A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing

[SIZE=3]A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing[/SIZE]

by Harry Browne

February 12, 2003

George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Perhaps a corollary of that axiom should be: Those who know only historical slogans should quit using them to support their causes.

For example, amateur historians remind us impatiently that the reason Iraq must disarm (which no one else is doing) is that Hussein promised to disarm at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

Of course, they neglect to tell us that the "promise" was made at the point of a gun. You don't "freely" give your money to a mugger when he says, "Your money or your life." Promises and actions that are coerced are morally meaningless.

But citing Hussein's promise isn't the only way history is misused.

History is invoked to justify the U.S. starting a war against a foreign country (Iraq in 1991, Serbia in 1999, and now Iraq again) because "history tells us" we have to stop the latest incarnation of Adolf Hitler before he proceeds to conquer the entire world. As though Serbia or Iraq could be compared to the power of Hitler's Germany.

And the history-sloganeers remind us over and over that millions of lives would have been saved if only the Allies had stopped Hitler at Munich.

A historical slogan can be a wonderful thing. It allows you to reduce all the complexities created by billions of people to a simple equation of Good vs. Evil, white & black, us & them.

The Facts

However, the world didn't begin in 1938. And amateur historians apparently have never bothered to go beyond their high-school history lessons to discover what made it possible for Hitler to threaten Europe in 1938. And the background throws a completely different light on the relevance of 1938 to today.

In 1914 Austria dominated Europe the way the U.S. dominates the world today. The Austrian Empire included what is now Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia, as well as parts of Italy and Romania.

Many Serbs thought Bosnia should be part of Serbia instead of Austria. When the Austrian Emperor's heir apparent, Archduke Ferdinand, visited Bosnia, he was murdered by a Bosnian Serb protesting Austrian domination.

This act sucked almost all the countries of Europe into the bloody first World War. Austria declared war on Serbia. And because of mutual defense treaties, Britain, France, Belgium, Romania, Greece, Portugal, Montenegro, Russia, and even Japan went to war on behalf of Serbia. On the other side, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, and Turkey supported Austria.

Eventually, 15 million soldiers and civilians would be killed and at least 20 million wounded, all because one person had been murdered — a fitting testament to the irrationality of war.

Stalemate

The war probably could have ended in 1917. Both sides were devastated and seeking an armistice. But America, under no threat of attack by the Germans or Austrians, entered the war that year — allowing the Allies to step up the war and forcing Germany to surrender in 1918.

The Allies imposed oppressive terms on the Germans — who, by a complicated argument, were blamed for the entire war. Important parts of Germany were confiscated and given to Czechoslovakia, Poland, and France. Germany was stripped of its colonies. And the Allies forced the Germans to assume the cost of the entire war — a price they could never hope to pay.

To the victors go the spoils, indeed!

Enter Hitler

All that most Americans know of 1920s Germany is the decadence they've seen in Cabaret and other movies. But here was an intellectual country devastated by losing the resources to support itself, made to pay horrendous reparations, and suffering from a runaway inflation that caused a loaf of bread to cost billions of marks.

If we realize what the Germans were forced to go through, we can begin to understand how one of the most culturally advanced countries of the world — the home of Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven, and Wagner — could have fallen for a thug like Hitler.

Hitler would have been laughed out of Germany in 1910. But in 1933 he seemed to be the only person able to end the reparations, recapture the stolen territory, reunite families, and restore Germany's glory. The Germans could see he was a brutal man, but they were told you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

(Unfortunately, everyone assumes it will be someone else's eggs that will be broken, and no one notices that the omelet never materializes.)

Conclusions

So perhaps those who love to recite historical slogans could give some thought to a few lessons from history that are relevant to today's situation and could help us understand something about our own future . . .

[list]
[*]If U.S. politicians had minded their own business in 1917, instead of plunging America into a war that didn't threaten us, an armistice would have occurred, and the existing governments in Russia and Germany most likely would have remained in power — meaning no Soviet Union and no Hitler. But do-gooders always believe they know what's best for the world — and they claim that some simple act of force will settle matters once and for all. It never does.
[/list]
[list]
[*]If the U.S. had stayed out of World War I, most likely there would have been no World War II, although it's entirely possible that other wars — more localized — would have occurred. World War II was the direct result of World War I — and, more specifically, of the U.S. interfering in World War I.
[/list]
[list]
[*]If the Allies hadn't imposed draconian peace terms on Germany in 1918, there probably would have been no Hitler to threaten anyone. Germany would have resumed its role as an intellectual and cultural center in Europe. (American diplomats learned their lesson and eased their demands somewhat at the end of World War II.)
[/list]
[list]
[*]The Allies forced the Germans to promise things that could never be delivered. And using force to exact promises from someone like Saddam Hussein creates about as much security as ordering your cat to guard your home. If the demands are unnatural (as expecting a country in the Middle East to disarm certainly is), you can expect a backlash.
[/list]
[list]
[*]There always will be thugs like Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein in the world. But those thugs aren't dangerous to us until we create real grievances that cause millions of people to support the thugs with money, networking, and connections that allow the thugs to threaten us.
[/list]

There's a Lot More

We haven't even touched on some other salient facts of history that bear on today's situation — such as the attitude of Muslims in the Middle East toward foreigners who have invaded and subjugated Arabs over the centuries. Nor have we looked into the way the British and French in the mid-1900s drew unnatural boundaries in the Middle East that were bound to lead to turmoil.

And when amateur historians remind us that Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 (as though that were an excuse for bullying Iraq forever) probably not one of them could tell you why Iraq invaded Kuwait. Are they aware of the oil disputes, the fact that Kuwait has more in common with Iraq proper than the northern Iraqi Kurds do, or that Kuwait not too long ago was prepared to become part of Iraq? Are they aware that the American ambassador to Iraq gave her blessing to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait just a few days before it occurred?

Nor have we touched on another important part of history — the assertions made by our government before and during the Gulf War, assertions that later proved to be false. There were no Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border, no Iraqi atrocities in Kuwaiti hospitals. The "smart bombs" General Schwarzkopf talked about so proudly in his TV briefings were hardly ever used in the war — and when they were used, they missed their targets more often than not. And the number of innocent Iraqi civilians killed was revised upward several times after the war.

Of course, all that is ancient history. So why dredge it up today?

Because the men who told the lies in 1991 — Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell — are the same men providing the "evidence" that we must go to war again.

When Colin Powell says he has solid evidence for the claims he made at the UN, we have to remember that this is what he and his associates said before the Gulf War.

History is more than slogans.

[list]
[*]It is facts backed up by evidence you can verify;
[/list]
[list]
[*]It is human nature being relived over and over;
[/list]
[list]
[*]It is continual confirmation that we must treat our own government with great skepticism;
[/list]
[list]
[*]It is an admonition that initiating force never produces the results promised for it.
[/list]
And if we ignore history and listen to the slogans instead, it will be you and I who will suffer the consequences.
When will we learn?

Originally posted by Radar
[SIZE=3][b]A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing[/SIZE]

[i]by Harry Browne
[/B]

Harry ain't here, so why is this article?

For example, amateur historians remind us impatiently that the reason Iraq must disarm (which no one else is doing) is that Hussein promised to disarm at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

Of course, they neglect to tell us that the "promise" was made at the point of a gun. You don't "freely" give your money to a mugger when he says, "Your money or your life." Promises and actions that are coerced are morally meaningless.

