The Usual Iraq Debate

[Sally]

Continued from here (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=46166).

Valtro434,

I think Democracy is a nice ideal and that it can be a wonderful ideal - if and when it's implemented with practical concerns and human fallibility very much in mind. Even if it was our intention to 'bring Democracy' to Iraq, it would have to be a very delicate, very involved, long-term operation that is sympathetic to Middle Eastern history and culture.

The American occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with Democracy. It is an invasion against the elected government (you could say mock-elected government, but then I'd like to draw your attention to the USA, November 2000) without public support. The people creating car bombs right now aren't Saddam supporters; they just want the Americans out. The Americans are destroying Iraq. They are killing its people (civilians, not soldiers), destroying its cities, destroying its way of life. There is no reconstruction. There will be no reconstruction. What few rebuilding contracts there are are going to American companies. The election coming up is a farce. An entire religous sect is boycotting it; the rest of the population is deathly afraid of the resistance, which is sure to attack anyone who votes. Iraqi soldiers and policemen wear masks over their faces to protect their families from the resistance. There is a major gasoline shortage. Starvation is rampant. The US won't let anyone into certain areas of Fallujah because of the evidence of chemical weapons that we are using. And all of this chaos is not because the Iraqi citizens have something against Democracy. No, it's because they have something against an illegal and immoral invasion of their country, but invasion sounds far, far too tame when you look at what we're really doing.

The sad truth is that Iraq was infinitely better off under Saddam. Americans have *re-opened* prisons and torture chambers that Saddam closed down. There is no Democracy in Iraq; there is no progress; there is chaos. This war is hurting the Middle East, it is hurting America, and the only people it benefits are the American contractors like (you guessed it!) Haliburton subsidiaries.

(I get most of my impressions of the situation from Dahr Jamail (http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com).)

As for socio-political systems...... I'm tempted to give up on the lot. But ideals are important; hope is important. One of the problems with America right now is that the capitalist system has overtaken the republican system; people are sold ideas and leaders as surely as they're sold Brand-name products. Or perhaps this is as it's always been... Personally, I've completely lost faith in the notion that individuals know what's best for themselves, even less so in the notion that they know what's best for others. You say, "The Iraqi people are better off without him." I call that elitist.

People *are* sheep; they *are* vulnerable to manipulation. To imagine that the United States of America even has a working democratic/republican system is naivete. I just find it unfortunate that the manipulators in power right now have a moral system so dramatically different from my own.

[DevNull]

"Starvation is rampant. The US won't let anyone into certain areas of Fallujah because of the evidence of chemical weapons that we are using."



The United States Army infantryman sitting next to me right now is laughing his ass off wondering what kind of board I am on.

I cannot tell him exactly. I do not want him equating INTPs (and to a lesser extent the boards they hang on) with mindless sheep. Mindless sheep are not his exact words.

[Sally]

So it's not true? I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise. I would LOVE to be convinced otherwise. It would fill me with relief to learn that the whole thing is some giant hoax, that pictures have been faked, that indepent news organizations are lying to me.

So what US Infantryman? Where? Fallujah?

[Dman]

I've not followed this thread from your link, but the first post in this new one made me wonder. Are you gleaning all of your information from one source within Iraq? How can you possibly give credibility to one source of information? I agree with finding alternate sources to counter any biased reporting of the popular media, but surely you don’t actually believe all the statements you are claiming are genuine. The “people” making car bombs are not former Saddam supporters? I would believe this is not exclusively the case; some of them are simply anti-american terrorists. But there is a whole other operation of Iraqi “insurgents” that indeed are former Saddam loyalists. This has been mentioned in countless media outlets. Do you think that these loyalists are also not able to produce propaganda and misinformation? Of course they claim they just don’t want Americans in their country. But that’s BS. They want the system the way it was before, when they were privileged under Saddam. Ask the countless Iraqi’s who suffered under Saddam if they believe Iraq was “infinitely better off”, the ones who were tortured, or had their children murdered. How dare you. You can’t be that ignorant. Go to one of Saddam’s victims websites and then come back and make the same claims that you have here.

Having said that, do I believe Americans should be there? No. But what’s done is done, and needs to be taken care of. You can’t expect a utopia overnight. The American military is taking painstaking steps to not piss off the civilian population and cause collateral damage. Did you know we actually firebombed a city in Japan during WWII? Indiscriminately killed everyone there, women, children, civilians. Not to mention the nuclear bomb. And that was a “good” war for a just cause. If the US military wanted to do horrific things in Iraq, it could. They are doing there best not to.

BTW – there are no Iraqi “soldiers”, they are all civilians. Their official army was destroyed. So of course the insurgents say that “civilians” were killed.

Is it about money? Of course. But you can’t have a wealthy, prosperous nation to make money off of without peace and stability. So although it may ultimately be about money, peace is a requirement, and the US gov knows this. So what purpose would it serve to destroy the country and not rebuild it? That would be a very poor investment. Your sense of logic confounds me. I think you’ve been suckered into the propaganda.

[Sally]

Yes! Great. This is exactly what I want. I'll admit I was veering toward propaganda myself, but I wanted a reaction.

As for Saddam's victims, I think that some structure is better than choas. I think that the structure before the American insugency was much, much, much better than what they have now. I'm not as informed as I could be, however. If you have other sources, I would love to see them.

And there are Iraqi soldiers. There are also Iraqi policemen. They're working with the Americans right now with as much anonymity as they can manage. My source on this is, again, Dahr Jamail, because I intuitively trust him. I trust his prose and his pictures. I don't think his reporting is complete or unbiased, but it doesn't trip any of my bullshit detectors. If you have other sources, again, please share them.

I find it easier to believe that the soldiers there are frustrated and the leaders are floundering and the administration is completely self-serving and the media is incompetent than that "their best not to" is anything like enough. I suppose it could be worse. But come to think of it, I would *prefer* an honest conquest with a well-defined goal. If we went in there and said, 'We are going to ravage this country for all it's worth and murder every man, woman, and child who stands in our way so that the US has lower gas prices over the next 100 years,' I'd say, 'Ok.'

Logical? No. But then, it's not entirely my logic. I honestly don't think this administration is thinking into the future farther than their own personal pocket books. One generation at most. Look at the environment; look at the economy; look at the laws they've passed and the potential for abuse; look at the likelihood of the next generation of terrorists being madder and badder than anything we've seen. It's illogical, sure, but there it is.

Please argue with me. This is mostly intuition talking on my part; I would love to back it up with a ready bank of facts. Again, indepent sources would be much appreciated. :}

[Edmond Zedo]

Since you say you don't know what you're talking about, why not...just...stop? It's the easiest thing in the world. A neutral stance is better than the wrong one!

