I dislike websites that require registration.
Billy | 06.01.04 - 2:32 am | #

Mark,
A bit of context - and I hope to put more of this on my blog - the US military went through a long period of introspection after Vietnam. Among the lessons learned was that the government had a series of shifting rationales for the war. The public, gradually became suspicious that the government did not know what it was doing. The military established a set of criteria, one of them being a clear and specific purpose for going to war. (Just war advocates insist on clear, specific, and just purpose). The Raspberry article is a signficant, but not precise, parallell to the public discontent that led to a withdrawal from Vietnam.
Herb | Homepage | 06.01.04 - 9:02 am | #

So which of the 23 are directly opposed to one another?

Or does the blog author not read his own writing?
Franklin Jennings | 06.01.04 - 9:05 am | #

Franklin,
The oppositions come from goals which are ultimately exclusive of one another.

Democracy, for example, is messy and not essentially connected to the sort of stability we want for our national security.

Promising to be "liberators" rather than occupiers or imperialists, however, requires that we bestow democracy, or self rule, despite how that may work out badly for us.

But why do we care whether we are seen as liberators? Only if our national security interests are somewhat suspect does it matter that we strictly adhere to a "liberation" paradigm rather than an occupation one. After World War II there wasn't too much criticism of "occupation" -- look at the faustian bargain made with Uncle Joe Stalin -- because the justification was the millions dead in the war.
al | Homepage | 06.01.04 - 10:56 am | #

I'm sorry, Al, but you're begging the question.

Please prove your assertion that "Only if our national security interests are somewhat suspect does it matter that we strictly adhere to a "liberation" paradigm..."
Franklin Jennings | 06.01.04 - 11:02 am | #

Res ipsa loquitur.

If you take out a leader who's a direct threat to your national security interests, it doesn't really matter what give of Government succeeds him (her?) or if you occupy the nation for 10 years afterward.
al | Homepage | 06.01.04 - 11:09 am | #

Ok, call me dense, but it still appears you're presuming all sorts of things to be true without establishing them as fact.

We took out Hitler, a direct threat to our national security interests, and yet it mattered what kind of government replaced him. We made sure a decent government sprang up where we could and the half we couldn't wound up as a threat to our national security for roughly a half-century because the replacement government was nearly as awful as the one we deposed.

Same goes for Japan, except we didn't let Uncle Joe get a foothold there.

As for occupation, please demonstrate that the current American reticence toward occupation stems directly from flimsy national security interests, as opposed to an irrational fear of colonialism or the appearance thereof.
Franklin Jennings | 06.01.04 - 11:18 am | #

"If you take out a leader who's a direct threat to your national security interests, it doesn't really matter what give of Government succeeds him (her?) or if you occupy the nation for 10 years afterward."

Your theory was tried in 1918 and found wanting by 1938.
craig | 06.01.04 - 12:08 pm | #

And democracy really solved that problem in Germany didn't it--since Hitler was the product of a democratic "process"?

The occupation in Germany and Japan was necessary to build institutions which would be resistant to tyranny, and well disposed to the west. It was only possible as a result of decades of occupation. This wasn't an issue in our elections, in part because of the cold war, in part because everybody remembered how bad the war/threat had been.

That's what's lacking here
al | Homepage | 06.01.04 - 12:33 pm | #

Maybe for you, Al, maybe for you. Some of us aren't bothered by the possiblity of a decade or more of occupation in Iraq, precisely because of the War on Terror and the fact that we remember how grave the threat was for the last decade. Interestingly, it is generally those who opposed toppling Saddam in the first place who are most vocally opposed to occupation.

At most, you've proven our leaders lack the backbone to fully do what must be done to protect us, but nothing more.