Morally, yes. But there is a set of protocols and procedures for dealing with promises made under duress in the absence of an overseeing authority. These protocols and procedures are necessary to allow surrender in the first place -- if they didn't exist, your enemy would have every reason to destroy you rather than come to terms with you, since you wouldn't follow any terms.

So there's nothing morally wrong with violating the terms of a peace treaty. But in doing so, you DO justify (in as much as the original war was justified) a re-start of hostilities. And this time, your enemy is unlikely to accept any surrender terms, so you'd better be able to win.
[/QUOTE]

History is invoked to justify the U.S. starting a war against a foreign country (Iraq in 1991, Serbia in 1999, and now Iraq again) because "history tells us" we have to stop the latest incarnation of Adolf Hitler before he proceeds to conquer the entire world. As though Serbia or Iraq could be compared to the power of Hitler's Germany.

Hitler's Germany, back when he re-occupied the Rhineland, couldn't be compared to Hitler's Germany as it became. There may be reasons Iraq is different, but off-the-cuff dismissal like this is exactly the sort of thing history really DOES teach against.

Harry, you're just an embarrassment to yourself and to the party you claim to represent.

Harry ain't here, so why is this article?

Because it's a great article by a great man.

So there's nothing morally wrong with violating the terms of a peace treaty. But in doing so, you DO justify (in as much as the original war was justified) a re-start of hostilities

The original was wasn't justified at all.

Hitler's Germany, back when he re-occupied the Rhineland, couldn't be compared to Hitler's Germany as it became. There may be reasons Iraq is different, but off-the-cuff dismissal like this is exactly the sort of thing history really DOES teach against.

History shows us that our military interventionism was precisely why Hitler came to power in the first place. If America hadn't stuck our noses into WWI, there never would have been a Hitler or a WWII and the 10 million Russians, 6 million Jews, untold number of millions of Chinese, Italians, Americans, English, etc. never would have been killed. In fact our previous intervention is why Saddam came to power. If America hadn't helped Saddam come to power in an effort against Iran, he wouldn't be a thorn in our side or anyone else's. Actually Saddam and Iraq pose no danger to America or any other country on earth. Not one shred of evidence has been brought forth to prove they are.

When will our country learn that our military interventionism creates problems instead of destroying them. History also shows that when we have a complicated web of treaties promising military intervention (which happens to be unconstitutional) into other countries a small squabble or event (the murder of 1 man) can turn into a bloody world war killing millions.

Harry, you're just an embarrassment to yourself and to the party you claim to represent.

Harry is not an embarrassment to anyone but his intelligence and common sense do embarrass the Republicans and Democrats who are too frightened to debate him. Harry Browne is a great man and is a better candidate for president than any Republican or Democrat that has ever held the office. It's only a shame he won't run again.

Y'all may remember from the "what are you reading" thread that I'm working on a biography of Hitler. That doesn't make me an expert, but it won't keep me from expanding some of these points.

Originally posted by Radar
[SIZE=3][b]A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing[/SIZE]

[i]by Harry Browne
allowing the Allies to step up the war and forcing Germany to surrender in 1918.

Let's not forget that there was actually a revolution in Germany in 1918, and it was the new government who surrendered. The old monarchy was apparently prepared to fight till the end, no matter what the cost. I can't speak to how the entry of the US affected or did not affect this, but what little I know suggests that the German government of 1917 would not have been interested in an armistice.

Hitler would have been laughed out of Germany in 1910.

In 1910 Hitler was an itinerant living in a men's hostel who made his living by painting postcards that were then sold by associates of his (including some Jews), and who pretended that he would one day be an architect even though he had failed the entrance exams for art school twice and had never made any efforts to train as an artist or an architect.

OK, that's picky. Still, in early 1923, Hitler had made a name for himself as a 2-bit rabble-rouser, and the government went so far as to arrange his deportation to Austria, but for some reason they never followed through on it. (At this point Hitler was still technically an Austrian citizen.) Later that year, Hitler staged the infamous Beer Hall Putsch. After it ended, Hitler was imprisoned after a show trial that gave him a national platform to spew his venom. After a period of a handful of months, Hitler was released on parole. This happened over the very strenuous objections of the Bavarian state prosecutor, who at least twice appealed to have Hitler's parole overturned.

But in 1933 he seemed to be the only person able to end the reparations, recapture the stolen territory, reunite families, and restore Germany's glory. The Germans could see he was a brutal man, but they were told you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

The German "people" had precious little choice by this time. Reich President Paul von Hindenburg and other right-leaning aristocrats (of which there were many) didn't give a damn about democracy and were convinced that all of Germany's problems could have been solved if they could reinstate an authoritarian government rather than a parliamentary one. He did everything he could to dilute the power of parliament so his cabinet could rule by presidential fiat. His appointment of Hitler to the Reich Chancellorship in 1933 was not something he wanted to do, but with deteriorating economic conditions, support for the Nazis was high enough that they had to be involved in the government, and Hindenberg apparently thought he had stacked the cabinet with enough of his own non-radical right-wing cronies that they would be able to keep Hitler's more outlandish tendencies in check. The day after Hitler was installed as Chancellor, Hindenburg agreed to dissolve parliament and call elections, a step he had refused Hitler's predescessor 4 days ago. This allowed the Nazis to solidify their hold in Parliament.

The bottom line is, Hitler did not seize power, he was given it, because the power brokers were more afraid of democratic rule than they were of the Nazis, especially since the Nazis were controlled by an incompetent politician whose only talent was to give speeches and rile people up.

initiating force never produces the results promised for it.

Or at least, when it does, you should try to figure out how to redefine the word "force" until it suits your arguments.

I can't speak to how the entry of the US affected or did not affect this, but what little I know suggests that the German government of 1917 would not have been interested in an armistice.

By 1917 the war had already taken its toll on all parties involved. Armistice talks had already begun. It was America’s involvement in the war that prevented the armistice from becoming a reality and the oppressive terms of the allies that allowed someone like Hitler to come to power. And yes, Hindenburg did give power to Hitler, but only after the Nazi's made sure nobody else could get the job. Hindenburg hated Hitler and the Nazi's because he knew they were thugs and murderers but he thought he could control them if they were on his side. He was mistaken to say the least.

Make no mistake, Hitler and his followers did indeed seize power in Germany. They murdered those who stood in their way and gained power by pushing Hindenburg around until he finally gave in.

Or at least, when it does, you should try to figure out how to redefine the word "force" until it suits your arguments.

Since that hasn't happened yet, the traditional definition of the word "force" will suffice.

Had America stuck to the policy of non-military interventionism created by our founding fathers, the war would have ended earlier, and most likely more reasonable terms would have been given to Germany which would have made the conditions in Germany impossible for Hitler to come to power.

America's military interventionism is why Saddam is in power in the first place. Let's do as the constitution provides for and only use our military for the defense of American soil or ships, not for the defense of other nations. Not to overthrow the leaders of sovereign nations. Not to threaten or bully other people with our military spread all over the world like the Roman Empire. Let's trade freely and only attack when we are directly attacked. Iraq has never attacked America, never funded, trained, harbored, or helped anyone else attack America. We had no justification to attack Iraq in 1991 and we still don't.

America's military interventionism is why Saddam is in power in the first place.

And also, of course, why Moscow is not.

Originally posted by Undertoad
America's military interventionism is why Saddam is in power in the first place.

And also, of course, why Moscow is not.

You don't really want to bring the USSR into this do you? After all, when we saved the world from the real Hitler we also helped enslave Eastern Europe under Stalin. I wonder who the new Stalin is if we are going to put the Hitler mask on Saddam.