[Sally]

Because I get sick of qualifying all my statements. And people get more interested when they have something to argue against, something to work with.

So you see, it was all a ploy......

[Edmond Zedo]

I like sense more than debating itself, and wish everyone did.

[Sally]

Reply 1: Joking on the square.

That would be so much more meaningful coming from anyone other than you. :}

Reply 2: Justification.

As I'm never 100% certain of anything, I never know how much of my uncertainty I should indicate. My inuition tells me that Dahr Jamail is on the money, that George Bush has accelerated the decline of the United States of America, and that the tendency of logical people to dismiss what's happening because it doesn't make any sense Won't Make It Go Away. However, what I don't have is citation. I just don't process information that way; I rarely remember exact facts; I form impressions. But I need information to form impressions from; that's where other people come in handy. And other people generally like proving themselves right. So everybody wins. ...Except you, apparantly.

Reply 3: Sense.

I wish so, too.

Reply 4: Sarcasm.

Have a hug.

Reply 5: etc

Perhaps you should help move the debate in a positive direction more to your liking rather than simply shooting down what you don't like.

---

You pick. I can't decide.

[Shai Gar]

*this is the post where i will attack dmans argument and devnulls comment. i am reserving this spot because i have to go into town to get my license*

[Claverhouse]

After seeing and hearing that unspeakable little brute squeaking away about 'Liberty' & 'Freedom' at his inaugural I don't really feel up to commentating about the war just now: his little perverted pixie face is enough to put one off almost anything.

Speaking of which some more of our 'soldiers' have been charged for sexual torture over here, with the usual explanations that the British Army is a singularly excellent force of the finest fighters on earth, and these are just a few rotten apples. Apparently torture and brutality is wholly alien to the British Army's traditions ( burning Highlanders in barns, Ireland, blowing Indians from cannons and forcing them to lick blood so they wouldn't enter Paradise, beating Germans to a pulp for confessions, torturing Cypriots... ).

However, whilst I should disagree both on the merits of democracy in practice and as an ideal, and on the merits of the Ba'athist regime which was pretty squalid, I would certainly agree that the present Iraqi insurgents are fully justified in fighting the occupiers of their country ( and that's no matter whether they were Saddamists or not, since they too have a right to their opinions ).

As for Dman's point about there being no Iraqi Soldiers, well, that's a very old American trick. You accept surrender, and then declare them illegal combatants ( Eisenhower did this in WWII --- was thus was able to starve many to death; and those captured in Afghanistan were 'illegal' and thus candidates for Gitmo, possibly for life ).

However the reasons for the declaration of war were various and not merely for greed, Saddam had after all always been the USA's favourite until the Bush family came along, no matter what he did. No-one believed he was either capable or wished to pose a threat to the States, anymore than the Serbians did. According to this newsletter from BibleBelievers, and you can note it's pretty evangelical itself, By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl344.htm), in the poor twisted minds of the Rapture bunch they are actually fighting a christian war against the evil muslim religion.


Although the president made quite a show of mounting no rhetorical attack on Islam or on Muslims in the dark days after 9/11, as if to reassure the world that the United States was not intent on waging a religious war, that tolerant pose was shortly overwhelmed, those words of peace obliterated, by much graphic counter-evidence. The United States was obviously mounting a "crusade" - as Bush himself so tactlessly announced on September 16, 2001. All he meant was "a broad cause," Ari Fleischer reassured reporters two days later, and yet Muslim residents of the United States (and of Afghanistan) could not be blamed for thinking otherwise. At once John Ashcroft's troops began to sweep illegally through Muslim neighborhoods, hauling off "suspected terrorists" by the hundreds and treating them as enemy aliens, and there was like harassment by police departments all across the country.

Soon, moreover, some of Bush's best-known co-religionists and sometime spiritual advisers started venting anti-Muslim propaganda. Franklin Graham called Islam "a very evil and very wicked religion," and Pat Robertson, who compared the Koran to "Mein Kampf," declared, projectively, about the Muslims: "They want to coexist until they can control, dominate and then, if need be, destroy." Said Jerry Falwell: "I think Muhammad was a terrorist." The White House offered no rebuke.

George sees this as a religious war. He doesn't have a p.c. view of the war. His view of this is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know.

Of course, it would be comforting to see this only as a case of individual mania, which reasonable people - Christian and non-Christian - might shrug off. And yet this is no laughing matter, as Bush is not alone in his apocalyptic frame of mind, but aided and abetted very powerfully. Having variously seized our nation's government, the GOP also pursues "religious war."

In a fund-raising letter mailed on March 3, 2004, Marc Racicot, director of the Bush/Cheney's "re-election" drive, again deployed the c-word, Muslim perceptions notwithstanding: "From leading a global crusade against terrorism to signing into law two of the largest tax cuts in history," the letter reads, " has provided strong, steady leadership during difficult times." Questioned by reporters, Racicot was unapologetic, claiming that the word need not denote a holy war. However, he then sounded something like a holy warrior himself, in offering the ecstatic statement that the letter's focus, and therefore Bush's goal, is "to protect the cause of freedom - not just for a moment, not for a day, not for ten years, but for a hundred years." Although he stopped short of "a thousand years," that millenarian utterance would have come as no surprise.
It gets weird:


Apparently the US military also is on board for Bush & Co.'s grand new drive against the Saracens. The spirit of crusade shines forth from the hearty countenance of Army Lieutenant General William G. "Jerry" Boykin, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, who caused a momentary stir by giving talks, sometimes in his military uniform, at fundamentalist churches, where he would call America "a Christian nation," assert that Bush had been "appointed by God," and tell the rapt believers that our enemy in the "war on terrorism" is "a guy named Satan." Christians believe in "a real god," whereas the god of Islam is "an idol." He would also show the audience a photograph he had taken in Somalia, clearly demonstrating "a demonic spirit over the city of Mogadishu." That Bush & Co. did not replace or even reprimand the general (who did not apologize, insisting, quite sincerely, that he was "not a zealot") stood out as further evidence of just how militant the regime's Christian doctrine really is.
Then [b]really weird:


Shortly after the invasion, US troops stationed in Iraq received a booklet called "A Christian's Duty," adjuring them to pray for Bush and even mail the president a special tear-out form assuring him that, while dodging potshots and firing on civilians, they were praying for him. Meanwhile, the ravaged theater of the occupation has been overrun by Southern Baptist missionaries seeking to exploit Iraqi misery for Jesus' sake. Laden with clean blankets, bottled water, bread, and bandages - and countless Bibles - the Christian soldiers of the International Mission Board (IMB) use such material inducements to convert as many Muslims as they can, waging what their Web site calls a "war for souls (http://www.imb.org/VideoLink/default.asp)"
And this is from a christian website, if they object to the ebulliant nutcase Boykin, and his sad freak of a president...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Edmond Zedo]

Reply 1: Joking on the square.

