Easy way to manage that sir - post your thoughts and let us support them and/or pry them apart. I promise, no poetry for your first 100 posts.

The Cellar is just as much about figuring out what to do with ourselves as what to do about the rest of the universe. As the protests indicate, we have as much to learn about getting along with our friends as we do about managing our enemies.

Except it was 12 years ago and most of it (if not all of it) was destroyed. And you're forgetting that you don't have the right to know if I do or don't have the money.

I beleive in nations working together too. They should trade freely, discuss politics in a forum like the U.N., have peace talks, offer peaceful exchanges of culture, etc. However when it comes to helping our neighbors, it should be done voluntarily and not through governent. And America should never send our military except when attacked. We should allow private citizens to send food, medicine, guns, or whatever else to help others, but not our actual military. We should allow American citizens to join the military of other countries if they really want to help.

America is not under duress, and our right to life is not under attack from Iraq, and the only oppression we have to fear at this moment is from those who would violate our civil rights like GWB and his supporters who championed and passed the single most unconstitutional piece of legislation and are following it up with another to attack our civil rights even further.

No. At least not our government, but citizens would be allowed to join the Canadian military to fight, to send food, guns, medicine, or whatever else they choose to send in order to help.

Not unless they start massing thier troops on the border and they take a step or fire a shot into U.S. territory.

We encourage our citizens to take the steps I outlined earlier, and recommend to the U.N. that they discuss what should be done since they love getting involved in this type of stuff.

I'm not an isolationist in any sense of the word. I'm a military non-interventionist. There's a HUGE difference. I still believe in trading with other nations, discussing things politically, having political allies, making treaties (as long as they don't require the use of our military to defend other nations) etc. That is hardly an isolationist. Is Switzerland isolationist? They trade freely with all of the world, have a strong military for defense, and they stay neutral when it comes to the wars of other nations. They don't make enemies by interfering in the military flare-ups of other nations, arming one side or the other, forcing other countries to disarm, etc.

Toad is so funny
He thinks he's intelligent
How wrong can he be?

He talks about laws
But he wants a government
that has no limits

He ignores the truth
It's more comfortable to lie
than to think himself

Statist 'till the end
Because he's a bitter man
who runs from problems

He wants to ruin
American government
by breaking the law

Murder is OK
If it's our military
doing the killing

Ignore Sovereignty
we are a super power
it's fine to meddle

Borders don't matter
or legal authority
we're American

Liberate Iraq!
by blowing them to pieces
Aren't we nice people?

Iraq is no threat
they have never attacked us
but what if they could?

Policing the world
Is America's Duty
Regardless of law

No thinking for me
I'll disagree with Radar
And then I'll have friends

I am not impressed
with your so-called haiku skills
you're a living joke.

Though 3 syllables is a variant, the standard pronunciation for "sovereignty" is 4 syllables, which would make the line "Ignore Sovereignty" 6 syllables.

You are incorrect. The standard pronunciation of the word Sovereignty in America is 3 (and only 3) syllables. Sove/reign/ty

It's funny that you didn't respond to what I said but instead made an errant critique of my quickly thrown together poetry. It's a perfect example of your character (or lack therof)

Although I hate to do it, I must back up the asshole sycamore today. It's definitely four syllables - sov·er·eign·ty.

Look it up.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: sov·er·eign·ty
Variant(s): also sov·ran·ty

I was merely commenting on your writing technique, and trying to help you be the best writer you can be.

Thanks for your kind and sincere efforts to help me improve my writing skills but I will exercise my artistic license and stick with the recognized variant I've already used. I appreciate you looking out for my well being and image. You're a swell fella; a peach of a guy.

A degree in computer science? Then you'll respect the political opinions of one of the men who invented some of the key concepts behind compilers and compiler design. I refer, of course, to the Noam Chomsky and his Chomsky Hierarchy.

No? How about the opinions of one of the inventors of the transistor, upon which computers are built. Granted, that's more engineering than science, but still it's rather important, so you must respect Shockley's opinions, yes?

I will certainly respect thier opinions in their respective fields and Chomsky a bit out of his field, but Chomsky believes in such a thing as a libertarian socialist which is like saying someone is a 7 foot midget, heterosexual homosexual, an 80 year old baby, etc. Shockley is a very old man and I doubt he has anything relevant to say in regard to today's technology or politics.