Nice try, but American military interventionism is why we had a problem with Russia in the first place. If America hadn't been involved in WWI, there wouldn't have been a WWII and Russia and America wouldn't have fought over the spoils of war and never would have had a problem.

American military interventionism had nothing to do with the downfall of the USSR unless you count America stockpiling weapons as intervention. The USSR was going broke on their own and would have crumbled within 10-20 years without Reagan spending trillions and ensuring generations of Americans would be born into debt.

Go ahead guys, I think there are a few more straws you haven't grasped at yet.

lol @ Undertoad.

The case has been proven and is as solid as a rock. The only one grasping for straws and attempting to justify American military intervention is you despite the glaring cold hard facts of history showing how horrible the ramifications are when we take part in it. You blindly ignore the indisputable fact that America's involvement in WWI was what led to WWII. You blindly ignore the fact that America's military interventionism is almost always the reason we have a new "Hitler" to fight.

actually, this is all the pilgrims fault. because without pilgrims, we wouldnt even have america.

~james

OK, let's try another little exercise. 1967. Israeli intelligence picked up on the fact that Syria, Jordan and Egypt were going to attack. So Israel attacked first by hitting the Egyptian air force and knocking it out. This stranded Egypt's ground forces on the Sinai peninsula and Israel took the entire thing.

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?

In 1967 Israeli was told outright by Syria of the attack. They didn't discover it. But that aside, with Israel knowing about it, they should have re-enforced thier forces and had their airforce on alert and as soon as they saw a jet take off from Egypt, they should have attacked.

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?

Yes it was wrong of them. What if Syria was lying? What if Egypt wasn't going to attack? Israel was wrong to attack first. It is always wrong to attack first. Israel would have won even if Egypt attacked first.

In the late 70s Iraq built a nuclear reactor, with French selling it tech

True statement

with which they intended to fortify nuclear materials for a bomb

Baseless speculation

Israel fighters went and blew it up in 1981.

True statement

If they hadn't, Hussein probably would have had nukes in 1991 with which to back up his use of force at that time

Baseless speculation

Or, perhaps the Iraqi initiation of force against the WTC in 1993 would have had a stronger bomb to load in the Ryder

Iraq didn't attack the WTC in 1993, Ramzi Yousef (An Iraqi individual citizen who wasn't sent by the Iraqi government) did. But if Iraq did attack in 1993 they were perfectly justified in doing so since they were the victims of unwarranted, unconstitutional, and unnecessary attacks by the United States in 1991. They were also starved and kept from life saving medications.

Wrong of the Israelis to do?

Absolutely. Without a doubt they were wrong and so was America.

America had no justification to attack Iraq in 1991 and still doesn't in 2003. Israel had no justification to blow up an Iraqi nuclear reactor or to attack Egypt first.

They sit on some of the highest-quality oil in the world. What were they going to use a nuclear plant for?

UT you know Saddam was just trying to save the environment from the pollution that oil causes. He's a good person like that.

Saddam did it for fun...he seems like one of those Type-A personality folks. He just wanted to see you shit on yourself.

Anyway, your application of these principles requires nations to basically commit suicide. To defend what, exactly? The principles? Doubt they'd survive; they'd lie amongst the wastes of all the systems of thought that died out from having no cultures left to think them.

These are not problems that Americans have had to think about. But they aren't problems that are just going to go away if we ignore them. The world is getting smaller; the distance between nations is smaller, and technology brings us closer, much earlier than we would have hoped. And if the bombs proliferate there will be no one not at constant risk.

They sit on some of the highest-quality oil in the world. What were they going to use a nuclear plant for?

For thier own energy needs while they sell the high quality oil.

These are not problems that Americans have had to think about. But they aren't problems that are just going to go away if we ignore them.

Who said anything about ignoring problems. But starting unconstitutional wars against countries that pose no threat to America (Iraq poses no threat to America) isn't in the defense of America which is the only valid use of our military.

Being military non-interventionists isn't being isolationist and it's not ignoring problems.

And if the bombs proliferate there will be no one not at constant risk.

Neither America, nor the U.N. has the legal or moral authority to tell any nation what weapons they may or may not have. America doesn't choose who can have nukes. And if Iraq had nukes they'd probably just have them to ensure they're not the victims of unwarranted attacks such as those in 1991. They'd use them to make sure our planes stopped making illegal "no fly" zones, and to get our troops out of thier country. They'd use the principle of mutually assured destruction to get the respect thier sovereign nation deserves.

Lather Rinse Repeat

For thier own energy needs while they sell the high quality oil.

You have got to be fucking me, you really think Saddam is going to spend millions of dollars on a nuclear plant when he already has power plants that use oil. It costs him pennies to make electricity out of oil. I don't care how much he can sell a barrel of oil for there was now way in hell he could cover the cost of the Nuclear plant with the oil he uses to make electricity.

Oh yeah and for the rest of your argument what UT said.

Iraqi nukes

You have got to be fucking me, you really think Saddam is going to spend millions of dollars on a nuclear plant when he already has power plants that use oil. It costs him pennies to make electricity out of oil. I don't care how much he can sell a barrel of oil for there was now way in hell he could cover the cost of the Nuclear plant with the oil he uses to make electricity.

Nuclear energy is cheaper than oil. Less than the pennies. And Iraq knows that since they're selling all their oil eventually they will run out of it.

Like everything else, the FBI claims they've got evidence of a nuclear weapons program but have offered none. All they know is that Iraq had a nuclear reactor. They've got no proof of a nuclear weapons program. And even if they did have proof that Iraq was building Nuclear weapons, Iraq is a sovereign nation and can have any weapons they choose. They don't require the permission of the U.N., Israel, or America to have nuclear weapons. Israel was wrong to attack Iraq.

Griff, let's just discount the Iraqi nuke details from Nigeria (and the FBI's competency) and just use the ones Blix's team found in the home of an Iraqi scientist.

Originally posted by russotto
Harry ain't here, so why is this article?

1. Because "original thought" and "radar" are mutually exclusive terms.

2. He hasn't figured out how to link to an external article yet. This isn't the first time he's done this.

wolfs back! and awesome as ever! :)

~james

Originally posted by Radar

Had America stuck to the policy of non-military interventionism created by our founding fathers, the war would have ended earlier, and most likely more reasonable terms would have been given to Germany which would have made the conditions in Germany impossible for Hitler to come to power.

This is simply wild historical speculation. And I do mean wild. True, _ANY_ major change in history at that time would have made it unlikely for Hitler to come into power in Germany. But perhaps instead Russia, defeated in WWI, would have become wildly expansionist on its own, producing similar problems -- or even worse, without a strong opponent to balance Stalin. Remember that Russia surrendered BEFORE the US entered the war -- and the November 1917 Communist Revolution probably would have happened either way.

1. Because "original thought" and "radar" are mutually exclusive terms.

Not even close. Although I do a lot of reading from great minds like Lysander Spooner, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexis de Tocqueville, Benjamin Franklin, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, Frederic Douglas, Harry Browne, Milton Friedman, Frederic Bastiat, and many others, I often express my own original, intelligent, rational, and witty thoughts on this and other boards. You on the other hand have yet to have any thoughts, let alone an original one.

2. He hasn't figured out how to link to an external article yet. This isn't the first time he's done this.

It's easy to make links. Even an idiot like you could do that. But then if I used a link many of you would be too lazy or stupid to follow it. Instead I copied it here and even formatted it like it was originally posted.

Remember that Russia surrendered BEFORE the US entered the war -- and the November 1917 Communist Revolution probably would have happened either way.

That is no less wild and no less speculation than the thoughts I expressed.

Contempt for one's audience, Mr. Outreach?

It's not exactly straight outta "How to Win Friends and Influence People".

Originally posted by Radar
It's easy to make links. Even an idiot like you could do that. But then if I used a link many of you would be too lazy or stupid to follow it. Instead I copied it here and even formatted it like it was originally posted.

That's called "violation of copyright".

If folks are insufficiently fascinated by things that fascinate you to follow the link, why bother posting it in plain text? That can be ignored equally well.

Contempt for one's audience, Mr. Outreach?

No, just contempt for the stupid. And even when I do outreach booths if someone just wants to come up and argue, I'll be polite for a minute and send them on their way. If they insult me I'll tell them to get the hell away from my booth.

That's called "violation of copyright".

I know Harry Browne and it wouldn't take more than an email for me to get his permission. In fact I already know he wouldn't object to my posting in here to educate people like you.

If folks are insufficiently fascinated by things that fascinate you to follow the link, why bother posting it in plain text? That can be ignored equally well.

Prove it. Ignore it and stay away from the thread. Then I'll believe you.

"But then if I used a link many of you would be too lazy or stupid to follow it." - Radar


I am awed. I really enjoy attempted forcible education by aggressive people with superiority complexes. Can we arrange some B&D later?

I for one would like to thank Radar for the selfless efforts to set our skewed thought processes right once again. I've always wanted to be freed of the twin curses of self-determination and free thought.

The benefits of the Cellar simply cannot be overestimated.

Originally posted by Radar

Perhaps a corollary of that axiom should be: Those who know only historical slogans should quit using them to support their causes.

...

For example, amateur historians remind us impatiently that the reason Iraq must disarm (which no one else is doing) is that Hussein promised to disarm at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

Of course, they neglect to tell us that the "promise" was made at the point of a gun. You don't "freely" give your money to a mugger when he says, "Your money or your life." Promises and actions that are coerced are morally meaningless.

The "promise" you speak of were in the terms of his surrender. It's not a promise, it's a political agreement that he was forced to come to as a direct result of his agression on Kuwait (see below).

The war probably could have ended in 1917. Both sides were devastated and seeking an armistice. But America, under no threat of attack by the Germans or Austrians, entered the war that year — allowing the Allies to step up the war and forcing Germany to surrender in 1918.

Like a couple others mentioned (perhaps somewhat impolitely) - I find this to be the biggest speculation in the article (while at the same time the author decries the use of speculation in favor of "history").

[list]
[*]If U.S. politicians had minded their own business in 1917, instead of plunging America into a war that didn't threaten us, an armistice would have occurred...
[/list]

Let's just hold our horses right here.. Anything past this sentence is pretty far fetched speculation. In times of global crises, whether or not events would have played out differently is subject to anyone's opinion, regardless of how many pundits agree or disagree. You simply can't tell what would have happened.

[list]
[*]If the U.S. had stayed out of World War I, most likely there would have been no World War II...[/list]

Here we go again. /Reagan

[list]
[*]If the Allies hadn't imposed draconian peace terms on Germany in 1918, there probably would have been no Hitler to threaten anyone. Germany would have resumed its role as an intellectual and cultural center in Europe. (American diplomats learned their lesson and eased their demands somewhat at the end of World War II.)
[/list]

One more time, because it seems to be a popular theme. After the first clause, while probably true (and you mention it yourself, allied diplomats seemed to have learned their lesson post-WWII), the author only moves on to more speculation, something that anyone is qualified to give an equal opinion on, because when you pare away all the layers of fancy vocabulary and historical "warm-up", it's just that: speculation.

And when amateur historians remind us that Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 (as though that were an excuse for bullying Iraq forever) probably not one of them could tell you why Iraq invaded Kuwait.

I particularly liked this one. :)

Are they aware of the oil disputes, the fact that Kuwait has more in common with Iraq proper than the northern Iraqi Kurds do,

Cultural similarities are no basis for an invasion by force. Canadians probably share a good amount of our (American) cultural similarities.

or that Kuwait not too long ago was prepared to become part of Iraq?

"Was prepared" being the key phrase here. Perhaps they were "almost" perpared and Iraq took offense they didn't go through and decided to invade anyway?

Are they aware that the American ambassador to Iraq gave her blessing to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait just a few days before it occurred?

Unfortunately, one official's opinion and blessing (a minor official at the time, all things considered) does not represent all of us.

Nor have we touched on another important part of history — the assertions made by our government before and during the Gulf War, assertions that later proved to be false. There were no Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border, no Iraqi atrocities in Kuwaiti hospitals.

None in the kuwaiti hospitals, but how about lighting the oil wells or the deliberate dumping of oil into the Gulf?

3/24/1989, Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska: 10.9 million gallons.
2/15/1996, Sea Empress spill off coast of Wales: 18 million gallons.
12/3/1992, Aegean Sea loses 21.5 million gallons northwest of Spain.

And previous to Iraq, the WORST spill recorded in history and one some estimate will cause environmental damage for ANOTHER 100 years: June 3, 1979, The Ixtoc 1 oil well in the Gulf of Mexico explodes, spilling and estimated 140 million gallons of crude oil into the sea.

Iraq's dumping of oil? A paltry 460 million gallons, the effects of which still have not been calculated.

While not specifically aimed at "humans" and therefore considered an atrocity, this qualifies in my book.

The "smart bombs" General Schwarzkopf talked about so proudly in his TV briefings were hardly ever used in the war — and when they were used, they missed their targets more often than not.

I'd double check your sources on this one.. While we have no way of truly knowing the numbers because _I_ won't even go as far as to say our government would give us 100% accurate and truthful numbers, draw your own conclusions, YMMV:

According to the Pentagon: 80-90% of smart bombs hit their targets. The target choice has often come into criticism as water, sanitation, roads, hospitals were targetted, but the bombs themselves performed as intended.

In contrast: the same source released that approximately 70% of "dumb" conventional bombs miss their target.

History is more than slogans.

[list]
[*]It is facts backed up by evidence you can verify;
[/list]

So wild speculation about the end of WWI and cause of WWII is okay?

[list]
[*]It is human nature being relived over and over;
[/list]

Exactly. Exactly! I think most people here are aware of the Holocaust and do everything possible to BE responsible as a world community. I used to think there was a joke that any argument on the internet was "officially lost" when you brought in the Nazis/Hitler/The Holocaust - but I guess we can let it slide here because it was brought out at the outset. :p My point here is that History (if anything?) has shown us that brutal, oppresive regimes are best stopped as soon as possible. Saddam may have killed 30,000 Kurds 14 years ago, that could have been just a start. All the more pressing a reason to force abdication.

[list]
[*]It is continual confirmation that we must treat our own government with great skepticism;
[/list]

Agreed. However, don't confuse skepticism with blind opposition.


Unfortunately, I'm not the clear, concise writer that many of you here on the Cellar are, and so I can't really wrap this up in a powerful conclusion that will stand out for anyone, so I'll just say that I'm in support of disarmament (for a slew of reasons, WMD just being a fairly pressing one) and that I support our troops and our country's presidental administration (although that Bush guy... he needs to go :p ).

