On Tuesday, December 30, 2003, at 01:30 PM, John Lee wrote:

> How about we institute a rule I try to live by...that is, you can't
> simply
> criticize someone else's thoughts, ideas, or actions without offering a
> counter-proposal that you think is better.  We can all sit and play
> armchair quarterback and pretend we know everything, but let's back it
> up
> with something concrete.  Instead of contributing to the problem, offer
> some alternative solutions.  Then we move forward instead of splashing
> around aimlessly.

It's not a question of playing "armchair quarterback". It's a question
of reviewing history. A year ago there was a large body of "counter
proposals".  Many people urged Bush to be less impatient about the
inspections for WMDs and criticized his urgency to go to war. They
suggested he use more diplomacy and acquire more support from the UN.
He also rejected Saddam's offer to allow more and greater WMD
inspections. Bush chose to reject all such opportunities for more
peaceful solutions to the Iraqi problems. He denigrated the UN calling
it irrelevant. Many of the folks who made those suggestions were
ignored and simply called anti-war and anti-US.

Few people are anti-war in the absolute sense. They all realize that
war can, at times, become necessary. They just want to be sure it IS
necessary before resorting to it.

Bush was the one who "pretended to know everything". His critics were
the ones who wanted him to "back it up with something concrete" BEFORE
embarking on a war.

Those were the "alternative solutions" which Bush chose to ignore. The
criticism is well deserved.

FW

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *