A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing

[Undertoad]

Originally posted by novice day off
I'm saddenned by the fact that, having just read this thread from start to finish, I'm no closer to knowing what, if anything, should be done about Iraq.

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.

[Radar]

If I had a million dollars that I stole from a bank, 2 months ago, and didn't spend it, didn't give it away, didn't destroy it, wouldn't you be right in accusing me of hiding it?

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 believe that as a world community we should attempt to work with each other to make the entire world a better place, perhaps calling on the help of our neighbors when the time comes that we might need it, obviously only taking preemptive action in times of intense duress, where (what I percieve as) basic human rights to life, freedom from oppression, generic-catch-phrase-rights, etc, are infringed or otherwise denied.

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.

ChrisDbekistan invades Canada, Canada asks for our military and economic help. Do we help?

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.

ChrisDbekistan decides to murder/genocide 3 million Canadian residents/militia in a bloody civil war. The only world power capable of checking ChrisDbekistans power is the USA. Do we do something?

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

ChrisDbekistan decides to murder/genocide 3 million Canadian civilians in a large prision camp. The only world power capable of checking ChrisDbekistans power is the USA. Do we do something?

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'd just be interested in hearing your response, your purely isolationist viewpoints are unique.

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.

[elSicomoro]

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

[Radar]

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.

[elSicomoro]

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.

[Radar]

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.

[russotto]

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?

[Radar]

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.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Undertoad


Israel hasn't yet been attacked. They initiated force. If they had not, they would have lost the war and there would be, in all likelihood, no Israel today.

Wrong of them to do?

In the late 70s Iraq built a nuclear reactor, with French selling it tech, with which they intended to fortify nuclear materials for a bomb. Israel fighters went and blew it up in 1981. If they hadn't, Hussein probably would have had nukes in 1991 with which to back up his use of force at that time. This would have complicated things nightily, needless to say. Or, perhaps the Iraqi initiation of force against the WTC in 1993 would have had a stronger bomb to load in the Ryder.

Wrong of the Israelis to do?

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?

[elSicomoro]

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

--CO status
--Canada

[Undertoad]

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.

[elSicomoro]

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.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Undertoad
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.

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.

[slang]

Originally posted by richlevy
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'.

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.