Thanks for the time-
ChrisD

What makes you think the U.N. or America has the authority to disarm anyone? America is no more legally or morally authorized to disarm Iraq than they are of disarming America. What would those who support the forced disarmament of Iraq based on a U.N. resolution say if the U.N. security council told America that we had to disarm entirely and that they would send inspectors from China, Russia, France, and Iraq to inspect the white house, pentagon, military bases, missle silos, and even American homes 24 hours a day 7 days a week without notice?

America would tell the U.N. to shove it. And that's exactly what Iraq should do. Iraq is a sovereign nation and doesn't ask permission from the U.N. or America about which weapons they can or should have.

Bush is using unverified non-compliance with the U.N. resolution against Iraq as an excuse to start an unconstitutional war while at the same time fipping the U.N. the bird and telling them we won't listen to them if they tell us not to use force. Why should Iraq listen to the U.N. if America won't?

ChrisD, you can write like real good and stuff. The problem is that if Radar is only interested in one-way communication, it's kinda pointless to write anything.

Originally posted by Undertoad
The problem is that if Radar is only interested in one-way communication, it's kinda pointless to write anything.

</cloaking device>
Well... what do you expect from a bartender? Frankly, I blame it on the lack of an academically-rigorous education. Apparently, upper-level writing courses aren't a graduation requirement at the Southeast Nevada Institute of Animal Husbandry and Mortuary Science.
<cloaking device>

Nothing wrong with being a bartender. And I have a degree in computer science dickhead. On your best day and my worst you couldn't expect to keep up with me intellectually.

Unfortunately for Radar's good name, his postings here reveal a Blame-America-Firster.

While he hews to the Libertarian shibboleth that a virtuous government (The LP, not being largely in power, has the luxury of pushing great and high virtue in governmental behavior, but this Libertarian does not expect to see much of that should Libertarian philosophy come to ascendancy in our republic's government. Just jaundiced of view, I guess!) shall not initiate use of force, Radar rather hopes no one will notice that the flaw in that argument in current circumstances is that force has already been initiated, twice over on one major Manhattan target, in a Yemeni harbor, and upon two embassy buildings, by self-declared enemies. Five times is more than enough for any definition of enemy action. Perhaps Radar does not consider that we actually have any enemies at all, let alone the kind of hysterical anti-Americanists we shall have to rid the planet of. A hint, therefore: libertarianism's foes are collectivists, socialists, and other unfree types, and these are not scarce on the ground.

Libertarianism may be cutely defined as: Libertarianism, the anti-Socialism.

Actually, to judge by the number of smiles and snickers of disbelief that crossed my countenance on reading Dr. Brown's article, I may be a better student of history than he.

/s/ Urbane G -- Big L Libertarian by party registration, small L libertarian by philosophy

That's Mr. Browne, not Dr., and his specialty is not history but selling his books on approaches for the upcoming bad times. Which, judging by the timing of his books, are always upcoming.

How did the LP twice nominate someone who has made a living predicting bad outcomes for the American economy?

(That question's rhetorical - I already know the answer.)

Urbane, your naiveté reveals your ignorance regarding history and our government. It’s not a matter of me being a “Blame-America-Firster” because I’m not. It’s a matter of me placing blame where it belongs. If America weren’t using our military to bully other countries around and to practice imperialism, we wouldn’t be having these problems.

While he hews to the Libertarian shibboleth that a virtuous government (The LP, not being largely in power, has the luxury of pushing great and high virtue in governmental behavior, but this Libertarian does not expect to see much of that should Libertarian philosophy come to ascendancy in our republic's government.

It’s not a luxury to expect the government to stick to our constitution. Nor is it strictly a Libertarian phenomenon. Nor is it related in any way to the power that the Libertarian party holds in government. Most Americans can and should expect our government to abide by the constitution that defines and limits the powers of government.

Just jaundiced of view, I guess!) shall not initiate use of force, Radar rather hopes no one will notice that the flaw in that argument in current circumstances is that force has already been initiated, twice over on one major Manhattan target, in a Yemeni harbor, and upon two embassy buildings, by self-declared enemies.

Unfortunately for you, there is no flaw in my argument because none of the attacks you mentioned were on the part of Iraq, funded by Iraq, planned by Iraq, or connected to the Iraqi government at all. In fact Iraq has never funded, harbored, trained, or supported anyone who has attacked America. The sole purpose of the American military is for the DEFENSE of American soil and ships. Not to police the world, not to tell other sovereign nations what weapons they may or may not own. Not to overthrow the leaders of other nations or to make “regime” changes. Not to practice imperialism. Not to defend any nation other than our own. You conveniently left out the fact that Iraq has never attacked America ever, but they were the victims of unwarranted and illegal attacks on the part of America in 1991. After that they were starved and kept from medicine. They were told they couldn’t fly planes over their own country, and bullied for 12 years by a nation that has no legal or moral authority over them.

Perhaps Radar does not consider that we actually have any enemies at all, let alone the kind of hysterical anti-Americanists we shall have to rid the planet of.

Perhaps Urbane doesn’t realize that our military interventionism, our use of foreign “aid” to bully other countries, and our imperialistic show of force around the world is the reason we have so many enemies in the first place. The founders of America were military non-interventionists and so are all reasonable people. And your support of genocide against those who are “anti-American” only proves that you are not a reasonable person.

Libertarianism may be cutely defined as: Libertarianism, the anti-Socialism

It may more accurately be defined as those who support the most freedom at the least cost and who recognize and respect the rights of others and the sovereignty of other nations.

Actually, to judge by the number of smiles and snickers of disbelief that crossed my countenance on reading Dr. Brown's article, I may be a better student of history than he.

Judging from your pretentious manner and the cavernous holes in your logic I wouldn’t think you were much of a student of any subject, unless you count the study of ostentatious and hackneyed use of vocabulary.

How did the LP twice nominate someone who has made a living predicting bad outcomes for the American economy?

Because he was correct on all counts. If you read his books you'll find that he predicted this whole Iraq thing several years before Bush was elected. The writing is on the wall even if you are too blind to see it and too illiterate to read it.

Remember folks, in this case, you can ignore the infection and it won't harm you later.

Radar's ad hominem attacks detract from his credibility somewhat, and while I do my best to honestly give everyone a chance and keep an open mind, ad hominem on the internet simply has the effect of reducing the author to a troll.

That being said, Radar: I do believe that at times (most times!) we should play the role of turtle - hole up in our shell and ignore those injustices that may be occuring in the world, weather or not they might be pointed at us, our views, or our belief in fundamental human rights.

But at other times, I think Spiderman said it best: With great power comes great responsibility.

I'm open to both sides of the argument. My biggest fear (problem?) with the oncoming war is a backlash of terrorist sleeper cells at home. Hopefully the FBI and good 'ole Ridge are on top of that threat, but it's hard to assess accurately. However, my biggest problem with the anti-war faction is what I call the "French" factor: A mindset determined to oppose, regardless of the facts at hand, simply for the sake of opposing. Whether it be the chic thing to do, the hippie thing to do, the peaceful thing to do, or the right thing to do; some people are simply opposed and will be no matter what they are shown or told.

In my opinion, these are the people who will be the most quiet when the US is vindicated post-war when the media can uncover the mass graves, torture chambers, hidden prisons, and most importantly: the ever so cliched weapons of mass destruction.

We will be vindicated.

Originally posted by Radar
Urbane, your naiveté reveals your ignorance regarding history and our government. It’s not a matter of me being a “Blame-America-Firster” because I’m not. It’s a matter of me placing blame where it belongs. If America weren’t using our military to bully other countries around and to practice imperialism, we wouldn’t be having these problems.

Yes, other people, who perhaps have no say in the matter, would.

