04-08-2003, 08:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2003, 04:18 PM by Occhidiangela.)
No bile, no sneering. Been a bit testy with you, so I shall not be so in this post. ;)
The last time I checked, people die in a war. Take a look at the link Kandarthe put up about the Iran-Iraq war. Nothing changes without a price. As to whether or not the Iraqi's 'want to be liberated' that is an open question to which I do not pretend to have an answer, not sure where you get your confidence that they all love their leaders. The Kurds for sure do not. (Check my posts and comments for the last month about 'how do you impose democracy at the point of a bayonet.') Our own freedom from the Brits cost lives, as did the eventual freedom of the slaves via the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, and so on. The Vietnamese paid a heavy price for their efforts to shake off the influence of The West in the shape of the French and the US. If, and this is a huge if, the outcome of this conflict is that Iraq is a 'freer' place (nebulous term, really) perhaps that cost will have been worth it. Freedom is not free. The long term benefit that the administration claims will evolve remains to be seen. You are not the only skeptic on that one.
Don't try to put words in my mouth. The decisions, and in the case of ignoring helicopters in the cease fire provision, errors, made by then Pres Bush and his Generals at the end of the 1991 war are a matter or record (So is the Bay of Pigs) as well as a matter of global politics of the time. IIMO, the decision to stop when we did was pointless, but hey, I was not President. :P The why and wherefores have been under discussion ever since, and you touch on an important topic: how sincere is Any American in caring for the average soul in Iraq, the guy who fixes the plumbing, the guy who runs a small pick up and delivery service, the guy whose son just got conscripted, the guy who runs the grocery? If the Americans, as a matter of policy, 'get in and get out and then wish them all well' a golden chance to build a constructive relationship, as we did in Japan, will have been lost.
The legal basis for going back in now is simple in the extreme. The cease fire agreement that ended the 1991 conflict, which meant that 'if you abide by this we stop shooting at you' has been violated by one party, at last count some 17 times, so action is being taken. Whether or not that is the only possible action is an excellent topic for discussion, but the illegality is blatantly false. The Wisdom of it? Well, that is a very good question.
One true, one false.
1. Yep, when he was gassing Iranians, looks like we, and MUCh OF EUROPE, took a passive stance because we did not like Iran either. (You did notice that the French kept selling Saddam F-1 fighters did you not, during the Iran Iraq war? See Kandarthe's link, good summary.) Do you forget the hostage crisis of 1979-1980? 444 Days where our Embassy Staff was held prisoner? I remember it vividly. That criminal act had an immense influence on our crappy relations with Iran then, and I suggest that it colors our relations with them even now. Politics is real life, not idealism, at work, and it makes for strange partnerships. We partnered with the biggest murderer in history, Joe Stalin, to deal with another SOB. We provided some support to Iraq and its SOB, last I recall was conventional bombs and artillery shells, due to another SOB, Ayatollah Khomenei, he of the Hostage Embassy fame.
2. We supplied Iraq with no chem or bio weapons. You are dead wrong, sorry, and living The Lie. I challenge you to prove that claim with fact, rather than rumor, which I am pretty sure you can't. Please remember who his primary arms supplier was for years: Soviet Union. Please remember who supplied Iran and Lybia with the methods to make gas: German firms. I am not sure if they were in Iraq, don't know. Who sold Iraq planes and missiles that he used to attack neutral shipping the Gulf for years? France. So, how about checking your facts on this one, OK? The US did not Arm Saddam, not in any substantial means, others took care of that.
1. Forgot to plan humanitarian aid? Who? The UN? What was the aim of the campaign? Take out the Taliban. OK, that was done. Find the Al Qaeda? On going. Are you asserting that no aid is being provided by the US to any one in Afghanistan? Your assertion is rather loose. Who asserts that it was not in the plan? Have you read CenCom's plan for the Afghanistan campaign? Sounds like outsiders who know nothing spouting off. I am curious: are you saying that there was no planning, or planning that had shortcomings or needed revision once the reality on the ground become more plain? Two different matters entirely.
2. To assert the action in Afghanistan as a religious crusade strikes me as an amazing leap of illogic. What started as pure payback to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, for 9-11, is turning into what anyone could have predicted: Afghan politics return to the very tumultuous and multifaction state of play present before the Soviets showed up in 1979-1980. (The fact that OBL had Massoud killed a few days before the 9-11 helped NO ONE in Afghanistan. He was a pretty popular guy with a lot of the factions. ) That the current state of play surprises anyone saddens me. The military operations continue, as I understand it, in the continued hunt for Al Qaeda and Taliban folks. Payback for 9-11 ala a needle in a haystack.
OK, GWB is an avowed Christian. How does it follow that he pursues the Afghan as a religious conquest when the very people he is now supporting are also Muslim???? Eh? Bill Clinton asked for clerical help over that silly Lewinski matter, but it does not follow that his subsequent decision to shoot missiles at Saddam was anti Muslim, or that his decision to Bomb Belgrade was anti Serbian Orthodox (such few as were left after 50 years of Communism).
Let's see, you consider the war immoral. OK, I look at the situation and accept that war is one of many possible ways to solve a regional and global security problem. If you assert that 'war is never the answer,' you play into the hands of international dictators the world over, since with that passivity there is no threat to their continued existence and power.
Is war the best answer?
Excellent question.
I do not have the answer, but it is a method. Check history, you will find that GW Bush is not the only American to use armed force. You just don't like him, so to you the war must be wrong because he is using it as a tool.
Try Woodrow Wilson . . . and others. Look particularly at what Wilson and other progressives, Democrats, did in the name of progress with armed force. Consider that FDR, when assistant Secretary of the Navy, was kind enough to draft, for the folks of Haiti, a constitution. It is called "the Export of Jefferson's Revolution" and is consistent with the American character.
You might consider this:
(Credit: Mr Woolsley provided this framework as a way to look at a certain historical flow. It aint airtight, but an interesting perspective)
World War I: a few democracies and a bunch of Empires in War. Outcome: More Democracies
World War II: A few more democracies and some Dictators in War. Outcome: Even more Democracies.
World War III (Cold War): Two Superpowers in ideological conflict, outcome, more democracies (See Eastern Europe and others, including, finally Chile and El Salvador)
World War IV: The 60+ % of global Governments who are genuine representative governments versus . . . who? Dictators remaining, including some Islamists (not Muslims, it is a political descriptive for those who use a form of Muslim theocracy to impose dictatorship, just as the Pope used to.) In this regard, OBL and his extranational network are a viable political force to be dealt with, just as Franco's Spain or Hitler's Germany was a political force to be addressed, or Milosevic's Serbia.
You have just reaffirmed why embargoes are rarely effective, even though the UN uses them. Blockade and embargo is one of the few methods of coercion short of war that is a UN sanctioned action aimed at getting governments to abide by their responsibilities. At the international level, which assumes the identity and sovereignty of each nation, even if a dictator is in charge, the responsibility is assumed, under the UN model of sovereign status and mutual obligation, governmental accountability and responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. Saddam screwed his own people out of their food, he had the dough to provide it. He used the food as a political weapon.
Do you remember the Haiti situation in early 1990's, when General Cedras tossed JB Aristide out on his arse, the freely elected under UN observers JB Aristide? That embargo did not work either, so WE SENT IN TROOPS, in concert with OAS, whose imminent arrival, and the good efforts of Carter and Powell on behalf of President Clinton, convinced General Cedras and friends to GTFO.
See above about the incorrectness of the 'illegal' issue, or those in the coalition who did show up would not have bothered. That dog won't hunt. However, the fact that the US will act, at long last after 12 years of trusting the international community to enforce UN Sec Council actions, merely highlights the inability of the UN, without immense force of leadership, to overcome inertia on difficult security challenges within its area of influence. You do remember how much effort G Bush, Senior, had to put into building that coalition that he put together? It did not come about on its own, and in that case, a sovereign nation, Kuwait, had been invaded and despoiled. It took extreme efforts to do anything about that one, by a man who was far more experienced in international affairs.
In getting 'international' law or the 'international order' to stick or be taken seriously, some one has to shoulder the burden. That is how multilateral action works.
Back to: was war the only way? Probably not, but thanks to a serious amount of blatant actions of self interest on the part of everysecurity council member, the question was: what action will actually bring about any change? And what was the point of 1441 if not to take further action? And following that logic, is the UN relevant as a collective security organ? If the US plays it right (no guarantees there) it can leverage any success in Iraq into greater support for UN authority. It will take some finesse, but given that such is the direction that Prime Minister Blair thinks he can take it, it is possible. We shall see if there is any statecraft left inside the Beltway, and if Blair gets his payback for his support.
Yes, we use the veto, like France or Russia or England or China, because we get to. It is in the UN charter. (Hint: you do remember who created the UN?) So the point is what, here? That France has less frequently felt the need to use a veto. OK. They are also a lesser player on the international stage over the past 60 years.
*Sigh* Right. $260-320 billion dollar defense budget is how much of $850 billion? Check your math. But on that topic, you have to remember that when the US goes in to help NATO or UN in Bosnia, Kosovo, LIberia, Bangla Desh, et al, it aint cheap. No point in showing up crappily equipped and poorly trained, because then more people die, not less.
And what about folks who get their 'facts' from internet sites without indulging in any critical thinking? And 'Huh?' to murderers in our government? War is not murder, even though people die in war, it is a political act that has lawful basis in the Geneva Accords and even under the UN Charter. Or do you refer to some other issue that I am missing?
Interesting numbers. Do you refer to new weapons, do you refer to dollar amounts, or total volume of sales? Do you include such things as trucks and utility helicopters? Our biggest competitors, in any case, are the French and Russians. :)
Our regime changes every four years, or every eight years, peacefully. You and Senator Kerry both know that. :)
You do raise an interesting point, though, even if you don't realize it, and one which is raised all the time: what role should the U.S. play in the world, a world where the goal, but not the reality, is that we all wish to hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and turn all swords into plowshares?
The problem every government here, be it Clinton, Carter, LBJ, Reagan, whoever, has to solve, is what combination of economic, informational, and military strength is used to back up its diplomatic efforts to further our own economic and physical security? That responsibility is laid on them so that they look after the interests of the American people within the context of international affairs. That is in their job description.
Some, apparently yourself included, would suggest a far more isolationist policy, a retrenching. To adopt that stance also means to accept added risk, and to use hope as a method of dealing with uncertainty, as in 'I hope things work out.' The danger of doing that is that we can see happen globally what happened locally in Europe in the interwar period: the world gets more chaotic and violent thanks to our indifference or inaction. Since our way of life is inextricably tied to our nation trading globally, true since and before its inception as a natioin, we cannot ignore the world we hope to trade with.
Now, you assert that this war is unnecessary.
You are not alone.
It may solve one problem, and will very likely create others. I think you and I will agree on that point in any case, and you do realize that any action taken in the political arena has risks. The risk in the current action is that the outcome, the post conflict middle east and for that matter the post conflict world, will be worse off than we were February 28th of this year. I have no idea if that is true or false, and I see that you are very uncomfortable with that uncertainty. I am not, I grew up in the Cold War, and knew that any day if the folks in the Kremlin and the White House lost their grip on relaity, we were all atomic dust. This is child's play in comparison, although in reality it is in no way anything but a serious matter.
In questioning the wisdom of using war as a tool you are in pretty good company with a guy named Daniel Ellsberg, who has been peacefully protesting this war since some time before it started. You may lack his logic and eloquence, I find his views on all of this very thought provoking, but he is in your camp: he considers this course of action unwise in the long term, and a failure of statecraft in the short term.
If a few hundred Iraqi's die in this war, besides the soldiers, it will still be under the annual average of 3-5000 Iraqi's who annually die at the hands of the Baathist regime. One year later, that makes for a better Iraq already. (I refer to some discussion on CSpan with CIA Director under Pres Clinton by name of Woolsley. I confess that I am not sure how he arrived at that figure, or if he was including war deaths in Iran-Iraq in his averages, but his coomments seem to be backed up by the link that Kandarthe provided a few posts up in re Human Rights Watch.)
When and if 'smoking gun' of NBC weapons (the term WMD is too imprecise for my liking) march into the international court of public opinion, will the course of action seem better to you?
Were you willing to wait until another great building in New York blows up? That may hapen anyway, regardless of action in Iraq. I do not know what, if any, link Saddam has to Al Qaeda specifically, but I do know that
Iran sponsors Hezbollah
Syria sponsors, or once sponsored Islamic Jihad (need to check that one out)
Edit: Just to flesh this out.
Saddam Hussein sends/ has sent money (I believe those reports) to suicide bombers in Israel.
And, FWIW, Americans in Boston and New York, civilians, not the government, habitually send money every year to Ireland to support the IRA, who blow up buildings and cars in London and kill innocent civilians. (At any rate, that was their habit, the seem to have chilled out a bit lately. Good on them)
History moves forward, friend Grumpy. The price for inaction is sometimes extreme. The price for action is often high. In any case, there is no free lunch.
Quote:We, the US military, are killing Iraqi citizens. They do not want to be "liberated"...that is a lie. Like so many other things being told to the US people by our govenrment and the so called "news".
The last time I checked, people die in a war. Take a look at the link Kandarthe put up about the Iran-Iraq war. Nothing changes without a price. As to whether or not the Iraqi's 'want to be liberated' that is an open question to which I do not pretend to have an answer, not sure where you get your confidence that they all love their leaders. The Kurds for sure do not. (Check my posts and comments for the last month about 'how do you impose democracy at the point of a bayonet.') Our own freedom from the Brits cost lives, as did the eventual freedom of the slaves via the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, and so on. The Vietnamese paid a heavy price for their efforts to shake off the influence of The West in the shape of the French and the US. If, and this is a huge if, the outcome of this conflict is that Iraq is a 'freer' place (nebulous term, really) perhaps that cost will have been worth it. Freedom is not free. The long term benefit that the administration claims will evolve remains to be seen. You are not the only skeptic on that one.
Quote:You bring up Shiia, you fail to mention that we encouraged them to rise up against Saddam in 1991 and then abandoned them to be slaughtered. Another kind move by the US governemt, as if we even pretend to care about the Iraqi citizens. Quit spouting that crap. The notion that we the US government cares the tiniest bit about 1 Iraqi citizen is a gigantic load of bull#$%&. That is NOT why we invade countires. Spare me that drivel.
Don't try to put words in my mouth. The decisions, and in the case of ignoring helicopters in the cease fire provision, errors, made by then Pres Bush and his Generals at the end of the 1991 war are a matter or record (So is the Bay of Pigs) as well as a matter of global politics of the time. IIMO, the decision to stop when we did was pointless, but hey, I was not President. :P The why and wherefores have been under discussion ever since, and you touch on an important topic: how sincere is Any American in caring for the average soul in Iraq, the guy who fixes the plumbing, the guy who runs a small pick up and delivery service, the guy whose son just got conscripted, the guy who runs the grocery? If the Americans, as a matter of policy, 'get in and get out and then wish them all well' a golden chance to build a constructive relationship, as we did in Japan, will have been lost.
The legal basis for going back in now is simple in the extreme. The cease fire agreement that ended the 1991 conflict, which meant that 'if you abide by this we stop shooting at you' has been violated by one party, at last count some 17 times, so action is being taken. Whether or not that is the only possible action is an excellent topic for discussion, but the illegality is blatantly false. The Wisdom of it? Well, that is a very good question.
Quote:You fail to mention that we didn't give a #$%& when Saddam used chemical weapons against ouor enemies...in fact we gave them the weapons.
One true, one false.
1. Yep, when he was gassing Iranians, looks like we, and MUCh OF EUROPE, took a passive stance because we did not like Iran either. (You did notice that the French kept selling Saddam F-1 fighters did you not, during the Iran Iraq war? See Kandarthe's link, good summary.) Do you forget the hostage crisis of 1979-1980? 444 Days where our Embassy Staff was held prisoner? I remember it vividly. That criminal act had an immense influence on our crappy relations with Iran then, and I suggest that it colors our relations with them even now. Politics is real life, not idealism, at work, and it makes for strange partnerships. We partnered with the biggest murderer in history, Joe Stalin, to deal with another SOB. We provided some support to Iraq and its SOB, last I recall was conventional bombs and artillery shells, due to another SOB, Ayatollah Khomenei, he of the Hostage Embassy fame.