That would be so much more meaningful coming from anyone other than you. :}
L7 for life.


Reply 2: Justification.

As I'm never 100% certain of anything, I never know how much of my uncertainty I should indicate. My inuition tells me that Dahr Jamail is on the money, that George Bush has accelerated the decline of the United States of America, and that the tendency of logical people to dismiss what's happening because it doesn't make any sense Won't Make It Go Away. However, what I don't have is citation. I just don't process information that way; I rarely remember exact facts; I form impressions. But I need information to form impressions from; that's where other people come in handy. And other people generally like proving themselves right. So everybody wins. ...Except you, apparantly.
Why don't you explain what's wrong with the world, and who are the good guys, and who are the bad? I'd rather, instead of explaining, you suddenly realize that GWB isn't the vilest criminal ever, and Hussein and Friends were much closer to that ideal. But whatever.



Reply 3: Sense.

I wish so, too.
Yeah, me too.


Reply 4: Sarcasm.

Have a hug.
:hug:


Reply 5: etc

Perhaps you should help move the debate in a positive direction more to your liking rather than simply shooting down what you don't like.
Perhaps I should-ent! Your premiere post in this thread was so insanely, bizarrely wrong...How can I debate that? No common ground=No point, recreationally speaking.

[mgb]

I have to agree with Sally that the Iraq isn't doing so shit hot.

I think if I could point one finger I would probably point it at Washington (which given the distance would hopefully included Virginia).

The whole thing has been badly bungled and the "elections" they are going to have in 10 days are already proving to be an absolute disaster. (That is just a prediction based on the increasing number of car bombs).

And I don't think you can say that the insurgents are looking for the greener pastures of Saddam when so many of them are killing themselves in suicide bombing runs.

[Edmond Zedo]

I have to agree with Sally that the Iraq isn't doing so shit hot.

I think if I could point one finger I would probably point it at Washington (which given the distance would hopefully included Virginia).

The whole thing has been badly bungled and the "elections" they are going to have in 10 days are already proving to be an absolute disaster. (That is just a prediction based on the increasing number of car bombs).

And I don't think you can say that the insurgents are looking for the greener pastures of Saddam when so many of them are killing themselves in suicide bombing runs.
Oh boy, I hate this debate, but here I go. The insurgents are vicious military sob's, not the general populace. The US is actually fighting for the general populace, whatever other motivation you would like to give it.

I believe, that whatever the result, it was better to try to unravel a completely distorted injustice like Saddam's Iraq than to sit idly by.

[Sally]

There's unravelling, and then there's destroying the shit out of it and then leaving it to the survivors to piece something back together...

[Edmond Zedo]

Why aren't you mad at the hoodlum-ass warlords bombing everyone? Are they too...pleasant?

[Sally]

L7 for life.

Stop it. I'm blushing.


Why don't you explain what's wrong with the world, and who are the good guys, and who are the bad? I'd rather, instead of explaining, you suddenly realize that GWB isn't the vilest criminal ever, and Hussein and Friends were much closer to that ideal. But whatever.

Yeah but, last time I checked, Hussein and Friends aren't running the most powerful nation in the world. Frankly, I don't give too much of a fuck about Hussein's victims. Sucks for them. Maybe someone will set up a fund and buy all the survivors some nice therapists. There are people suffering now and my country just voted to reelect the Administration (note the A-word; sorry if I slipped and referred to it by its figurehead earlier) that's screwing over everyone from dead Iraqis to the next generation of Americans to all the other people in the world who can only watch and wonder while their governments bow to the Big American Will. If the government had only wanted to remove Hussein (pardon me while I laugh), they could have and would have done it in a clean and discreet fashion.


Perhaps I should-ent! Your premiere post in this thread was so insanely, bizarrely wrong...How can I debate that? No common ground=No point, recreationally speaking.

Oh, SNAP! I totally can't beat a comeback like that. If you can't debate it, I'm glad you can at least get your jollies with these bitter, arrogant little insults. It warms my heart. Truly.

Man, I love you. :smooch:

[Sally]

Why aren't you mad at the hoodlum-ass warlords bombing everyone? Are they too...pleasant?

They're frustrated. I can relate.

[Edmond Zedo]

I'd rather be right than polite, and my 1,300 friends will tell you the same thing.


Frankly, I don't give too much of a fuck about Hussein's victims. Sucks for them.
You've just lost yourself any actual debate. Further comment is redundant.

[Sally]

I'd rather be right than polite, and my 1,300 friends will tell you the same thing.


You've just lost yourself any actual debate. Further comment is redundant.

Oh, but don't you want to know why I don't care? I'm so on a roll.

[scarebear]

http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/31/levy.html

Good article

[Edmond Zedo]

I can feel your brain choogling along. There's no need to explain.

[Dman]

As for Dman's point about there being no Iraqi Soldiers, well, that's a very old American trick. You accept surrender, and then declare them illegal combatants ( Eisenhower did this in WWII --- was thus was able to starve many to death; and those captured in Afghanistan were 'illegal' and thus candidates for Gitmo, possibly for life ).


It’s called guerilla warfare, and nearly impossible to distinguish between civilians and fighters because they wear regular clothes and fight stealthily. It’s not an “American trick” (as if only america has engaged in these activities), although it certainly can be a tool for propaganda – this is a war, after all. The fighters rarely identify themselves as such, and that’s the smartest way for them to fight a powerful enemy. But when an Iraqi doctor in Fallujah claims 20 civilians died in fighting, how can anyone truly say they were not involved in the fighting? That was my point. It’s virtually impossible to claim whether they were fighters or not (barring age). So the numbers are meaningless in that sense.

How’s this for a “trick” – US soldiers do their best to avoid killing those deemed civilians, while “insurgents” indiscriminately plant bombs that intentionally kill non-fighting civilians.

[Dman]

Furthermore, this isn’t a debate that I’m wanting to spend a lot of time on, frankly because I agree with both sides and disagree with both sides. It’s complicated. But I felt compelled to reply to that first post, for reasons Edmond did a fine job of pointing out.

The raving cries of “America is so evil, the sole provider of misery to all the poor harmless people of earth” B.S. is just as bad as the “America is perfect and can do no wrong” rhetoric.

[melancholeric]

It?s called guerilla warfare, and nearly impossible to distinguish between civilians and fighters because they wear regular clothes and fight stealthily. It?s not an ?American trick? (as if only america has engaged in these activities), although it certainly can be a tool for propaganda ? this is a war, after all. The fighters rarely identify themselves as such, and that?s the smartest way for them to fight a powerful enemy. But when an Iraqi doctor in Fallujah claims 20 civilians died in fighting, how can anyone truly say they were not involved in the fighting? That was my point. It?s virtually impossible to claim whether they were fighters or not (barring age). So the numbers are meaningless in that sense.