Unfortunately for you, there is no flaw in my argument because none of the attacks you mentioned were on the part of Iraq, funded by Iraq, planned by Iraq, or connected to the Iraqi government at all. In fact Iraq has never funded, harbored, trained, or supported anyone who has attacked America. The sole purpose of the American military is for the DEFENSE of American soil and ships. Not to police the world, not to tell other sovereign nations what weapons they may or may not own. Not to overthrow the leaders of other nations or to make “regime” changes. Not to practice imperialism. Not to defend any nation other than our own. You conveniently left out the fact that Iraq has never attacked America ever, but they were the victims of unwarranted and illegal attacks on the part of America in 1991. After that they were starved and kept from medicine. They were told they couldn’t fly planes over their own country, and bullied for 12 years by a nation that has no legal or moral authority over them.

It seems as if we keep coming back to this, while I feel like you haven't really addressed the issue of the original Gulf War. Do you honestly feel as if Iraq marching upon Kuwait, regardless of the "almost" reasons I addressed in a previous post, was a legitimate action? That we were somehow in the wrong to assist Kuwait from the occupation by the Iraqi military? That, by consequence, we were wrong to enforce the terms of that treaty by which the Gulf War was ended?

You make an excellent chain of transitive connections, but your original premise is flawed, or at least you believe differently that most about what really happened 12 years ago. Can you explain that for me/us?

My only other comment to you Radar might be to attempt to hold off on the ad hominem regardless of what others might say. While I'm inclined to agree with them :p , we can keep this from being a 12-year-old mud slinging INTARNET FITE GR0UnDZ!! if we all try to stay mature, right?

Originally posted by Radar
What makes you think the U.N. or America has the authority to disarm anyone? America is no more legally or morally authorized to disarm Iraq than they are of disarming America. What would those who support the forced disarmament of Iraq based on a U.N. resolution say if the U.N. security council told America that we had to disarm entirely and that they would send inspectors from China, Russia, France, and Iraq to inspect the white house, pentagon, military bases, missle silos, and even American homes 24 hours a day 7 days a week without notice?

Primarily because Iraq/Hussein has shown a somewhat fearful tendency to abuse self-restraint in the use of the aforementioned arsenal, we have the "legal" and "moral" obligation to lighten his load.

In response to the second question, as I stated in the post above, those actions were based on the treaty of the Gulf War, in response to Iraq's aggression and attempt to take by force the independent and sovereign nation of Kuwait. Do you believe that such action was unwarranted, or that we should have "let those stinky arabs deal with it themselves?" I believe in liberty for all humans, and personally sometimes we're better equipped to deal with it than others. If your neighbor was abusing (trying to kill?) his child, wouldn't you call the police or attempt to help as well? It might not be "your business", but some things require the aid of those who can.

Bush is using unverified non-compliance with the U.N. resolution against Iraq as an excuse to start an unconstitutional war while at the same time fipping the U.N. the bird and telling them we won't listen to them if they tell us not to use force. Why should Iraq listen to the U.N. if America won't?

This is an excellent point and one that I still have trouble with. Personally I feel as if we should make every effort to verify more than minor non-compliance with the UN resolutions.

However, that being said, as Colin Powell and Bush have stated many times (and the UN has not disputed), vast quantities of chemical weapons (mustard gas), biological weapons (anthrax) and deployment mechanisms (scud missiles, drones, etc) were present and accounted for several years ago. That kind of merchandise does not simply "get lost".

Saddam is not dumb - perhaps disillusioned, but not dumb. He's made a life work of hiding these items, and he has had plenty of time to prepare for inspections.

Furthermore, it has to be made poignantly clear that these inspections are a farce from an ineffectual organization in an environment that cannot yield true inspections.

The inspectors provide (or are provided, I forget, sorry) a list of potential inspection sites. Their rooms are bugged. They travel in huge caravans of marked cars by which spies/guards of Hussein can phone the locations ahead of time. Fake accidents are staged to delay traffic when the inspectee site cannot prepare in time. Phone conversations have been recorded and played in which this game of hiding all the material and payments for "clean inspections" exist. Scientists are "interviewed" in a room bugged, taped, and with a military guard present.

Can you honestly tell me that you believe in your heart that the inspections are proving that those weapons must not exist because the inspections aren't showing anything? If anything, logic dictates that the inspections coming up empty handed proves clear violation of the original resolution, as it mentioned that proof of weapons disposal/destruction must be given, while it has not.

ChrisD

So let me get this straight chris..
You approve a war on Iraq because Iraq has "torture chambers, mass graves and weapons of mass destruction" and has shown a tendency to to be agressive, right? And this means the US has a 'moral' obligation?
(and a legal one? A legal one???? really? according to what law? the law of what we can bully the UN into passing this week?)

And that Iraq was in the wrong because without provocation it invaded a soverign state (Kuwait), and thus the US was morally right in becoming involved militarily.

I'm confused, does the US 'moral' obligation extend to all the bloody dictatorships it set up or only Iraq? Does it include ones that pop on their own or only US seeded ones? Was Iraq picked out of a hat or by rolling a dice? Is the justifier a lack of 'freedom' or posession of WMDs? If WMDs does such a 'moral' obligation extend to quasi allies such as Pakistan or only those who it is politically safe to villify in the present political environment? Is the US the only 'policeman' with the right to invade and colonise soverign states or are here others who have somehow gained such privliges as well?

I hope you can clear this up for me.

Since the sun set on the British Empire, it does seem to be up to us now, doesn't it?

Originally posted by jaguar
So let me get this straight chris..
You approve a war on Iraq because Iraq has "torture chambers, mass graves and weapons of mass destruction" and has shown a tendency to to be agressive, right?

Amongst other reasons, sure. Human rights violations are despicable (and don't misunderstand me to turn a blind eye when the US is responsible for the same violations).

And this means the US has a 'moral' obligation?
(and a legal one? A legal one???? really? according to what law? the law of what we can bully the UN into passing this week?)

The rhetoric aside, yes, UN international "law". I do believe that we have a moral obligation to help the citizens of Iraq out (as well as other countries, but we won't get into that here), but I also believe that going through the UN is as "lawful" as you can get. Law's authority comes from recognition of said law, and the UN is widely recognized (simply by the participation of many world countries) as a lawful organization, although by no means the supreme world law. What law, you ask? The law of resolution 1441.

And that Iraq was in the wrong because without provocation it invaded a soverign state (Kuwait), and thus the US was morally right in becoming involved militarily.

Er, yes? While I see that you are trying to go for "two wrongs don't make a right" by using "right" with a note of sarcasm, your analogy fails in that it was not only the US who helped, but the US with UN forces. The UN (and the world at large) generally approved of the remedy to the crisis in Kuwait.

I'm confused, does the US 'moral' obligation extend to all the bloody dictatorships it set up or only Iraq? Does it include ones that pop on their own or only US seeded ones?

Be more specific?

Was Iraq picked out of a hat or by rolling a dice?

Scathing sarcasm (again) aside, no. There were a multitude of reasons, some stronger than others for different people.

A. Possession and willingness to use WMD.
B. Terrorist Links
C. Humanitarian Issues
D. A reason to end trade sanctions.
E. Oil and other Corporate Interests
F. Regime change

Some will argue (for or against) other points more strongly than others. Others will try to inflate one argument as the sole reason for us going to war, when I'd like to believe that it is the sum total of the aforementioned reasons for deciding to go to war with Iraq, also given that post 9/11, the climate of the United States tolerance of such sum totals has decreased.

