradicts what I really think. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt if you will be, even now that you got caught.

"Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:
The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
National Security Archive, George Washington University.

Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis...Iran had submitted a draft resolution asking the U.N. to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use. The U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to lobby friendly delegations in order to obtain a general motion of "no decision" on the resolution. If this was not achievable, the U.S. delegate was to abstain on the issue.

Barbarian observes:
There's a lot more. Reagan's appeasement strategy failed with Iran,and it failed with Iraq.

But it did require him to look the other way when Saddam used gas on his own people and on the Iranians, and to provide military aid under the table.

Read the link. It's all there.

It was gutless and immoral, to be precise. Just like his attempt to win the favor of the Iranians by supplying them with arms they wanted. At the same time, they were torturing to death a US CIA station chief, and laughing at how stupid we were.

Barbarian observes:
I never said that, but then your specialty is strawmen.

Barbarian observes:
Carter did it by taking the leaders of Israel and Egypt and having them sit down and talk it out until they got to a workable peace with each other. Granted, that's way beyond Bush's ability, but it's the best way.

Barbarian observes:
Beats having WWIII. And we won. Results count.

Barbarian observes:
Without real progress in settling differences, that does no good. Even Bush can relax relations. Getting a lasting peace is for better men than Bush.

Barbarian observes:
It's been an extraordinarily successful process. Egypt continues to be at peace with Israel. They trade, and visit each other's countries. Recently, when an Israeli patrol mistook some Egyptian soldiers for terrorists, and shot them, the two governments handled it with calmness and reason. Of course, you have to remember, that the Bush agreements were not handled with the same degree of skill that the Camp David agreements were.

I'm talking about the Camp David accords in which a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt was accomplished.

Barbarian observes:
A lasting peace between Israel, and the greatest of the Arab military powers. It essentially ended any possibility of another general Arab/Israeli war. The most powerful of Israel's enemies ended their hostilities.

There will not be another general Arab Israeli war unless Egypt reneges. That seems unlikely now.

Barbarian observes:
Only a fool or a pro-terrorist supporter believes that it is not. What offends you so much about Israel's most powerful enemy making peace with them?

I think I know. A democrat made it happen. So, therefore, it must be wrong, even if it greatly increased Israeli security.

Your principles should be more compelling than your political biases.

In fact, Egypt and Israel remain at peace. That is an outstanding success, one that takes away the option of a conventional war against Israel.

You find peace offensive, when it is a democrat who accomplishes it. In fact, Israel still considers the peace between Israel and Egypt to be a great triumph. And it is. For both nations.

And for Carter. He has the gratitude and the admiration of the world for that accomplishment. And you are furious that Bush will never have that kind of respect.

That's how it goes. He could do it, if he could make his roadmap work. But he has no one in his administration capable at that level.

So it won't happen while he's in office. That's how it is. We both know it. Get used to it.

 

I don't pay too much attention to Galatian's comments having had my fill of them some time ago. No offense intended to him by that comment. It's not that I don't like him - I don't really know him well enough to draw that conclusion - but I just don't like his political observations and conclusions. We're on opposite sides of most issues I'd guess.

However, he's entitled to his express his thoughts and I don't really believe he's dishonest by intent although he does seem to enjoy playing with the words sometimes and that is frustrating. But, hey, we all probably do a bit of that from time to time.

On the other hand, I do find much commonality with your political positions Joseph although I don't really know you well either. I just usually - not always - like the positions you take and find your side of debate far more believable. We seem to be on the same side of the bigger issues.

I encourage you both not to get too personal with your comments and let those emotions that are easy to flare in politics get the best of either of you. The "he said, then I said, then he said, etc." discussions are really not likely to be sorted out in this forum and will probably turn off people quicker than one side of a debate or the other.

Hopefully we all have commonality in the one true God that is our Lord, Savior, and Guide. We should probably focus on that much more than we do and cut each other a lot more slack. Yet I know that's not easy. I consider myself no better, finding myself too argumentative at times, so the same advice applies to me.

Patrick

 

Joseph, you wouldn't get in trouble, if you didn't spend so much effort misrepresenting what people believe.

It automatically pegs you as dishonest when you do it after being corrected. There's no way to sugarcoat that observation.

 

No Joseph. Not everyone does it. And even if they did, it wouldn't justify you doing it.

 

C'mon, Joseph. You continued to falsely attribute opinions to me after you were corrected several times. There is no way to do that honestly.

You've realized what sort of impression you've made by doing that. But there's no way to erase it.

Next time, be careful.

 

I see no benefit in leaving this thread open, so now it's closed.
Gina