How?s this for a ?trick? ? US soldiers do their best to avoid killing those deemed civilians, while ?insurgents? indiscriminately plant bombs that intentionally kill non-fighting civilians.

It's definitely a smart way, as seen in Vietnam, Afganistan (vs USSR), Checnya, Palestine, and roughly any civil war I've read about. But the result of such warfare is usually not a pretty sight. Furthermore, as you said, it is impossible to distinguish between fighters and civilians, and often the powerful enemy bets on the safe side, resulting unneeded "collateral damage".

Here are some results (http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2000.html) of such tactics used in Palestine. The IDF pretty much has to slaughter civilians, including 9-year old children, due to potential freedom fighters. (I have absolutely no interest in getting into Israel - Palestine debate, I used that as an example to illustrate the obvious point.)


The raving cries of ?America is so evil, the sole provider of misery to all the poor harmless people of earth? B.S. is just as bad as the ?America is perfect and can do no wrong? rhetoric.
I'd much appreciate if you were ready to spend more time on this. Balanced views of this are quite rare, and most of the time buried under the more extreme views and propaganda.

[mgb]

I just wish that if the US is going to have as much collateral damage as they have inflicted on Iraq that they wouldn't use terms like freedom and liberty to describe what they are doing.

[melancholeric]

I just wish that if the US is going to have as much collateral damage as they have inflicted on Iraq that they wouldn't use terms like freedom and liberty to describe what they are doing.
Shamelessly copied from another forum:

The neocon decries "ideologies that feed hatred"
The warmonger speaks of "peace in our world"
The reckless pre-emptor speaks of "force of arms only when necessary"
The torturer speaks of "belief in human dignity"
The pariah speaks of "honoring the friendship of allies"
The occupier speaks of "not imposing our style of government on the unwilling"
The Guantanamo jailor speaks of "decent treatment"
The puppet of vested interests speaks of "serving the people"
The consolidator of wealth and privilege speaks of "making our society more just and equal"
The drafter of the Patriot Act speaks of a "free society"
The slasher of welfare programs speaks of "freedom from want"
The draft-dodger urges "our youngest citizens to ... serve in a cause large than your wants"
The despot's friend speaks of "not excusing oppressors"
The homophobe urges "tolerance toward others"
The ex-governor who executed of women and juveniles speaks of how "life is fragile"
The cokehead speaks of "the governing of the self"
The great divider speaks of "the unity and fellowship of our nation"

(About Bush' recent speech.)

[Dman]

I just wish that if the US is going to have as much collateral damage as they have inflicted on Iraq that they wouldn't use terms like freedom and liberty to describe what they are doing.

Yes, but realistically, what terms are they going to use? It's war. Propaganda is just as much a part of war as the killing is.

My point is that although it's an ugly topic, which is why I try to avoid it to some degree, there is a distinction between intended collateral damage and unintended collateral damage. That may sound like an oxymoron, but an armed force that is trying to minimize any collateral damage vs. one that is intentionally causing it does have implications as to who’s intentions are good and whose are bad. It speaks of priorities. Yes, dead is dead, and losing someone would understandably be a nightmare. But if people are being killed simply for the sake of killing, as opposed to people being killed in order to save others’ lives, what does that say about those who are causing the deaths?

[Dman]

I'd much appreciate if you were ready to spend more time on this. Balanced views of this are quite rare, and most of the time buried under the more extreme views and propaganda.

That's because the more extreme views are typically the ones that get the most attention and make themselves heard the most, even though they are in the minority. "The vocal minority"

This also makes them the easiest to pick on...

[DevNull]

So it's not true? I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise. I would LOVE to be convinced otherwise. It would fill me with relief to learn that the whole thing is some giant hoax, that pictures have been faked, that indepent news organizations are lying to me.

So what US Infantryman? Where? Fallujah?

My next-door neighbor's brother. Army. Communications specialist. And as to where, in his own words "all over the damn place". He was home before the last fight in Fallujah. I had a cousin in Army Intelligence who was in one of Saddam's palaces during the Superbowl last year also.

I don't ask much of any returning soldier. From what I do ask I know that our equipment is the biggest SNAFU going, but not enough to cause major criticism other than can be expected from a soldier.

What I do know is this, and it is all I need to know: Every single returning soldier knows what will happen if a country like Iraq were ever to acquire a nuke. They know their mission is to help stop that. The Iraqi people are for the most part are nice, but the leaders are all comparitively insane and they cause some people to do insane things. The most common answer to any political question you ask a returning soldier: "Hell, I don't know". The most common sentiment when you ask a returning soldier if we belong over there is that something needs to be done.

I don't trust any media.

I do trust our military men and women who were there, most especially the ones I am close to.

[mgb]

What I do know is this, and it is all I need to know: Every single returning soldier knows what will happen if a country like Iraq were ever to acquire a nuke. They know their mission is to help stop that. The Iraqi people are for the most part are nice, but the leaders are all comparitively insane and they cause some people to do insane things. The most common answer to any political question you ask a returning soldier: "Hell, I don't know". The most common sentiment when you ask a returning soldier if we belong over there is that something needs to be done.

I don't trust any media.

I do trust our military men and women who were there, most especially the ones I am close to.

This is where you lose me. There is no evidence that they were close to making or aquiring any nuclear weapons. The "evidence" in the rush to war has been proven to be overstated.

This argument looks even worse when you consider that there are rogue nations that already do have nuclear weapons and the US didn't attack them. Giving more, not less, credence to the argument that attacking Iraq was the wrong thing to do.

Maybe something does need to be done there. I don't know why you think the US is country to do it? Giving that the insurgency seems to be growing and getting more dangerous, it seems some of the locals might agree that the US isn't that welcome there (sorry, I can only back this up with news stories). In fact, there are other countries and regions ripe for humanitarian assistance that the US isn't invading? How come?

It's ok to support your soldiers and say that your country is wrong to be doing what it is doing.

[Shai Gar]

it looks worse when you look at the US Code definition of "terrorism" and then you look at the facts of the invasion of iraq

[DevNull]

This is where you lose me. There is no evidence that they were close to making or aquiring any nuclear weapons.

And here is where I regain you.

I should have expounded on "they" as any irrational rogue nation in the Middle East. "They" are always on the lookout for a big weapon to threaten the world... or to defend themselves from the likes of the United States, whichever way you choose to look at it.

The fact is, the United States is an advanced nation of workable laws that produces technology like nobody's business. It is what we do. We will protect it by any means neccesary. So Nyah. I did not ask to be born here, but while I am a proud citizen, I will support our greatness on this planet. You will not hear me bitching about the self-defense tactics of our enemies. Self-defense is natural.

[mgb]

And here is where I regain you.

I should have expounded on "they" as any irrational rogue nation in the Middle East. "They" are always on the lookout for a big weapon to threaten the world... or to defend themselves from the likes of the United States, whichever way you choose to look at it.




Not so much.

Wouldn't a better tactic have been to attack the countries that were known to be propagating nuclear devices, namely Pakistan? It's widely known that they had been sending them to Libya. Just makes sense.

[DevNull]

Wouldn't a better tactic have been to attack the countries that were known to be propagating nuclear devices,

No. We also need a base of operations to repair the damage we (and other countries to a lesser extent) have done in the region. We needed a country to totally take over, not just 'disarm". The oil was a plus and perhaps a mighty power play seeing as how France, Russia, and Germany were relying on illegal cheap contracts.

Libya and Pakistan did not have the visual "evil" quotient, if you will, that Saddam had. Libya has too much sympathy because of our last trouncing and to boot they are so whisper quiet lately. Pakistan is mired in a complex India tangent that would overload the Pentagon what with all the ramifications that would need to be sorted out.

Saddam was evil incarnate. Saddam does not have one single vocal supporter on this planet. The US wants a country, the US got a country. His. Sucks to be an Iraqi.

[Sally]

I think that's the most convincing argument for the war I've yet heard.

[Biff_Loman]

What I do know is this, and it is all I need to know: Every single returning soldier knows what will happen if a country like Iraq were ever to acquire a nuke.

My guess: use it to put pressure on their neighbours. What did you have in mind?

Saddam was cruel, not insane. He misunderstood his position relative to the U.S., which resulted in the first Gulf War. Now, his war against Iran might have seemed strange, but no more strange than any other pointless, inconclusive bloody conflict. Everyone hopes to win.

[Biff_Loman]

I believe, that whatever the result, it was better to try to unravel a completely distorted injustice like Saddam's Iraq than to sit idly by.

That sounds fairly idealistic.

You know, Saddam killed all those Shi'ite Iraqis (10 000?) in order to preserve his power. It was my understanding that he went back to regular ol' persecution after the uprising failed.

Unjust? Sure, but not more unjust than many things that happen on this insane earth. It seems less unjust to me than Stalin murdering millions of his own people just to keep them in line. Stalin, of course, being one of Saddam's role models.

Justice? What about the Iraqi soldiers and civilians who died? Surely their very real deaths must count for something in this equation?

Also: If the international community were to operate on the basis of justice. . . Since you like quotations, here's one from Hamlet: "Treat all men according to their desserts, and who shall 'scape whipping?" We would set this world on fire if we wanted to right all wrongs with war.

[DevNull]

My guess: use it to put pressure on their neighbours. What did you have in mind?.

Good guess. Nuke capability does put a chink in global power flow though. As I said, any Pakistan invasion option was totally stymied by the fact of India's rational nuke stance. Pakistan is already tamed and gridlocked by India and India is thus rewarded by US contracts giving tech support to idiot Americans for 8 dollars an hour. The world is in balance.

Yes. Iraq may have very well have only been seeking nukes and assorted WMD's for local conflicts but the world is not ready for another unstable power.... until the US can solidify THEIR power over them. The suns aligned and we went in. History goes on.

[DevNull]

Justice? What about the Iraqi soldiers and civilians who died? Surely their very real deaths must count for something in this equation?


This isn't a Clinton/UN peace mission you know. This is global power posturing and battleing.

For further reading, go search for writeups on how Reagan killed the USSR in a magnificent natural gas scam. It will open your eyes on such matters. I will try to find the best link for it.

[Edmond Zedo]

Since you like quotations, here's one from Hamlet: "Treat all men according to their desserts, and who shall 'scape whipping?" We would set this world on fire if we wanted to right all wrongs with war.
How did you know I hate Shakespeare?

[mgb]

This isn't a Clinton/UN peace mission you know. This is global power posturing and battleing.



That is funny, because you are getting spanked by a bunch of unorganized insurgents. So the only posture I have seen since America declared victory in Iraq is America bent over.

It's pretty obvious how thinly spread the US army is right now. Go after Korea, China is just waiting for you to.

[DevNull]

That is funny, because you are getting spanked by a bunch of unorganized insurgents.

Spanking happens.

United States always wins in the long run no matter who thinks our spankings are funny.

Here is that link on how we beat the USSR regardless of how we were spanked in USSR backed Vietnam:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1777/poly/rrcoldwr.html

[Sally]

But what about terrorism? I think the chances of any state government being suicidal enough to attack the US are slim to none. Whereas, with terrorism, US aggression only fuels their volunteer supply and widens their geographic support base. Terrorism is already disrupting our way of life, and this government is only helping it along.

[DevNull]

But what about terrorism? I think the chances of any state government being suicidal enough to attack the US are slim to none. Whereas, with terrorism, US aggression only fuels their volunteer supply and widens their geographic support base. Terrorism is already disrupting our way of life, and this government is only helping it along.

The notion that terrorism is of consequence is as silly as the notion that we are fueling a terrorist base. They are both fringe element concepts and their existence is fuel for bigger fish a-fryin'.

In the land of nukes, minor attacks, no matter how practically numerous, are never going to change a thing except the resolve of those who have the nukes. DevNull's law.

[Sally]

Terrorism got George W Bush elected for a second term and has had a noticeable effect on all areas of government policy. People are afraid of it. People react to it irrationally. Whether or not it's a rational fear or a rational reaction doesn't matter. Terrorism has power.

A nuclear arms race, on the other hand - last time I checked, we had the power to intimidate every other country on the globe.

[DevNull]

Think different, Sally.

Did terrorism get President Bush elected, or did the whole sordid current world scenario shock the public into remembering just what government is really about?

Both Senator Kerry and President Bush (and their administrations and/or administrational aspirations) are all about preserving life for their constituents. They both had a plan for dealing with this "terrorism". The plans were effectively moot, but the *spirit* of the plans is the eventual kicker. Bush won that aspect, thus he won the election.

What I am trying to convey here is that terrorism is not as big a deal as it seems by way of the fact that it is merely a buzzword used in place for a tactic in our current stage of an age old power struggle. There is right and there is wrong. Right and wrong are subjective, yes, but humans are smart enough to know what suits and benefits them... within reason. Most people use the word "terrorists" as a politically correct term for "irrational assholes who I wish we could exterminate but don't because extermination is icky". The US is not made up of angry monsters but there is a limit to irrational behavior that an advanced human can tolerate. Bush appealed to the fine line.

I speak as a person who dislikes fundamentalism in all forms but loves the Bush administration.

[Sally]

1. How does the Iraq war lessen the probability of irrational assholes with nothing to lose attacking Americans?

2. How does it have anything to do with the probability of rational assholes attacking Americans? I'm steal not clear on why we would expect any state government to attack us, because it is a given that, in the even of any traceable attack to US soil, including but not limited to WMD, the US would then obliterate whichever region of the world launched it. This was a given before the Iraq war. What's changed now is that US Intelligence is shown to be incompetent and the international community as a whole has lost respect for us. The perception now is Not - 'If you even think about it, we'll find out and punish you.' It's - 'Well, the US has it in for the entire Arab Middle East anyway, so what the hell?'

3. What about domestic fundamentalism? The GOP has been overtaken by Christian Supremacist NeoCons. It sounds ridiculous, but it is, unfortunately, all too apparantly true. Frankly, I'm more worried about getting into a car crash later on today than I am about a nuclear strike ten years from now, but I don't lose any sleep over either one. We'll all die someday. What concerns me is my quality of life until that point. An administration with no concern for the environment, negative concern for education, negative concern for civil liberties, and negative concern for social equality bothers me about a million times more than atomic paranoia. What frightens me about 'terrorism' is not the possibility of some Wicked Arab creeping into my bedroom at night or blowing up my airplane but the patent effect it has on the other members of my society. The ones who decide elections that have effect on *my* day-to-day life. The Bush administration represents the opposite of freedom to me.

[mgb]

Don't get confused Sally, the true neocons aren't Christian at all. They use Christianity to create a larger voter base so they can insure their objectives are being met with the least amount of resistance.

The US is losing the war on terror, make no mistakes. Terror levels across the globe have increased since the US attacked Iraq. I think to see how terrorism works at the fundamental level you should look at Palestine. The people there have nothing to live for. They are lucky if they can work, for the most part they live in refugee camps and have for generations now. All they have is their family, and if they can bring honor to them by killing some of their oppressors then why not, not much to lose.

When you start pointing the oppressor finger on a global scale, it always comes back to the US. You think you won the Cold War, but the cost of winning was the end of a dichotomy that gave some balance to the world. Both the Soviets and the US were seen as oppressors and life givers (if you were thinking about joining one or the other). Now, it's the US, standing alone against, not with, the rest of the world.

[Edmond Zedo]

Now, it's the US, standing alone against, not with, the rest of the world.
It was better to win the Cold War than lose it, methinks. Look at Russia now. It's not Palestine, but not the old USA either.

[mgb]

It was better to win the Cold War than lose it, methinks. Look at Russia now. It's not Palestine, but not the old USA either.

It's kind of funny. I was playing Risk a couple weeks ago and there was three of us left. I had North America, defended by gigantic armies at the three vulnerable points. My friend had Africa, South America and a good chunk of Europe. My g/f had most of Asia and Australia. We had been building up armies so that we had used quite a few pieces from the three leftover sets of pieces. It was getting late and my friend was cashing in his cards and putting them all in one spot to attack either me or my g/f. He attacked me (some friend). It thinned him and I out enough that my g/f was able to walk through and win the game.

The gulf war, the terrorists, the was in Afghanistan are just hiccups left over from the Cold War. There are stretching America thin though. China is just sitting and waiting, watching the US get weaker.

[rich036]

China isn't so grand.. Costa Rica is the country everyone should fear.

[mgb]

China isn't so grand.. Costa Rica is the country everyone should fear.

Yeah, first the Tica's win the world cup, then the world.

[DevNull]

It thinned him and I out enough that my g/f was able to walk through and win the game.

The gulf war, the terrorists, the was in Afghanistan are just hiccups left over from the Cold War. There are stretching America thin though. China is just sitting and waiting, watching the US get weaker.

Risk does not have nukes to properly draw the parallel you wish to convey here. A land war on US soil has been out of the question for about 50 years now.

[mgb]

Risk does not have nukes to properly draw the parallel you wish to convey here. A land war on US soil has been out of the question for about 50 years now.

A land war on US soil doesn't have to happen. The US is more that willing to take the fight all over the globe.

The Soviets have never lost a war on their home soil....

[DevNull]

The Soviets have never lost a war on their home soil....

Using a country that was only around for 50 years or so that had a wicked shaky basis for survival from the getgo and attempting to draw a parallel to the United States is silly IMHO.

The USSR was doomed from the start and could have only failed. When you must exterminate 13,000,000 of your own countrymen to build a country, then you are doomed, plain and simple.

The US was brilliant from the getgo and is still holding it together. We pulled token support from *many* countries for an illegal invasion of Iraq. It stands to reason then that we would have tenfold the support if anything were to endanger us. Our involvment is wicked deep all over the world and barely any of it is evil. Most of it is symbiotic good.

Methinks you listen to the way-too-vocal minority of US bashers too much. I know it is hard not to, but time shakes out the truth eventually. When it is shaken out, we do not come off as evil. Our detractors usually do though.

[Claverhouse]

It’s called guerilla warfare, and nearly impossible to distinguish between civilians and fighters because they wear regular clothes and fight stealthily. It’s not an “American trick” (as if only america has engaged in these activities), although it certainly can be a tool for propaganda – this is a war, after all. The fighters rarely identify themselves as such, and that’s the smartest way for them to fight a powerful enemy. But when an Iraqi doctor in Fallujah claims 20 civilians died in fighting, how can anyone truly say they were not involved in the fighting? That was my point. It’s virtually impossible to claim whether they were fighters or not (barring age). So the numbers are meaningless in that sense.
Actually, the promulgation of the concept of 'Unlawful Combatant' is new, dating mainly from the 1940s, and is separate from the concepts of 'Guerilla', 'Franc-Tireur', and 'Resistance'. The three last, although as you say perhaps the best way for certain peoples to attack/defend, and lauded by the Allies during WWII provided these injured the enemy ( particularly as the Axis inevitably made reprisals which alienated them further from the captive populations ), may be legal or not. But to alter POW status to Disarmed Enemy Forces or as before the Afghan War started to determine that all enemy fighters will be declared Unlawful Combatants is different. Further, the neglectful habit of US presidents of forgetting to persuade congress to declare war, and instead utilising executive instruments ( as in, Vietnam [! see below] ) makes it easier for the inhabitants of occupied countries to claim any form of self-defence against the alien occupiers is lawful.

As does the equally useful practice of not accepting/forcing a surrender from the actual regime against which one fought. This leads to a suspicion in the minds of conquered Iraq that the US fought the war, partially, in order to install a puppet-regime over them that will not have any legitimacy in future Iraqi eyes.

Not that it may matter since the latest prophecy for the sunlit future is that 'Iraq into three parts is'. And the new states will be too busy killing each other's citizens once the Americans leave to ever be much of a threat to America; or Israel.