2. We supplied Iraq with no chem or bio weapons. You are dead wrong, sorry, and living The Lie. I challenge you to prove that claim with fact, rather than rumor, which I am pretty sure you can't. Please remember who his primary arms supplier was for years: Soviet Union. Please remember who supplied Iran and Lybia with the methods to make gas: German firms. I am not sure if they were in Iraq, don't know. Who sold Iraq planes and missiles that he used to attack neutral shipping the Gulf for years? France. So, how about checking your facts on this one, OK? The US did not Arm Saddam, not in any substantial means, others took care of that.
Quote:What's happening in Afganistan right now? I understand they "forgot" to plan humanitarian relief there. The warlords are back in power, the country is in disarray...in fact the news the other day was something like this "Iraq this, Iraq that....1/2 hour later, oh yeah, we bombed in Afghanistan again today" ....do I find this disgusting? Yes, very. I have problems with THE US flexing its muscles across the world on a RELIGIOUS CRUSADE...anoother point you have failed to address with all your snotty little rant about how stupid I am.
1. Forgot to plan humanitarian aid? Who? The UN? What was the aim of the campaign? Take out the Taliban. OK, that was done. Find the Al Qaeda? On going. Are you asserting that no aid is being provided by the US to any one in Afghanistan? Your assertion is rather loose. Who asserts that it was not in the plan? Have you read CenCom's plan for the Afghanistan campaign? Sounds like outsiders who know nothing spouting off. I am curious: are you saying that there was no planning, or planning that had shortcomings or needed revision once the reality on the ground become more plain? Two different matters entirely.
2. To assert the action in Afghanistan as a religious crusade strikes me as an amazing leap of illogic. What started as pure payback to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, for 9-11, is turning into what anyone could have predicted: Afghan politics return to the very tumultuous and multifaction state of play present before the Soviets showed up in 1979-1980. (The fact that OBL had Massoud killed a few days before the 9-11 helped NO ONE in Afghanistan. He was a pretty popular guy with a lot of the factions. ) That the current state of play surprises anyone saddens me. The military operations continue, as I understand it, in the continued hunt for Al Qaeda and Taliban folks. Payback for 9-11 ala a needle in a haystack.
OK, GWB is an avowed Christian. How does it follow that he pursues the Afghan as a religious conquest when the very people he is now supporting are also Muslim???? Eh? Bill Clinton asked for clerical help over that silly Lewinski matter, but it does not follow that his subsequent decision to shoot missiles at Saddam was anti Muslim, or that his decision to Bomb Belgrade was anti Serbian Orthodox (such few as were left after 50 years of Communism).
Quote:Do you understand that you being smarter than me, knowing more about the US govermnment, and American history has NO BEARING on the morality of the US government invadeing countries for personal gain?
Let's see, you consider the war immoral. OK, I look at the situation and accept that war is one of many possible ways to solve a regional and global security problem. If you assert that 'war is never the answer,' you play into the hands of international dictators the world over, since with that passivity there is no threat to their continued existence and power.
Is war the best answer?
Excellent question.
I do not have the answer, but it is a method. Check history, you will find that GW Bush is not the only American to use armed force. You just don't like him, so to you the war must be wrong because he is using it as a tool.
Try Woodrow Wilson . . . and others. Look particularly at what Wilson and other progressives, Democrats, did in the name of progress with armed force. Consider that FDR, when assistant Secretary of the Navy, was kind enough to draft, for the folks of Haiti, a constitution. It is called "the Export of Jefferson's Revolution" and is consistent with the American character.
You might consider this:
(Credit: Mr Woolsley provided this framework as a way to look at a certain historical flow. It aint airtight, but an interesting perspective)
World War I: a few democracies and a bunch of Empires in War. Outcome: More Democracies
World War II: A few more democracies and some Dictators in War. Outcome: Even more Democracies.
World War III (Cold War): Two Superpowers in ideological conflict, outcome, more democracies (See Eastern Europe and others, including, finally Chile and El Salvador)
World War IV: The 60+ % of global Governments who are genuine representative governments versus . . . who? Dictators remaining, including some Islamists (not Muslims, it is a political descriptive for those who use a form of Muslim theocracy to impose dictatorship, just as the Pope used to.) In this regard, OBL and his extranational network are a viable political force to be dealt with, just as Franco's Spain or Hitler's Germany was a political force to be addressed, or Milosevic's Serbia.