And in neither case did the Israelis move on to attempt to overthrow any of these countries. Also, many conservatives point to our intervention in Kosovo as a justification for the current war. But that argument works against them. Because we also had evidence of genocide and atrocities in Kosovo and we still did not attempt to overthrow the aggressor.

Besides skirmishes and raids, there is a reason most countries do not attempt to overthrow stable regimes, no matter how brutal. Unless a country is in the midst of massive civil unrest, most citizens prefer the government they have to invaders, or else they would have revolted in the first place.

Even the most savage dictators eventually fall, as Ceaucescu and his wife found out in Romania. The only way that an invading force would be welcome would be to convince the citizens that the invasion is in their behalf. Noone is stupid enough to believe this. Even most Americans do not believe that we are doing this for some purely altruistic reason.

I am not a big fan of our current utra-conservative gun-toting leadership, but that does not mean I would welcome an invading army of Dutch liberals bent on reforming our barbaric laws by banning capital punishment and making drugs and prostitution legal.

Rumsfeld and our current planners were idiots to believe that the Iraqis who surrendered in Kuwait were going to do the same when we drove up to their doorstep. We decided to go it alone and took on a harder job with less equipment and international support than in the first Gulf War, underestimating the enemy's will to fight.

One problem with Bush hiring a Vietnam-Era staff is that these guys are the living embodiment of history repeating itself. It's Vietnam all over again, except this time without the trees. At least the poor SOBs on the ground don't have to worry about Agent Orange this time.

IMHO, Rumsfeld is a micromanaging idiot, and Perle is rabid flake who wants to try out his own version of the Domino Theory in the middle east, except this time in reverse. Here we push over the dominoes and take Iraq and then Saudi Arabia.

My son is 17 years old. At the rate we are sending troops over, and with the possibility of a much larger than anticipated occupation force, there may be a draft in 2-3 years. For the first time in 20 years, there is a measurable chance that in the next 5 years I might be laying flowers in front of my son's name on some granite wall in Washington.

How did we get here?

Two options for your son, should he be drafted, Rich:

--CO status
--Canada

Sorry Rich, some of your concern is imaginary: it's highly likely there will never be another draft in the US again.

The military has learned that soldiers who do not enter voluntarily are damned poor soldiers. The new military needs really good soldiers because the job is more specialized than it was back in the day. There is no longer any such thing as cannon fodder, and modern politics and warfare will continue to demand a more humanitarian, less lethal approach to fighting.

El Sapo has a point there. I heard last week that recruiters have to turn people away right now, b/c so many good candidates are coming in. Damnit...wish that would have been the case 9 years ago...those bitches kept calling me every damned day.

I won't be sorry to be wrong in this case. However, even modern warfare needs manpower. When you have troop deployments in the hundreds of thousands, and have to anticipate contingencies and multiple-front wars, you might just run out of manpower. No matter how many high-tech specialties exist, there will always be 'combat arms'.

Of course it would be political suicide, but at the point it would become necessary there would probably not be an alternative. Besides, it would be during Bush's second term, when he can afford to drop the 'compassionate'.

I really hope that I am wrong here.

I'm 35 years old and have never served in the military. The recruiter told me I was too old for any type of military service which pissed me off more than anything else. I am in good health, reasonably fit, have years of shooting experience, and would love to euthanise any group or individual responsible for terror attacks seen here in the US. Yes, that includes the Hussein Iraqis.

If things get *that* bad, I would hope that the gov't is smart enough to allow us perpetually single, older, angry mother fuckers to participate in this conflict. I honestly believe that I could contribute as much if not more than an 18 or 20 year old. Add to that the fact that I have benefitted from being a US citizen enough that I would willingly fight for it, even at 35! Probably more so than when I was 20.

It's true there would be an enormous sacrafice by me joining the miltary. I'd have to quit the shit job that has replaced the extremely well paid and comfortable job I had before 911. I't be well worth it to me though, to kick the asses that need it so we can get back to the thriving US economy we had.

I understand your concern for your son (as much as a single guy without kids can) but I really dont think he will be drafted. I don't think anyone will be, or need to be. There are millions of angry mother fuckers that have been kept out of service.