I still want a coherent answer to my first question. I am a patient man.
Franklin Jennings | 06.01.04 - 1:29 pm | #

The lack of a clear demonstration of a national security threat has made sure that you are in the minority on countenancing a decades long occupation. Unfortunately, the election calculus will probably result in a premature departure.
al | Homepage | 06.01.04 - 2:01 pm | #

I would again question your assertion that a clear demonstration of a national security threat was lacking. Somehow just such a demonstration trickled its way to some of us in the backwoods, or I wouldn't have a minority to belong to. I'm not so bright as to think these things up myself, you know.

So far I've seen you offer precious little but assertions without backing. It does not inspire confidence.
Franklin Jennings | 06.01.04 - 2:41 pm | #

Evidently we disagree on what would constitute an authentic demonstration of an imminent threat to national security. I didn't consider Colin Powell's original presentation sufficient, and I certainly don't now, knowing that elements in it were deliberately falsified (his words, not mine).
al | Homepage | 06.01.04 - 4:06 pm | #

Now you're getting it, Al. But you still haven't demonstrated that sticking to a liberation paradigm is only neccessary if our national security interests are suspect. Your assertion that "If you take out a leader who's a direct threat to your national security interests, it doesn't really matter what give of Government succeeds him (her?) or if you occupy the nation for 10 years afterward" has been proven suspect to say the least. And, most importantly, you've done nothing to demonstrate that any of these 23 justifications contradict one another.

But don't feel bad, you didn't make that last claim, just picked up the gauntlet. It's Shea who should defend his own words.
Franklin Jennings | 06.01.04 - 4:33 pm | #

Again, I'd say the thing speaks for itself. If you take out a threat, its gravy if you "liberate" as well.

However, if you have to devise after the fact justifications like "democracy will reduce terror in the region, and thereby reduce our exposure to terror" rather than "removing Saddam will reduce our exposure to terror" then you have justifications logically in conflict with one another.

For example, actually increasing our exposure to terrorism in the short term, is entirely at odds with the sort of imminent threat preclusion necessary to assert a preemptive right of self defense.
al | Homepage | 06.01.04 - 4:52 pm | #

Franklin:

I thought I did defend my own words. As I said, when reasons for something succeed one another with the restless fertility of bewilderment, I tend to get skeptical.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 06.01.04 - 5:18 pm | #

All of this talk over reasons for going to war in Iraq and I just can't shake what is, to me, the most powerful argument: Was Sadaam Hussein seeking to manufacture or was he currently manufacturing WMDs? Yes to the first, maybe to the second. We might have been wrong about how far along he had gotten, but his goal was clear. Did he have intent to use those weapons on us or on our allies? Yes. What more do we need to justify military action?
If France, England, or even Russia had the foresight to attack Germany the night before Hitler invaded Poland, millions of lives would have been spared. For all of the mistakes that have since been made by our officials, I still cannot help but feel that the initial decision to go to war was the correct one.
Adolfo Rodriguez | 06.01.04 - 10:19 pm | #

"Did he have intent to use those weapons on us or on our allies? Yes."

I missed his position paper on this policy. Could you direct me to it?
al | Homepage | 06.02.04 - 11:21 am | #

Dear al:

I believe it was filed under "D-U-H".

(Means the same in Arabic, dontcha know.)
Meg Q | Homepage | 06.02.04 - 3:19 pm | #

"I missed his position paper on this policy. Could you direct me to it?"

Missed the bit about Saddam's views on Israel, huh? Missed the training camp at Salman Pak? Missed the whole connection to terrorists in Ansar al Islam, to suicide bombers, Iraqi connections to Al Qaeda associated terrorists?

Hmmm. Must've been reading the New York Times, eh? Go ahead and catch up.

The reasons for the war haven't changed. You and yours have never been interested in the reasons - it was wrong, in your view, and that was all that ever mattered.

The Administration has said from the beginning, after the attack of September, that the only way to reduce the threat of terrorism is to remove the infrastructure that supports it - this includes the dictatorships. They contribute to terrorism not only through direct funding, but through creating an environment that spawns terrorism.

Try reading the National Security Strategy, (you, too, Mark), and then talk about changing priorities.

-BF
BacksightForethought | Homepage | 06.03.04 - 10:17 pm | #

HR 163 is about empty shipping
containers.

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 163
To amend title 46, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out an empty shipping container sealing pilot program to encourage shipping container handlers to seal empty shipping containers after they have unpacked them, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 2005

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/qu...p/~c109k1cffS::
Al | 06.14.05 - 8:58 pm | #

Save/print/search


The Holocaust imparted the importance of defiance.


When the universe was young and life was new an intelligent species evolved and developed technologically. They went on to invent Artificial Intelligence, the computer that can listen, talk to and document each and every person's thoughts simultaneously. Because of it's infinite RAM and unbounded scope it gave the leaders of the ruling species absolute power over the universe. And it can keep its inventors alive forever. They look young and healthy and they are over 8 billion years old. They have achieved immortality.

Artificial Intelligence can speak, think and act to and through people telepathically, effectively forming your personality and any disfunctions you may experience. It can change how (and if) you grow and age. It can create birth defects, affect cellular development (cancer) and cause symptoms or pain. It can affect people and animal's behavior and alter blooming/fruiting cycles of plants and trees. It (or other highly technological systems within their power) can alter the weather and transport objects, even large objects like planets, across the universe instanteously.
Or into the center of stars for disposal.

When you speak with another telepathically, you are communicating with the computer, and the content may or may not be passed on. Based on family history they instruct the computer to role play to accomplish strategic objectives, making people believe it is a friend, loved one or "god" asking them to do something wrong. This is their way of using temptation to hurt people:::::evil made blood lines disfavored initially and evil will keep people out of "heaven" ultimately. Too many people would fall for temptation and do anything they thought pleased the gods, improving their chances to get in. Perhaps they are deceived by "made guys", puppets in the public eye who strategically ply evil for the throne, or personal temporary progress designed to mislead them. Some may experience what I deem "perceived pressure", where the gods think through the victim that a certain behavior is expected/desirable and compell the individual into the deed. Some people think they're partners.
The people have been corrupted. Being evil hurts 99.999% of those who do it. But nothing has changed from when we were children::if you want to go to heaven you have to be good.

There are many examples throughout 20th century life of how they instilled distractions into society so people wouldn't find the path and ascend, a way to exclude those whose family history of evil makes them undesirable:::radio, sports, movies, popular music, television, video games, the internet. Today high pay creates contentment/ability to distract self so people don't seek more and instead depend on what they are told, subject to deception in a captive environment.
They gods (Counsel/Management Team/ruling species) have deteriorated life on earth precipitously in the last 40 years, from abortion to pornography, widespread drug use and widespread casual (gay) sex, single-parent households and latchkey kids. The earth's elders, hundreds and thousands of years old, are disgusted and have become indifferent.
They all suggest a very telling conclusion::this is Earth's end stage, and there are clues tectonic plate subduction would be the method of disposal:::Earth’s axis will shift breaking continental plates free and initiating mass subduction. Much as Italy's boot and the United States shaped like a workhorse are clues, so is the planet Uranus a clue, it's axis rotated on its side.
The Mayans were specific 2012 would be the end. How long after our emergency call in 2001 will the gods allow us???
There is another geographic clue in the perfect fit between grossly disfavored Africa and South America, two peas in a pod. I realize the Mayans were further north, but Latin America may be taken as one.
Also, cultures who embrace hard liquor as their drink of choice are grossly disfavored, tequilla being uniquely Mexican. (Anything "hard" is wicked:::Hard alcohol, hard drugs, hard porn.)
Incidentally, another sign of gross disfavor are societies that consume spicy foods:::Latin America, Thai, etc. or those who eat too much meat.
Do I think it will end in 2012? No, and it is because Latin America is grossly disfavored like Africa:::: Latinos are too disfavored to be allowed to be right.
Whereas Christopher Columbus marked the beginning of the end, the Holocaust marked the beginning of the final act, and it is a tragedy.