Is the justifier a lack of 'freedom' or posession of WMDs?

"Yes."

If WMDs does such a 'moral' obligation extend to quasi allies such as Pakistan or only those who it is politically safe to villify in the present political environment?

An excellent point. Many will say that even the USA is in possession of such WMD. Or "what about North Korea? - Surely nuclear weapons are more dangerous than some mustard gas?" To which I respond that yes, perhaps there are other countries who are in possession of those WMD. However, one key factor here is very, very important to recognize: that behind the wheel is the man who has tested the viability of his weapon systems on his own people. A minority population, to be clear, but Iraqis nonetheless. Most WMD that people have in the world stem from such (silly) ideas of mutual assured destruction. You got the nukes? We got more, nyah nyah. However, it is quite clear that a cursory analysis of Saddams character reveals he would hesitate less than a Planck time in pushing the button or giving the order. He simply needs a reason or a time he believes he can get away with it.

Is the US the only 'policeman' with the right to invade and colonise soverign states or are here others who have somehow gained such privliges as well?

Well, we aren't "colonizing" Iraq, nor are we technically "invading" although a military presence there will be a requisite for the regime change. But yes, currently I would say that we are the only country in the world in the unique position of playing 'policeman'. It is unfortunate that others are not willing to assist an oppressed country in times of need, but so be it. Like I said before, with great power comes great responsibility.

I hope you can clear this up for me.

Any questions? :p

But at other times, I think Spiderman said it best: With great power comes great responsibility

The United States government will never be responsible for defending any country other than our own. The size of our military and the weapons they wield don't change that fact.

In my opinion, these are the people who will be the most quiet when the US is vindicated post-war when the media can uncover the mass graves, torture chambers, hidden prisons, and most importantly: the ever so cliched weapons of mass destruction.

Finding weapons of mass destruction and even mass graves with MILLIONS of people in them would still not vindicate and attack against Iraq. NOTHING short of a direct attack against America (which Iraq has had no part of directly or indirectly) would be cause to send our military to fight in Iraq.

Yes, other people, who perhaps have no say in the matter, would.

Every country has a responsibility to defend themselves. America is not the judge or police of the world. The only country the American military can legally defend is our own.

Do you honestly feel as if Iraq marching upon Kuwait, regardless of the "almost" reasons I addressed in a previous post, was a legitimate action? That we were somehow in the wrong to assist Kuwait from the occupation by the Iraqi military? That, by consequence, we were wrong to enforce the terms of that treaty by which the Gulf War was ended?

Absolutely without a doubt, America was EXTREMELY wrong to take action against Iraq even when they were occupying Kuwait. As I have said and the constitution says, the American military is for defending American soil and ships. Not to defend Kuwait, not to overthrow foreign regimes, not to assassinate leaders to replace them with leaders we prefer, not for humanitarian aid, not to train foreign militaries, not to protect "American interests", not to dictate what weapons foreign countries have, and not to do anything other than DEFEND American soil and ships from attack. That means the only legal justification for the use of the American military is to fight off attacks from foreign nations and pirates when they occur; not perceived threats, not possible threats, not future attacks, etc. only actual attacks during and after they take place. "Pre-Emptive" strikes NEVER fall under the category of DEFENSE and the American military is defined in the constitution as solely for defense.

America had no place in Iraq in 1991 and we still don't. And the agreements Iraq signed after our unjust and illegal actions against them were under duress and can hardly be binding. If I put a gun to your head and make you sign the title to your house over to me, my ownership will never hold up in court.

Primarily because Iraq/Hussein has shown a somewhat fearful tendency to abuse self-restraint in the use of the aforementioned arsenal, we have the "legal" and "moral" obligation to lighten his load.

We have no such moral or legal obligation or even authority to dictate what weapons other nations have. Nor do we have the lawful right to enforce our wishes on them no matter how uncomfortable we feel with them.

In response to the second question, as I stated in the post above, those actions were based on the treaty of the Gulf War, in response to Iraq's aggression and attempt to take by force the independent and sovereign nation of Kuwait. Do you believe that such action was unwarranted, or that we should have "let those stinky Arabs deal with it themselves?"

I've never said anything about "stinky Arabs", but I do believe that the American government gets its very limited powers from our own constitution; not from the U.N., and not because the president or congress think it's the right thing to do. The constitution clearly made our involvement in Iraq in 1991 illegal. Kuwait has a responsibility to defend themselves and most likely could have gotten Saudi Arabia to take care of them. In the middle-east they have a saying that goes "Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against our neighbor, etc". It's far better for the middle-eastern nations to handle their own problems than to use unwarranted and illegal United States military intervention to handle the situation.

I believe in liberty for all humans, and personally sometimes we're better equipped to deal with it than others. If your neighbor were abusing (trying to kill?) his child, wouldn't you call the police or attempt to help as well? It might not be "your business", but some things require the aid of those who can.

I also believe in Liberty for all people and America is supposed to be a shining beacon of liberty for other nations to follow like a lighthouse. But America isn't supposed to use force to make it happen. And your analogy of calling the police is poor to say the least. America IS NOT THE POLICE of the world. In America if my neighbor was killing his wife or children, I'd call American police. But American police (or military) have no authority over Iraq or their people. I hate Saddam. He's a disgusting murderer and deserves to die a horrible death. But no matter what he does short of a direct attack against America we have no business getting involved. He could boil a million babies in oil on television and skin their mother's alive and we still wouldn't be justified in sending our military.

However, that being said, as Colin Powell and Bush have stated many times (and the UN has not disputed), vast quantities of chemical weapons (mustard gas), biological weapons (anthrax) and deployment mechanisms (scud missiles, drones, etc) were present and accounted for several years ago. That kind of merchandise does not simply "get lost".

Perhaps they destroyed them. But even if they didn't, Iraq can have these weapons. They are a sovereign nation that doesn't require the permission of the U.N. or America to have any weapons they want even if those weapons are nukes.

Saddam is not dumb - perhaps disillusioned, but not dumb. He's made a life work of hiding these items, and he has had plenty of time to prepare for inspections.

I'll agree that Saddam is not dumb. He's a horrible person, but not dumb. And as a person who is not dumb, he would NEVER use weapons such as these against America because he knows if he did directly attack us, we'd turn Iraq into a sheet of glass.

Furthermore, it has to be made poignantly clear that these inspections are a farce from an ineffectual organization in an environment that cannot yield true inspections.

Perhaps. But it must also be made crystal clear that Iraq is under no legal obligation to surrender any weapons or allow any inspectors to check for them. Just as America would tell the U.N. to kiss off, Iraq could (and in my opinion should) have done it. But they have been cooperating.

Can you honestly tell me that you believe in your heart that the inspections are proving that those weapons must not exist because the inspections aren't showing anything? If anything, logic dictates that the inspections coming up empty handed proves clear violation of the original resolution, as it mentioned that proof of weapons disposal/destruction must be given, while it has not.

This is all speculation. The inspectors have helicopters and can fly to any location on a moment's notice and have areas to meet that are not bugged or monitored. They can freely move without anyone stopping their progress.

My question to you is, "How can you use the fact that inspectors didn't find weapons as evidence that he's hiding them?" It would be like me asking you for a million dollars and then accusing you of hiding it when you couldn't give it to me.

One more thing. A few questions all with one answer.

What nation designs, builds, and stockpiles more weapons of mass destruction than any other?

What nation is the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons against another?

What nation most often gets involved in military conflicts in foreign nations that are not a threat to their own?