If they want more soldiers quickly, a pay increase or "signing bonus" would provide them faster than anything, and that could be rolled into wartime debt.

The military takes a full percent less of the GNP than it did during Iraq 1.

Good point UT. With a signing bonus I could get *another* shit job but potentially kill someone that really pisses me off, instead of kissing their asses. :)

Saturday I was in a shopping center that has an Army/ Marines recruiting office. As I walked by with my bag of crap, I looked in. No one in the Marines office except the guy at the desk. In the Army office a Mom and Dad sat, on the couches by the front window, looking nervously away from each other. In the back of the office the man at the desk was interviewing their daughter. I could just see the back of her blond ponytailed head. I wish I'd had a camera 'cause it was an interesting group.

No draft. Due to the globalized economy destroying the middle class in this country there will be plenty of people that think the army is preferable to flippin' burgers and making freedom fries.

Oh, by the way, Radar is right. We have no moral or legal right to attack Iraq. But, since the current Iraqi regime doesn't know what either of those words mean, it's OK. I ain't gonna tell 'em.

I don't understand why intelligent people would wast their time responding to Radars utopian bullshit. As lovely as it sounds in the drawing room over brandy and cigars, it doesn't work. Never has, never will.

Never hesitate to destroy totalitarianism.
 

I won't agree there, Bruce -- for it seems self-evident to me that there is no wrong time nor wrong way to dismantle a totalitarian regime. They are constructed upon tissues of lies and villainous oppression.

While I am under no illusions as to the inherent goodness of the State, a representative republic (a genuine one, not a well-concealed fraud) makes a much better government than any autocracy, enough so that quite a few denizens of republics end up thinking governments really can be nice guys, and that that is the normal outcome. Even the most casual reading of world history will bring that idea into doubt. The pool of political talent in a small, poor nation is often shallow enough that a highly motivated sociopath can rise very high, even unto head of state. Large republics are fairly efficient at selecting against such -- William Jefferson Clinton and wife being an example of failing to weed them out, probably due to their sociopathy -- and they both have it -- being mild. The problem with a highly motivated sociopath becoming a head of state is that then you get the kind of state a sociopath would run -- complete with corruption, poverty, elevated death rates, torture, disappearings, and government-employed rapists. And a totalitarian regime -- always, the sociopath head of state is out for his own freedom and absolutely no one else's, a particularly rank sort of selfishness.

If my neighbor is beating his dog, I don't think I have any right to interfere beyond reporting him. Of course I'll go right over and cold cock him, but I would expect to take a lot of heat for it. Wow, did Clinton do all that? I figured if he was busy screwing interns, he was too busy to screw me.:D

Re: Never hesitate to destroy totalitarianism.
 

Unfortunately, when we give our State the power to dismantle the other guys State we run the risk of closing out the final days of the our "Republic". I'd hate to have to rely on the Peoples Republic of Iraq to come and save us from ourselves. Its the booze talkin'.

You have to put the right spin on it. If they don't find any WOMD, then that puts the rest on notice. We (USA) are your mom. If we even SUSPECT you're up to something, we'll smack you up side the head.:rattat:

I agree with the majority of Radars train of thought. I differ in that I think that we do - as humans - have a vested interest in trying to prevent dictatorial regimes from slaughtering their people. However, I do not think that the Iraq war has anything at all to do with humanitarian defense. We certainly didn't care for the Kurds in Halabja in '88.

I don't think we have a right to prevent other naitons from awakening the nuclear Genie. Espacially when we apply glaring double standards about who can and cannot have nuclear weapons.

Isreal has a massive nuclear weapons program. I think Iraq had good reason to develop a NBC program. I think that using those NBCs to kill massive numbers of civilians to keep under control is horrible, but I do not think that a war is the best way to solve that problem. This war has opened up a can of worms that may haunt us 20 years from now.

The same situation goes for North Korea. COntrary to what the media tell you, North Korea has not violated the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by announcing it is going to restart its nuclear weapons program. The treaty specifically allows signators to redress themselves as long as they provide prior notice of intent to develop nuclear weapons. They informed us of their intent a year ago - and we now see the result.

I think that Bush's preemptive strategy may very well lead to disaster if he pursues that strategy with North Korea.

