[reply]
Yes I completely understand the spin, WMD to liberating the people, like Graham Norton said we will be liberating them as soon as they run out of bullets. I wish that the action had been taken differently but no one to date, your self included, have articulated another way to deal with this, or even the more pressing issues or Iran and NK?

I dont think the case was made, I think this is unilateral but I dont think it is setting a precedent I just think the case simply was not made for this.

Look this whole funding argument is complete BS, every country manipulates others or organizations to serve its own ends. If they'd not funded him the Russians would have been in Afghanistan and then where would we be today.

What are you arguing that Russia would have been better than the Taliban? [/reply]

It's a lovely piece of prestidigitation, and I suppose is in essense the argument - "we got ourselves into this mess, how else would you get us out of it...". When I don't suggest an alternative (and I recognise the fact that withdrawing is not an option at this point), then have I lost the validity of any argument I make?

But that's the point. The insertion points of our arguments are completely different. I would have hoped that we (meaning all of us) would have learned form the past, and found a better way to deal with people and the world. Every one who says "how would you go about it then" assumes that where we are now is inevitable. But it's not. Blaming everything on human nature does a disservice to human nature. That's the point I took home from the article I posted today, that things don't necessarily have to be the way they are. I think there are many examples of what is happening today (and World War Two isn't one of them) to agree with you that this isn't a precedent, but why does that legitimise todays current events when the things that you can realistically compare it to weren't right either?

Goobie,

Again please tell me your joking. This article is chalked full of bias.

How about the Title of the Article: “Emperor George”

How about the Sub Title of the Article “What has become of American values and idealism? All swept away in this thoroughly un-American war”

Seems like a bias to me.
Want more.

How about the first sentence of the article: “This war is un-American.”

You know within 3 seconds exactly where the author stands. I can already seem him at some anti-War protest.

What you took from the article and what the author said are two different things. You cite the piece as an example of history that we should look to and learn from. The author cites precedent an how we have wavered from it.

1. Jefferson's desire to avoid "entangling alliances."

Counter example: NATO, defense treaties w/ S. Korea, several other countries.

2. Adams call not to go abroad "in search of monsters to destroy."

Counter example: Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Bosnia, Gulf War I, etc., not to mention covert or financial action.

3. Jacksonian desire to act only on direct threats.

See examples above.

4. The "key un-American activity"? Breaking our "gift" of multilateralism.

Counter argument: reinforcing failure is futility.

5. Unprovoked, uninvited, long-term and country-wide invasion is un-American.

Counter-example/argument: Unprovoked by what definition? Not directly provoked/attacked? Or a provocation of interests? WWI, WWII (Germany and Italy), Korea, and the others mentioned above come to mind.

6. US Belief in State Sovereignty.

Counter Examples: Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Bosnia.

In sum, I don't understand your or the author's reference to the "history that you wish that we would learn from" or what American tradition he is referring to. It is a fiction used for the sake of argument.

So what you're saying is that it's 'more' American to look at the views and hopes expressed and say "screw that, let's get it on"?

Again, I don't understand how citing hotchpotch examples, with different examples of legitimacy, support (countrywise and populationwise) and outcome (are you really comparing WWII and Vietnam and saying you can't distinguish them?), and juxtaposing them with the different ideas as a list validates what you're saying. Are you saying that Adams would have approved of ALL your examples?

"6. US Belief in State Sovereignty.

Counter Examples: Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Bosnia.

In sum, I don't understand your or the author's reference to the "history that you wish that we would learn from" or what American tradition he is referring to. It is a fiction used for the sake of argument."

This is the most interesting bit. So it was NEVER a traditionof thre USA to believe in state sovereignty? Don't the examples you give above break the tradition rather than establish that events associated with those you list have always been the norm? You'd prefer to argue that America has always been what is implied by those examples?

Ok, it might be me but, Goobie, give all the examples except those cited that show that all of these were exceptions to the rule.

The rule is always the same, there is no rule, there is no consistency and in that sense Iraq, Vietnam and WWII are identical.

In WWII once the Americans decided to get involved they commited and ended the war.

In vietnam they proactively headed to SE Asia and I am fairly certain that those motivations would not fly today

Iraq, you dont feel it's justified period, I think it could have been if handled differently, 70% or more of the population thinks that Iraq is justified as they present a clear threat to Americans welfare.