As such what nation is clearly the most dangerous and should be kept from having these WMD's?

Originally posted by Radar
My question to you is, "How can you use the fact that inspectors didn't find weapons as evidence that he's hiding them?" It would be like me asking you for a million dollars and then accusing you of hiding it when you couldn't give it to me.

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?

He could boil a million babies in oil on television and skin their mother's alive and we still wouldn't be justified in sending our military.

You are well informed, well spoken for, perhaps somewhat abrasive to those who disagree. However, I can see here that we pretty much simply have a difference in fundamental opinion. 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. You believe that each nations right to behave as they wish is a culturally relativistic perrogative, provided they don't step on anyone else's toes, and that we wouldn't have the problems (in fact, much of the world wouldn't have the problems they do) if nations wouldn't muck in other's business.

While I respect your opinion, I have to simply respectfully disagree. :) A couple of thought questions for you:

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

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?

ChrisDbekistan decides to murder all American citizens (tourists, government diplomats, native born americans) - all 30 of them. Do we do something?

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

The radar worldview:
If it doesn't seem to work
It doesn't exist!

Others must obey
the law that I recognize.
Reason: just because!

You say the voters
Wanted something else? Fuck them!
Ignorant dummies.

Murderous tyrants?
They can maim and kill at will -
IF they run a state.

Our own government?
I prefer it hogtied down -
It wants to kill me!

But if it kills me
Murdering to gain power
Hey, it's still legit!

Please, O Canada,
Do not come and rescue me!
Recognize borders!

Invisible lines
Latitudes and longitudes
They're inviolate!

On foreign affairs,
Harry writes my opinion.
Without Him I'm lost.

Toad ... Brilliant. relevant, to the point, and nice haiku

(I also need to compliment ChrisD for having the energy to wrangle with him)

Kudos UT, nice haiku! :)

And thanks wolf. I love the political discussions. I wonder if anyone has the energy to read what I've written.... :p

Oh, schnap! UT broke out the flame haiku! I thought it was supposed to be a limerick though...

Plenty.

Lets start with law.
Now sadly your link to resolution 1441 was broken, although i managed to track down a copy, for the purposes of this discussion i think what matters in the above mentioned resolution is the question of whether Iraq is in material breach based on whether there are any "false statements or omissions" in Iraq's list.

Now while, based on anecdotal evidence, you declare Iraq to be in breach. This alone obviously does not mean Iraq is, I'm yet to see hard evidence it is, we have yes, plenty of anecdotal evidence that it is, a few 10 year old shells in the corner of a mostly disused warehouse, and missiles that may or may not carry WMD warheads that may or may not have been destroyed. This, it seems does not either constitute a material breach. Despite powell's wonderful discrediting campaign with his last speech he did not produce any hard evidence and what he did produce was questionable at best. If you want to play the 'legal action' game, you're going to have to do better than that.

My second paragraph was simply paraphrasing what you said for purposes below.

Be more specific?

Well the US played a pivotal role in getting Saddam into power in an era of anticommunist paranoia, along with many other bloodythirsty dictators, does the US's moral obligation only extend to those regimes the US is responsible for in the first place or to home-grown regimes such as many notable African leaders and places such as say, Burma.

A. Possession and willingness to use WMD.
B. Terrorist Links
C. Humanitarian Issues
D. A reason to end trade sanctions.
E. Oil and other Corporate Interests
F. Regime change
A. Possession and willingness to use WMD.
B. Terrorist Links
C. Humanitarian Issues
D. A reason to end trade sanctions.
E. Oil and other Corporate Interests
F. Regime change

Now possession and willingness to use WMD is an interesting one, if as you seem to be suggesting, it is a moral issue. Primarily because many of those agents were directly supplied by US companies with the full knowledge of the US government. Doesn't the virtual sanctioning of such activities, since they were sold even after they were used on civilian populations thereby mean any moral argument based on this is null and void?

Terrorist links is another odd one, in short, what terrorist links? I mean i've seen poor old Powell and make a statement along the lines of "despite Bin Laden calling Saddam in infidel and decrying his regime he clearly has links to him because he does not support the US invasion of Iraq", if that doesn't sound pathetic i don't know what does. It seems despite the best efforts of the worlds biggest intel network, no concrete links have been found, if you no something we don't, please, do tell, otherwise i'd advise you to omit it from the list.

Corporate Interests? I'm not sure if you support a war for all these reasons or are merely listing the reasoning behind such a war from an impartial bystanders point of view but surely invading and destroying a sovereign state over corporate interests, with possible strategic interests is if anything, worse than they invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, which was for strategic reasons.

North Korea has a history of selling missile technology, Iraq does not. North Korea also exports drugs, fake US currency, and now is producing significant numbers of nuclear weaponry. THe leader of the DPRK is clearly nuts. Saddam while a bloodythirsty leader of a despotic regime, is very, very sane and clearly pretty damn smart. The CIA's own report had Saddam down a 'low' threat - unless provoked. He's smart enough to know that doing anything like that would guarantee his destruction, his ultimate aim is survival.

I assume after the invasion of Iraq (what would you call moving in thousands of sovereign troops into a sovereign state, removing the existing government and replacing it with one of your choice) a government of some sort will be set up, it's membership and funding will be decided entirely by the US. Thus it will become what is known as a 'client' state, a British term from the 19th century for a state that you exploit for resources that is all but in your pocket. Such control i'd classify in the same category as a colonization, what would you call it?

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. I do, however, take solace from my belief that, no matter which road is chosen, it will be chosen for the right reasons. If there must be a big brother then 'god bless America'.
ps. Radar v Bill whittle. I'd pay big bucks to see that live

If anyone but Radar had linked to that article we could have discussed it.

We cannot know what would have happened if our government had chosen the non-intervention path back in WW1. We do know that our intervention was part of the blood soaked road that the century became. We do know that our Presidents manipulated and lied to involve us in the blood letting. I doubt Bush is of higher character than the other politicians who held his office.

sorry to be melancholy but where does that leave us future wise

Originally posted by sycamore
Oh, schnap! UT broke out the flame haiku! I thought it was supposed to be a limerick though...

The flame limerick is like a grenade, while the haiku is a precision sniper rifle. The limerick can be too devastating in a closed area. It has to be used with care, and not too often, otherwise the law of averages says one might be hurt in collateral damage.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by Undertoad
If they want more soldiers quickly, a pay increase or "signing bonus" would provide them faster than anything,

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.

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.

no wrong time nor wrong way to dismantle a totalitarian regime.

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.

kind of state a sociopath would run -- complete with corruption, poverty, elevated death rates, torture, disappearings, and government-employed rapists.

Wow, did Clinton do all that? I figured if he was busy screwing interns, he was too busy to screw me.:D

Originally posted by Urbane Guerrilla
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.

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 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.

Originally posted by ScottSolomon

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.

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.

China and Japan can take care of business on the peninsula

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.

By playing politics with the Korea question some Dems have locked themselves out of that debate.

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.

Thats why we have to stop voting for ficca plants, they make arguments based in conveniece not in principle.

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.

was kept at bay for many years by the simple knowlege that we would respond from the air if they launched.

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.

Bush has opened the pre-emptive can o' worms making the situation more dangerous but not IMHO untenable

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.

Originally posted by joemama
North Korea has a ballistic missile that most credible sources concede - is able to reach North America. They have several nuclear weapons 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.

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.

Kim Jong Il is not easily influenced. I do no think he is going to back down simply because China expresses reservations.

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.