I don't think he'll feel he has to. NK has neighbors, who have a larger stake than we do, that can bitch slap them.

Kim Jong Il is not easily influenced. I do no think he is going to back down simply because China expresses reservations. The nuclear issue is the only thing that separates them from the Iraqs of the world. BushCo is pretty reacionary, too. Half of the administration considers any sort of negotiation to be appeasement, the other half is getting lambasted by the right wing extremists. NK does not look like it is going well.

I am sure the media will do it's duty and whip up public support for a war against Korea - since North Korea may actually be a credible threat. Our administration will insist of pushing the issue of regime change and North Korea will get Iraq'd. Seoul will be a smoking pile of ash - which really sucks because I have a few good friends there. Tokyo will be destroyed and possibly Los Angeles ( which might appeal to the neocons ). Most of North Korea will be destroyed, the humanitarian disaster will be immense. Bush, the God King, will use every disaster as fuel to feed the war machine. China and Russia will be blamed for North Korea. The showdown between the superpowers will finally come. And then all the fundamentalist Christians will have their armageddon.

I know this sounds pessimistic, but I figure, if you expect the worst possible outcome, anything better will be a pleasant surprise.

Careful with that credible threat business. That is an angle some Dems/journalists were playing as a last ditch effort to prevent the Iraq invasion. China and Japan can take care of business on the peninsula. This is an example of the danger that comes from separating ones ideals and politics. By playing politics with the Korea question some Dems have locked themselves out of that debate. Seriously though, even Bush isn't nuts enough to go into Korea again. He may nuke a Nuk-U-lar power plant or two though.

North Korea has a ballistic missile that most credible sources concede - is able to reach North America. They have several nuclear wepons thus far, and are manufacturing more, now. They are much more of a threat than Iraq was, and their leader is just as ruthless as Hussein. They have a real hatred for Japan - since Japan has been the jumping off point for all of the American military agression in Asia, and I think that they would love to nuke Tokyo.

I think Bush should have handled this issue with respect and realistic expectations a year ago - instead of ignoring North Korea while they grew more anxious.

Except that China and Japan have diametrically opposed interests. China would love to see Japan fall. There is still a lot of residual hate for the atrocities commited by the Japanese army in WW2. Japan will go along with whatever the U.S. recommends in the region - since we are effectively - their military. the Japanese leadership kowtows to Americna interests in most issues, so I have a hard time thinking that Japan will be driving any negotiations.

Good, you accepted that program. You are now to think that the Dems are appeasers for wanting to maintain diplomatic efforst instead of resorting to military beligerance.

Sometimes groups are playing politics, sometimes there are legitimate concerns in a region. North Korea is an order of magnitude more threatening than Iraq. They would still be no match of us, but they could stick a few good punches before they went down.

The media punditocracy love to say that anyone that is voicing dissent or raising an issue of concern must automatically be playing partisan games, but this is simply a way of limiting the debate and avoiding the issue. I am sure that the dems will be locked out of any debate, but not because of their views. This is just the way this administration works.

If an administration can claim that the largest mass demonstration in the history of the earth - was a focus group - he can claim that the Dems are playing politics and he can blame any blowback on them.

The media - who used to actually question elected officials - are happy to sell the official line to everybody.

If you are wary of North Korea you are either Chicken Little, or you are a partisan trying to play games - both characterizations dispel any validity of criticism.

We agree that Bush blew it playing the cowboy and not simply talking to North Korea.

The Democrats rhetoric was militarily beligerent as well. As I remember it, we were not supposed to go to Iraq because we needed the military for a confrontation in Asia. We don't need ground capabilities to dissuade NK, unfortunately that was the implication. Thats why we have to stop voting for ficca plants, they make arguments based in conveniece not in principle. A little outfit called the Soviet Union, ruled by its fair share of nuts, was kept at bay for many years by the simple knowlege that we would respond from the air if they launched. Unfortunately, Bush has opened the pre-emptive can o' worms making the situation more dangerous but not IMHO untenable.

You make a good point Griff.

When I refer to democrats, I feel like I am talking about to halves of a party - in a "Dark Crystal" sort of way.

The Republican lite Democrats - like Gephardt - seem to have the loudest voices and the weekest backbone.