We're not going to argue how rational that is but I want you to list how all of these are exceptions to the rule and tell me what the "single rule" is.

America has ALWAYS pursued it's own interest as has pretty much any other country I can think of. I did not see the British asking the Indians and Pakistani's if they had an issue with becoming subjects of the queen or the French consulting with certain African coutries or for that matter Russia asking all of the republics if they wanted to stay in or get out under the USSR.

You need to clearly articulate why this is inconsistent with America's behavior in the past.

I dont think it is, when they felt they had a case they went and did something about it, and they did so with and without other coutries at varying times. How consisitent is that?

The US believes,as does everyother coutry, that state sovereignty is a noble goal until you decide to F**k with us. I think we can safely say that London has no problems with the Welsh Parlment, but the second there was a whiff that wales wanted to uprise and presented a threat to London they would come down on them like a ton of bricks. Wales' sovereignty lasts as long as Wales behave them selves and are not seen as a threat by someone else.

Being a threat is not the only reason people go to war though, Vietnam, Kosovo, Rwanda and WWII clearly show there are a whole bunch of circumstances under which posing a threat is not the reason for taking action and sovereignty still means nothing.

I guess I'm wrong. It doesn't make me terribly optimistic about the future though.
Thanks for keeping the discussion civil

Nick

No, I'm with you 100% on what this means and optimism is not a word that I would use to describe my views on it. I just think your reasoning is a little odd :)

You should check out the latest Rolling Stone and the artists that have done cartoon's on one this.

One of them says and I paraphrase "I hope that this war on terrorism is as successfull as the war on drugs, because I really want to get high right now but you just cant get drugs anymore............."

Anyway, talk about water under the bridge, about the only thing I'd bet on at this point is that Blair does not win the election the next time round..

I don't think you are wrong either, in the sense that you despise this situation and the fact that you despise war and its effect. I just don't agree w/ how you arive at your conclusion or the generalizations that you or others have drawn.

One poster actually stated that he thought that I saw this as a "holy" war, a conclusion that I find incomprehensible when you read my posts.

I'm not directing this at you, Goobie, only generally, so don't take it personally.

Personally, I don't mind when someone disagrees with this war and the manner in which it was entered into. I do mind it when there is no other viable option presented. (As I've stated before, if you are a pacifist, fine).

That, in essence, is the problem w/ the anti-war posts. No viable option has been presented, only fragmentary arguments that devolve into name-calling and conspiracy theory.

People lament about US historical and foreign policy hypocracy and cite the UN and Europe as a favorable example. Seriously? They ignore that the US, the UN and Europe have done both horrible and great things. And why is this justification for inaction? What is the point of that statement? So what if we screwed up in the past? We should use history as an instructive guide, but who cares if you can cite pro or con? How does that effect what you do today?

People mention that the US has WMD, have used nukes on Japan, allows Israel to have nukes, does nothing to Pakistan and India, etc. etc. Ok, so what? Does that mean that we are again regulated to inaction? If you say that we need a consistent policy, then fine, I agree. But at least argue what policy we should use and how to implement it. And why that precedent should render us impotent today.

People ask, "why is Iraq important? What about NK? What about Pakistan?" Fine questions. But do they argue complete inaction? Should we do nothing? Where is the proposal?

People argue with a lack of historical context, e.g. "the US has used WMD and is bad because it used Agent Orange and because it nuked Japan." The first was never intended as an anti-personnel device. It was intended as defoliant. It's like saying asbestos companies were evil when they developed and sold asbestos in the 40's. They didn't know the effect. You are judging with the advantage of history. Of course the effects of both examples are tragic and awful. Again, I understand the point, but I don't understand what your reference has to do with modern-day reality and the present action. Should we do nothing because we should feel bad?