Quote:The UN sanctions don't effect Saddam. You think he ate badly? You think his houses got run down? It's moronic, it hurts the people, which no one seems to give 2 #$%&s about. Why is this hard to understand?
You have just reaffirmed why embargoes are rarely effective, even though the UN uses them. Blockade and embargo is one of the few methods of coercion short of war that is a UN sanctioned action aimed at getting governments to abide by their responsibilities. At the international level, which assumes the identity and sovereignty of each nation, even if a dictator is in charge, the responsibility is assumed, under the UN model of sovereign status and mutual obligation, governmental accountability and responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. Saddam screwed his own people out of their food, he had the dough to provide it. He used the food as a political weapon.
Do you remember the Haiti situation in early 1990's, when General Cedras tossed JB Aristide out on his arse, the freely elected under UN observers JB Aristide? That embargo did not work either, so WE SENT IN TROOPS, in concert with OAS, whose imminent arrival, and the good efforts of Carter and Powell on behalf of President Clinton, convinced General Cedras and friends to GTFO.
Quote:Funny you say that the US did not act alone, they acted with the "security council" in 1991, would that be the same one that is entirely against this illegal war? Yes it is. So what do we do...screw 'em, we do whatever we want because we are big bad America....
See above about the incorrectness of the 'illegal' issue, or those in the coalition who did show up would not have bothered. That dog won't hunt. However, the fact that the US will act, at long last after 12 years of trusting the international community to enforce UN Sec Council actions, merely highlights the inability of the UN, without immense force of leadership, to overcome inertia on difficult security challenges within its area of influence. You do remember how much effort G Bush, Senior, had to put into building that coalition that he put together? It did not come about on its own, and in that case, a sovereign nation, Kuwait, had been invaded and despoiled. It took extreme efforts to do anything about that one, by a man who was far more experienced in international affairs.
In getting 'international' law or the 'international order' to stick or be taken seriously, some one has to shoulder the burden. That is how multilateral action works.
Back to: was war the only way? Probably not, but thanks to a serious amount of blatant actions of self interest on the part of everysecurity council member, the question was: what action will actually bring about any change? And what was the point of 1441 if not to take further action? And following that logic, is the UN relevant as a collective security organ? If the US plays it right (no guarantees there) it can leverage any success in Iraq into greater support for UN authority. It will take some finesse, but given that such is the direction that Prime Minister Blair thinks he can take it, it is possible. We shall see if there is any statecraft left inside the Beltway, and if Blair gets his payback for his support.
Quote:Know how many vetos France has used vs how many the US has used in the History of the UN? France has used its veto 18 times. The US 76. When they do we have a National outcry, change the names of food, this is Politicians BTW, not just hill billy locals.
Yes, we use the veto, like France or Russia or England or China, because we get to. It is in the UN charter. (Hint: you do remember who created the UN?) So the point is what, here? That France has less frequently felt the need to use a veto. OK. They are also a lesser player on the international stage over the past 60 years.
Quote:The estimated military spending in 2002 was $850 Billion for the enitre world. Half from the US, .0015% from Iraq. Yet they need disarming? Wrong, we need disarming, and we are proving it every day.
*Sigh* Right. $260-320 billion dollar defense budget is how much of $850 billion? Check your math. But on that topic, you have to remember that when the US goes in to help NATO or UN in Bosnia, Kosovo, LIberia, Bangla Desh, et al, it aint cheap. No point in showing up crappily equipped and poorly trained, because then more people die, not less.
Quote:Heres some more....
89% percent of US citizens are getting their news on the war in Iraq from the TV. 92% of stories on NBC, ABC and CBS from 9/14/02-2/7/03 originated from the white house. It's called brainwashing. Enough of your "big Lie" comments...at least I have the guts to question the murderers in our government.
And what about folks who get their 'facts' from internet sites without indulging in any critical thinking? And 'Huh?' to murderers in our government? War is not murder, even though people die in war, it is a political act that has lawful basis in the Geneva Accords and even under the UN Charter. Or do you refer to some other issue that I am missing?
Quote:50% of weapons entering the global markets come from American firms.