Some links pertaining:

[/url][url="http://www.hackworth.com/"]Col. Hackworth (http://www.hackworth.com/)
US Army pundit ' But while our troops and generals deserve a big “bravo” for their brilliance and bravery during the initial war-fighting phase, the occupation – which went wrong right from the get-go and has bled along for almost two more terrible years – is going down as one of the biggest snafus in U.S. military history. If the generals had any kind of plan to stabilize Iraq, it had to have been drawn up and approved by serving officers seriously stoned on LSD.'

S. Brian Willson (http://www.brianwillson.com/)
The pacifist view

T,H J POWs Or Unlawful Combatants (http://www.worldjustice.org/taj/pows.html)

Lew Rockwell.com The Torture Vote (http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt38.html)

FLIT (http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2002_01.html) Jan 2002
Argues on both sides

Liberty Forum thread (http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=issues_usfp&Number=293125840)
On illegal combatants including the incredible 'Now, how many remember why The North Vietnamese refused to respect The Geneva Convention, and tortured our people in The Hanoi Hilton? Well, the reason that our people were not afforded protection was, The US never declared war on North Vietnam!
And, how many North Vietnamese officers or interrogators have been pursued as war criminals for violating the rights of American POWs?
In fact, some of those officers have visited The US, and there is never any mention of war crimes because the Vietnamese were right! In the absence of a declaration of war, we are powerless to seek retribution against them.'

WIKI Unlawful Combatant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant)

FLAME Taliban Prisoners (http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/schey_taliban_pow.htm)

LEXIS Review of D R Book (http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=25106&docId=l:252332115&start=8)
'In the wake of 9/11, Rose argues, the U.S. government used the terrorist threat as an excuse to free itself of the Geneva Accords. On Nov. 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order ``declaring that captured [al Qaida] terrorists could be tried by special military commissions, free of the restrictions imposed by the civilian courts.'' On this day, Guantanamo was born.Very quickly, who could be declared an ``unlawful combatant'' stretched beyond al-Qaida to include ``not just someone thought to have engaged directly in terrorism against America, but anyone captured in Afghanistan suspected of fighting with the Taliban -- a very different thing.'''
'Most of the prisoners -- 550 or so -- are kept in ``maximum security'' conditions. If they cooperate, they can be led in cuffs and leg irons to a covered yard for 20 minutes of exercises with one other detainee, followed by a five-minute shower. The standard cell is a prefabricated metal box a little larger than a king-size bed. There is no air-conditioning; the lights stay on all night.But this is just the beginning of the hardship for most prisoners, says Rose. Failure to follow camp rules brings swift punishment, which often means being attacked by the ``Extreme Reaction Force.'' One inmate, who was eventually released, described being ``ERF'd'' for refusing to have his cell searched for a third time in one day:``They pepper sprayed me in the face, and I started vomiting. ... They pinned me down and attacked me, poking their fingers in my eyes, and forced my head into the toilet pan and flushed. They tied me up like a beast and then they were kneeling on me, kicking and punching. Finally they dragged me out of my cell in chains, into the rec(reation) yard, and shaved my beard, my hair, my eyebrows.'''

Sounds a bit like Marion...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[mgb]

The US was brilliant from the getgo and is still holding it together.

My intent wasn't really to compare the US to Russia, only to show that you don't have to lose a battle on your home soil to lose a war. Sorry you missed that.


This statement really jumps out at me. The US was founded by people that didn't want to pay their taxes. You had a civil war killing over 600,000 Americans over the desire to own slaves. America shudders when it hears the word "colonialism" but it's not a stretch to say that's where things are heading. And to top it off, America has probably committed some of the most horrible war attrocities the world has ever seen.

I wouldn't say that things are anywhere close to brilliant and never have been.

[DevNull]

My intent wasn't really to compare the US to Russia, only to show that you don't have to lose a battle on your home soil to lose a war. Sorry you missed that.

We lost the Vietnam war and everyone knows it. If your intent was to prove that "you don't have to lose a battle on your home soil to lose a war" then I think Vietnam would be a much better example than a game of Risk. I assumed that you meant to convey that a country can collapse from spreading too thin warwise. I maintain that is only true if said country is evil and of new concept rather than true in moral assertiveness and solid in foundation as the US is.





This statement really jumps out at me. The US was founded by people that didn't want to pay their taxes.

Without representation. We did not want to pay taxes without representation.


You had a civil war killing over 600,000 Americans over the desire to own slaves.

Evil lost.


America shudders when it hears the word "colonialism"

News to me. Explain if you will.


America has probably committed some of the most horrible war attrocities the world has ever seen.

Ummm... enlighten me on this one too. I heartily disagree but I have no idea what I am disagreeing with factwise. We have killed a lot of humans in our short existence, but I am unaware of any atrocities. I didn't think we even ranked in the top ten.

[mgb]

We lost the Vietnam war and everyone knows it. If your intent was to prove that "you don't have to lose a battle on your home soil to lose a war" then I think Vietnam would be a much better example than a game of Risk. I assumed that you meant to convey that a country can collapse from spreading too thin warwise. I maintain that is only true if said country is evil and of new concept rather than true in moral assertiveness and solid in foundation as the US is.

The Risk example was to show that when two countries focus their efforts one another, a third country may grow in power and eventually take over. China and America don't have to fight a war for China to win.






Without representation. We did not want to pay taxes without representation.


OK, I wouldn't say that American's were being oppressed though. I also wouldn't call that the most brilliant start for a nation that the world has ever seen.



Evil lost.


Evil existed. Also not brilliant.



News to me. Explain if you will.


The last thing America wants to be seen as is a colonial power. But I wouldn't say that the US is too far from being a colonial power. You just have to look at the World Bank and the IMF. Also, the propagation of the CIA through South America and Asia.

More things that don't make the US a perfect example of how the world should be.



Ummm... enlighten me on this one too. I heartily disagree but I have no idea what I am disagreeing with factwise. We have killed a lot of humans in our short existence, but I am unaware of any atrocities. I didn't think we even ranked in the top ten.

How about the fire bombing of Tokyo (killing 100,000 people in one night)? The nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The Bombing of Dresden? All civilian targets and nevermind the long term effects of those actions. And now in Iraq (so we can get this whole thing back on track) some estimates put the "collateral" death toll at over 17,000 people. And let us not forget who put Saddam in charge of Iraq in the first place. And who could forget Pinochet and Noriega? Is that "symbiotic" good? Doesn't seem like it was as mutually beneficial to me.

You are tossing around words like good and evil here as if America has managed to live the entirety of its existance on some sort of imaginary moral high ground.