People have said that it's our fault because we put SH in power. They also cite our funding of the holy warriors and OBL in Afghanastan. As if this is proof that this situation is our fault. Again, there is no historical perspective. We helped SH out b/c we saw him as anti-Soviet, a system that we perceived as evil and intent on world domination at the time. Given the situation at the time, w/ Eastern Europe, I can't say that this was a crazy perspective. We supported OBL and the warriors in Afganistan b/c they were fighting against the Soviets. How were we supposed to know that OBL and crew would later commit the greatest act of terrorism in US history and would actively fight the US? How were we supposed to know that SH would turn into a murdering despot? You are able to judge now b/c you have hindsight. Suddenly, you look wise and all-knowing, but you forget why these actions were taken and you cite them as if they are proof of the corruption of US foreign policy. If you want to use our complicit and active support of the death squads in El Salvador, that's a compeletely different scenario. That was a mistake and well, evil. But generally, what's the point? Again, what is your practical application to today's events, other then lamentation over US "crimes?"

People say that we are acting unilaterally. My point in previous posts was that why is multilateral action the highest goal that we can strive for? Does the agreement of France, Cameroon, and others make a situation right? Does mulilateral action make a situation right? Or is a situation right for its own sake?

People call the US a "bully" and evil. They say that we are bad because we believe our system of government is better than others. If you honestly believe this, what nation state or world organization do you cite as a model? Should we follow Islamic fundamentalists, who wish to impose their view on others or kill them if they don't follow Islamic law? (and if you cite the US as an example of the same actions b/c of Iraq, you really need to think about that). Should we follow the example of France, who beats its breast about the sancity of the UN, while it did nothing in Rwanda, ignored UN sanctions by selling arms and other goods to Iraq for the past 12 years? Should we just not impose our beliefs on others? Perhaps we shouldn't speak out about human rights violations in China? Perhaps we shouldn't have boycotted South Africa b/c of apartheid? Perhaps we should remain mute to crimes against humanity because, god forbid, we don't want to upset anyone? Because political torture and kangaroo courts are part of the culture in the Palestinian Authority? What are they really advocating here? To me, it is Western Angst and useless.

People say that we should have given the UN "more time", that we should have found other, non-military options. They forget the 12 years that preceded this action - the economic sanctions, the dismissed weapons inspectors, etc.

People say that Bush is operating from some personal animus. How can anyone argue against that? It is an argument without a response. I say, "no he's not." You say, "Yes, he is." Ok, you win. How about, if I say: "no, actually, you are operating from a personal hatred of Bush because of your political beliefs." You say, "no, I'm not." I say, "yes, you are." Do you see my point? It's a silly argument. There is no way to prove it. There is no way to disprove it. Cite all the supposed facts you want. You are arguing a mental state.

I'm not trying to over-intellectualize this. You will note that I haven't openly advocated any position with respect to this war. (in this post). I just think that there has been little, if any, rational opposing argument to this war. Argue the tragedy of war all you want, I won't disagree. But the majority of counter-arguments, while initially cogent, result in conspiracy theories, anger, and emotion.

I certainly don't have all the answers and have never claimed to. But I despise these extreme positions on this issue - both pro and con- without any rational analysis.

Holy Crap, I read it, agreed with almost all of it and still dont think we should be there.........

100% Agree that there is no precedent and 100% agree that you dont need to be multilateral to be right, on the other hand some unilateral action's are not going to be right either.

I've said continuously that my issue with this is not whether the action was right, but that the path to where we are is very questionable thereby making the action questionable and the justification sketchy.

I dont think anyone is saying, at least I am not, that we needed to try to move through the UN for another 12 years. I do think that the French should have been put on the spot with a new resolution. It would also be interesting to see whether China and Russia would have got on board as they would not have needed to veto it knowing the French would, so you vote, you get 4 of 5 of the countries with veto power on side and roberts your fathers brother I think you could safely say you had a multi-lateral agreement.

Again though this is all arging the toss at this point.

I dont think anyone disputes SH's record or the fact that sooner rather than later he needed to be ousted. The issue here is how or if the US even made the case forthis action.