The other democratic party - is made up of the liberal core of people. Most of them were opposed to the war in Iraq and most of them wanted to maintain a diplomatic relationship with North Korea.

I agree. But if it is choice between Bush and the plant, I gotta pick the plant. I would rather have arguments based in conveniece than arguments based on sky buddy fantasies and arrogant militarism.

I have a different take on that - I think that they kept us at bay for many years. At the beginning of the cold war, many, many generals wanted to go nuking their way to peace. It was the threat of MAD that brought a little reality into the room.

But that is a debate for another thread.

Preemption is not exactly a new initiative, but they way in which Bush has boondoggled the ramp up for this war is certainly a shock. Basing the whole thing on fabrications is what really disturbs me.

Much of this 1st paragraph is more right wing rhetoric than real world fact. Right wing does not understand that political warfare in N Korea is more vicious than Collin Powell verses Rumsfeld. N Korea's Kim Jung Il is not necessarily in full power. Where would America be if Gen Curtis LeMay had his people in all government positions? Entire 1st Marine Division would be nuclear toast on beaches of Cuba.

Some facts we do know. N Korea is desperate to become part of a world trading community. But N Korean right wing military leaders also believe (have been raised as little children to believe) that the world wants to conquer N Korea at a first sign of weakness. Now you tell me. How does a nation become part of a world community and still entertain their fears?

Lie. Claim all kinds of mass weapons that don't exist or that don't exist in signficant numbers, or that exist but don't work very well. As a major world weapons supplier, and a country that earns 25% just from weapons, then make even better weapons. Show off those weapons and exaggerate their abilities. Powerful publicity means more sales (such as Scuds to Yemen). Powerful pubilicity demands that even the US must have respect. If you don't get that respect and access to world trade, then rachet up the tension, make even more deadly looking weapons, and lie even more about what you have. These are the people that Kim Jung Il must answer to. When America rattles sabers, then these are the people who become more powerful in N Korea.

It is silly rhetoric to claim that N Korea only wants to destroy everyone. A serious power struggle is inside N Korea just to determine how to gain world respect. Many power brokers that Kim Jung Il must answer to have no idea how the world really works. What the world has seen is how these myopic power brokers respond to threats. Confront them directly, and nuclear war is inevitable. Virtually the entire population of S Korea understands that which is why they fear US government more than N Korea. Based upon how the Vulcans advocate solutions, then S Korea and Japan both have much to fear from the US.

Dealing with N Korea as a nation that must be attacked is silly - a Pickett's Charge solution. A MacAurthur noted, only the unintelligent commander advocates a frontal attack. Intelligent diplomacy is more powerful and devious than a million man army and nuclear bombs. Ironic, even George Jr began to see the light when White House said the N Korean translation was mistranslated - so as to let N Korea back off their statement. George Jr did what intelligent Presidents like Kennedy did to keep tensions from getting taut. That was the first time George Jr has shown any indication that he might understand the N Korean standoff for what it really is.

We would not be here if the Republican neanderthals in Congress had not undermined the entire Sunshine policy and the Carter / Clinton agreement that had started to bring N Korea into the world. Their testosterone attitude when N Korea was willing to end major weapons programs only resulted in creating new nuclear weapons programs. We restarted aggressive weaspons programs by empowering those myopic N Korean power brokers. It would have cost us almost nothing - a monthly shipment of oil and construction on two electric power stations. Right wing Republicans quashed deliveries for up to 5 years, thereby empowering N Korean right wing power brokers. No wonder N Korean hard liners are now back in power - and now telling Kim Jung Il what he will do.

Diplomatic trick is to have American diplomats who understand. Who are the hard liners? What N Koreans favor Sunshine? America policy must empower the latter at the expense of the former. Classic carrot and stick. Holbrook did exactly that in Serbia because his boss understood the world. Right wingers don't understand how successful diplomacy can be if the White House is intelligent. Can Kelly do same as Holbrook especially when right wing extremists such as Rumsfeld and Ashcroft are on the attack of Powell? It all depends on the intelligence of George Jr - whether he is smart enough to understand a diplomatic campaign OR will be enticed by the neanderthal solution of war.

He did back down when China "accidentally" shut off his oil for 3 days. He then patiently waited his turn to be a pain in the ass.