[Dman]

This ties in somewhat with another thread referring to why the rest of the world hates Americans. The fact is, were it any other country in the world that was the sole “superpower”, in time the same effect would occur. The reason is simply because that country has a disproportionate share of power in the world. And what is any country’s government ultimately responsible for? Looking out for its own best interests. Some countries might be better or worse than others in the treatments of their neighbors, but it all boils down to the same thing. When one has an advantage over all the rest, there is nothing one can do to prevent ultimately being hated, unless it was willing to sacrifice its own way of life for the benefit of all. Right or wrong, that is unlikely to ever happen.

Perhaps this deserves a new thread. What * could * the US realistically (emphasis on realistically) do to keep its own citizens happy (happy meaning healthy, safe, generally content) and simultaneously do the same thing for the rest of the world?

[mgb]

This ties in somewhat with another thread referring to why the rest of the world hates Americans. The fact is, were it any other country in the world that was the sole “superpower”, in time the same effect would occur. The reason is simply because that country has a disproportionate share of power in the world. And what is any country’s government ultimately responsible for? Looking out for its own best interests. Some countries might be better or worse than others in the treatments of their neighbors, but it all boils down to the same thing. When one has an advantage over all the rest, there is nothing one can do to prevent ultimately being hated, unless it was willing to sacrifice its own way of life for the benefit of all. Right or wrong, that is unlikely to ever happen.

Perhaps this deserves a new thread. What * could * the US realistically (emphasis on realistically) do to keep its own citizens happy (happy meaning healthy, safe, generally content) and simultaneously do the same thing for the rest of the world?

The US won't be able to make/keep everyone happy. Because it matters so much and because there are so many freedoms, people will fall out of line, it is inevitable. America will eventually burn out because of it's insatiable need for growth, a growth that ever increasingly relies on the participation of other nations.

The Chinese model makes a lot more sense from a stability standpoint. Don't ask the people what they like, tell them what they like. It has worked for 2500 years pretty much uninterupted.

People hate US culture because it is so overt and so overwhelming and not really steeped in any great history. 220 years isn't a "great" history. There will never come a time when all guns are pointed on the US, I think it will just fade into the same obscurity Britain has managed to find itself in.

[rich036]

I think it will just fade into the same obscurity Britain has managed to find itself in.

Don't you worry.. we'll get the Olympics in 2012 and put ourselves back on the map! ;P

[mgb]

Don't you worry.. we'll get the Olympics in 2012 and put ourselves back on the map! ;P

You guys can't even build a fountain that works, how do you expect to build venues, let alone the torch? :P

I wouldn't be surprised if Istanbul or Havana get it.

[rich036]

You guys can't even build a fountain that works, how do you expect to build venues, let alone the torch? :P

I wouldn't be surprised if Istanbul or Havana get it.

That's a princess Diana thing. She couldn't even commit suicide properly, so it's her curse.

Plus the fountain works. It just injures people.. unlike say.. Trafalgar sq.

[mgb]

That's a princess Diana thing. She couldn't even commit suicide properly, so it's her curse.

Plus the fountain works. It just injures people.. unlike say.. Trafalgar sq.

Ouch.

[Geoff]

Bit harsh!

Re : the olympics.

As one Londoner put it.. I hope Paris gets the Olympics, it is easier for me to get to than the part of London chosen for the Olympic village.

Yes, no doubt in the long term the US will fade, but it is worth remembering that in sheer surface area it outstrips the superpowers of the past. Britain has returned to its original size, and while some may see that as 'obscurity' why in today's world, on earth, would Britain want to be running as it did in the past, say "Palestine", "the US", "India", etc. I would say, Iraq too.. but we still seem to be there!

-Geoff

[Dman]

Britain is simply smarter - still holds significant power and influence, as well as wealth, but let the "new guy" U.S. stick its neck out and take the heat!

[mgb]

Britain is simply smarter - still holds significant power and influence, as well as wealth, but let the "new guy" U.S. stick its neck out and take the heat!

I think the power they hold now is a shadow of what they used to.

I think they began to decline in power when the US became its own entity. They just don't have the natural resources to be a powerhouse in the world anymore.

[Claverhouse]

Britain began declining from it's rather anomalous position of Supremo on the Seas and grabber of unclaimed territories during the 1880s when it's manufacturing lead was eroded by Germany, France & the USA, and it stopped being the Workshop of the World as it liked to called itself. ( Which actually may have been accelerated by the farming depression of the 1870s, itself helped by cereal imports from the New World, and just a bit later by the invention of refrigeration on ships ).

It took a whole lot of work to destroy the German competition ( see: History: Politics & War: 20th Century ), which in turn wiped out the British economy and made it a dependent of the USA. Which may not have been what was aimed for, but you don't always get what you expect in life.

Wasn't it A. J. P. Taylor's dictum that the qualification to be a Great Power is the strength and ability to destroy any other Great Power: however if you actually achieve this, you will no longer be in the position to be a Great Power ?



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[wezl]

As usual I come late to the debate. I agree completely with Sally's opening post. The was is not about democracy any more than WMD or the other excuses. Geo. W. thinks God had sent him on a crusade to convert the world to evangelical christians or kill them, period. All else is fog of war.

[Dman]

As usual I come late to the debate. I agree completely with Sally's opening post. The was is not about democracy any more than WMD or the other excuses. Geo. W. thinks God had sent him on a crusade to convert the world to evangelical christians or kill them, period. All else is fog of war.

That would imply that Bush is such a charming, persuasive guy that he got everybody in congress, the CIA, administration, etc. (jews, muslims & atheists alike) to follow him on his religious crusade. He should start a cult! Because we all know that the Iraqi leaders being elected are all christians, right? And that the war is turning the middle east christian? Yeah! You figured it out!

[DevNull]

as if America has managed to live the entirety of its existance on some sort of imaginary moral high ground.

Nah. Just slightly higher moral ground than our enemies' at any given time.

There is something to be said for perception and public opinion. America has the manner of a Hollywood agent. Not the most dangerous character you'll meet, but one to be wary of for sure. Lots of talk of glitz and glamor and the rep to match. Plays hardball, smiles a lot and does slimy things when messed with.... usually by having other entities doing their dirty work. Remember also that we are a superpower.

Our enemies (superpowers of the past and new aspiring ones) have, and have had, the manner of tyrants.

Other countries on this planet who are not fortunate or skilled enough to be a superpower have to suck up to either a tyranny or an exploiter for protection and/or viability. Until someone comes up with a plan to create a normal country, then you got two choices. I pick the Hollywood agent. I am not making it off this planet alive, so I might as well make it hard for the tyrants.

I think it was HL Menken who said he would rather live under a robber baron than a tyrant because the robber baron may one day have too much wealth to handle but a tyrant who torment people "for their own good" will never run out of things to impose.

I do aspire for a Utopia, but none have caught my eye. Every time I try to suggest one, the tyrants always try to butt in and tell me what is wrong with it and the Hollywood agents just steal the best parts of my Utopia plans to exlpoit them. Life is funny like that.