Gary says Flag. Others say NO but either way it's like throwing pooh sticks..............water under the bridge.

yes it is all politics. and yes i think it is funny. our goverment is fluid. it does change. what our founding fathers said 200 years ago was 200 years ago. to use that what 'would the founding fathers do line' is crap. some of them talked of 'monsters' because at the time isolation was easy. couldn't sail a ship into the world trade center could ya?

well everything has changed. it is all diffrent. see the modren world is controlled by the agressive use of force. not in that invading china and starving india way, but in that don't fuck with us, trade with us way.

all this crap we have been writing while it makes us feel good is pointless. we where attacked by an enemy that has no real borders. it is an extreme brand of relegion that can change hearts no matter what goverment or country that idea lands in.

we have to attack and bully states that keep these people. they are what we call a 'center of gravity'. i love that term, next to snafu it is my favorite military term. a center of gravity is a state that supports another state or group.

iraq is a center of gravity. iraq has an incredible amount of terrorist training camps up north. my friends are digging through them right now. they are finding all kinds of groovy stuff. paper work, weapons, torture chambers, computers and cell phones. all linking iraq with about every major terrorist organzation on earth. including al quida.

terrorist cells are not totally independent structures. terrorist are not super soliders who can act on thier own. they need states to fund and train them. they need the money and the weapons. to pull off one suicide bomb is easy. to do more is hard. to fly planes into buildings is impossible. the way al quida did it is with help from goverments all over the world. including iraq. we have the evidence now.

we are going after iraq because it is a freaking huge center of graivty. it is part of the monster that punched a hole in a field, took wtc down and killed my friends in the pentagon. we are now ripping that goverment to pieces. we are now sending a message. slap us and we will kill you. we will bring a gun to a fist fight. fighting back works. words don't. if the other side doesn't want to understand you they won't. this forum proves you can't talk people into anything.

i say it is all politics because it is. i was not rambo. i was not some brave noble warrior. i was not and am not a hero. i was a tool. i was the razor sharp tip of the spear of my goverments forgien policy. that is all i was. i have no problem with that. i broke things and killed people because that is how in the end you get your point across to those who won't listen.

'i broke things and killed people because that is how in the end you get your point across to those who won't listen.' hated that statement didn't you. made you squirm in your seat didn't it. i knowingly took lives. i with complete understanding destroyed families. i have blood on my hands and i choose never to wash it off. i choose not to forget. i did it for my country and our friends. i did it for england. i did it for australia. i did it for spain. i did for america.

"people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men
stand ready to do violence on their behalf." george orwell. amen.

andrew gets it i think. but wants to be convinced. well you can't all ways get what you want but you if tri somtimes you just might find you get what you need.

we are not unique or original. we are all the same. we are all selfish and want things our way and the world to spin on our own axis. we put on our glasses and think you should put ours on too. you won't see the world my way and i won't see it yours. that is life. love it, live it, be it.

king george has pulled the trigger. took a chance that he didn't have to take. put his office in bigger jeporady then any president in history. he could have just ignored iraq. he could have just dropped the sanctions and let the oil industry into iraq. would have been cheaper and quicker than a war. and europe wouldhave loved us. no he didn't do it. he did something only a leader will do. he has stuck his neck out and did what he thinks is right. in two to eight years no matter what he will be gone and a new president will step in. he will keep us down this rough road or put us on the easy road.
but bush chose this road. it is the road to victory.

excuse my rambling and drama.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

ok CJ,

your spelling sucks as you admitted...however, as you know the rolling stones, you can't be all that bad! :-)

You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth.

We live in a world that has evil, and that evil has to be stopped by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?

I have had more responsibility than you people could possibly fathom.

You weep for Iraq, you weep for Saddam, and you curse the marines and the Army. You have that luxury.

You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Iraq’s suffering, and Saddam’s death, while tragic, will probably save lives. And that the actions of those US warriors in Iraq, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don’t want the truth because, deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want them in that country, you need them in that country.

They use words like honor, code, loyalty. They use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself or them to men who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom that they provide, then question the manner in which they provide it. They would prefer that you said thank you, and went on your way,

Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think or what you think you are entitled to!

:)
(From "A Few Good Men")

yeah jake i deserve that. good call. :-) sorry just between war and lack of triathlon i'm getting wierd. i am really a likeable guy! i promise!

i hated a few good men by the way.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

oops... sorry man, it wasn't intended even slightly as a slam to you. I didn't even mean to reply to your post.

just meant it as some general humor.

Stay hard, brother! (in the military/athletic/attitude way)

no no no you didn't slam me. i thought it was freakin' great. i just hate mellow drama and i sounded like a damn soap script. by being funny you made me see what a dork i was. i meant all that just could have put it better and a hell of a lot shorter.

thats why i put that smiley face. ;-)

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.