Interesting numbers. Do you refer to new weapons, do you refer to dollar amounts, or total volume of sales? Do you include such things as trucks and utility helicopters? Our biggest competitors, in any case, are the French and Russians. :)
Quote:We manufacture terrorism, we manufacture war. It is OUR regime that needs changing. No matter how many times you call me stupid, that will not change.
Our regime changes every four years, or every eight years, peacefully. You and Senator Kerry both know that. :)
You do raise an interesting point, though, even if you don't realize it, and one which is raised all the time: what role should the U.S. play in the world, a world where the goal, but not the reality, is that we all wish to hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and turn all swords into plowshares?
The problem every government here, be it Clinton, Carter, LBJ, Reagan, whoever, has to solve, is what combination of economic, informational, and military strength is used to back up its diplomatic efforts to further our own economic and physical security? That responsibility is laid on them so that they look after the interests of the American people within the context of international affairs. That is in their job description.
Some, apparently yourself included, would suggest a far more isolationist policy, a retrenching. To adopt that stance also means to accept added risk, and to use hope as a method of dealing with uncertainty, as in 'I hope things work out.' The danger of doing that is that we can see happen globally what happened locally in Europe in the interwar period: the world gets more chaotic and violent thanks to our indifference or inaction. Since our way of life is inextricably tied to our nation trading globally, true since and before its inception as a natioin, we cannot ignore the world we hope to trade with.
Now, you assert that this war is unnecessary.
You are not alone.
It may solve one problem, and will very likely create others. I think you and I will agree on that point in any case, and you do realize that any action taken in the political arena has risks. The risk in the current action is that the outcome, the post conflict middle east and for that matter the post conflict world, will be worse off than we were February 28th of this year. I have no idea if that is true or false, and I see that you are very uncomfortable with that uncertainty. I am not, I grew up in the Cold War, and knew that any day if the folks in the Kremlin and the White House lost their grip on relaity, we were all atomic dust. This is child's play in comparison, although in reality it is in no way anything but a serious matter.
In questioning the wisdom of using war as a tool you are in pretty good company with a guy named Daniel Ellsberg, who has been peacefully protesting this war since some time before it started. You may lack his logic and eloquence, I find his views on all of this very thought provoking, but he is in your camp: he considers this course of action unwise in the long term, and a failure of statecraft in the short term.
If a few hundred Iraqi's die in this war, besides the soldiers, it will still be under the annual average of 3-5000 Iraqi's who annually die at the hands of the Baathist regime. One year later, that makes for a better Iraq already. (I refer to some discussion on CSpan with CIA Director under Pres Clinton by name of Woolsley. I confess that I am not sure how he arrived at that figure, or if he was including war deaths in Iran-Iraq in his averages, but his coomments seem to be backed up by the link that Kandarthe provided a few posts up in re Human Rights Watch.)
When and if 'smoking gun' of NBC weapons (the term WMD is too imprecise for my liking) march into the international court of public opinion, will the course of action seem better to you?
Were you willing to wait until another great building in New York blows up? That may hapen anyway, regardless of action in Iraq. I do not know what, if any, link Saddam has to Al Qaeda specifically, but I do know that
Iran sponsors Hezbollah
Syria sponsors, or once sponsored Islamic Jihad (need to check that one out)
Edit: Just to flesh this out.
Quote:Originated among militant Palestinians in the Gaza Strip during the 1970s. PIJ-Shiqaqi faction, currently led by Ramadan Shallah in Damascus, is most active. Committed to the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel through holy war. Also opposes moderate Arab governments that it believes have been tainted by Western secularism. External Aid Receives financial assistance from Iran and limited logistic support assistance from Syria.. From FAS page on Islamic Jihad
Saddam Hussein sends/ has sent money (I believe those reports) to suicide bombers in Israel.
And, FWIW, Americans in Boston and New York, civilians, not the government, habitually send money every year to Ireland to support the IRA, who blow up buildings and cars in London and kill innocent civilians. (At any rate, that was their habit, the seem to have chilled out a bit lately. Good on them)
History moves forward, friend Grumpy. The price for inaction is sometimes extreme. The price for action is often high. In any case, there is no free lunch.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
![[Image: yVR5oE.png]](http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/329/yVR5oE.png)
![[Image: VKQ0KLG.png]](http://i.imgur.com/VKQ0KLG.png)