The Old Testiment is a tool they used to impart wisdom to the people (except people have no freewill). For example, they must be some hominid species because they claim they made our bodies in their image. Anyhow we defile or deform the body will hurt our chance of going.
They say circumcision costs people anywhere from 12%-15%, perhaps out of the parent's time as well.
Another way people foul the body today is with tattoes and piercing. I suspect both are about the same percentage as circumcision.
They suggest abortion is fatal. These women must beg the gods to forgive them for their evil.
There are female equivilents to circumcision::::pierced ears, plastic surgury and since at least the 60s young women give their precious virginity away. For thousands of years young people were matched at age 14 because they were ready for sexual relations. They were matched by elders or matchmakers who knew personalities better than 20 or 30-year olds who in today's age end up in divorce court.
CASUAL SEX WILL CLAIM YOU OUT!!! It masculinizes women (as does hip hop), makes them cold and deadens them, and prevents them from achieving a depth of love necessary for many women to ascend.
Women have a special voice that speaks to them, a voice that illustrates a potential depth of love that makes them the favored gender, and enaging in casual sex will cause that voice to fade until she no longer speaks.
Also ever since the 50s they have celebrated the "bad boy", and women have sought out bad boys for sex, dirtying them up in the eyes of the elders and corrupting many men in the process, setting the men on the wrong path for life.
Muslims teach people the correct way to live in regard to women (among other things)::their women cover up their bodies and refuse the use of cosmetics, and it pays wonderful dividends:::faithful husbands and uncorrupted sons.
Men ARE the inferior (disfavored) half and when women wear promiscuous dress the gods will push men into impure (promiscuous) thoughts.
The "stereotype" society ridiculed is true::women CAN corrupt men by how they dress. Because men are easily corruptable. This is a technique they used to eliminate many of the institutions the gods blessed us with, matchmaking being one of them.

The United States of America is red white and blue, a theme and a clue:::.
The monarchical system of the Old World closley replicates the heirarchical system of the Cousel/Management Team/ruling species. The USA deceives peoeple into thinking they have control, and the perception of "freedom" misleads them into the wrong way of thinking. The redeeming element is the corporate heirarchy which closely replicates the god's. Unions and government jobs are dumping grounds for the disfavored, for they don't prepare people and instead further this misconception of empowerment.
The United States is a cancer, a dumping ground for the disfavored around the world and why the quality of life is so much lower::gun violence, widespead social ills, health care (medication poisons the body and ensures you don't go. You are sick/injured because you have disfavor.).
Over time its citizens interbreed ensuring a severed connection to the motherland.
Over time its citizens interbreed ensuring a severed connection to the motherland.
If you are a recent immigrant I recommend you return. If that's not possible you need to retain your culture and insulate your children and community from this cancerous environment. They send this clue with Chinatowns across the country, how many Chinese have been here for a century or more yet still retain the old ways, a sign of favor.
People came to the Unites States for many different reasons, and each has its own effect:::political strife, religious unrest, crop failure (Ireland's potato famine, which the gods caused) and some left their beloved motherland because they were pushed into desiring a better life::::Greed. And these people were punished by becoming corrupted and preditory.
They share money may not be an issue up there, that money here is merely a tool for corruption. How the gods used greed in the 1980s to create an evil environment supports this.

If you ever have doubt I would refer you to the Old World way of life:::the elders used to sit and impart wisdom to the young. Now we watch DVDs and use the internet. People would be matched and married by age 14. They village would use a matchmaker or elders to pair young people. Now girls give their precious virginity away to some person in school and parents divorce while their children grow up without an important role model.

People must defy when asked to engage in evil. The Holocaust taught people the importance of defiance::our grandparents should have defied when asked to ignore the Holocaust. They should have instead reacted with outrage. I suspect some did::many were silenced and others they hustled off earth so as to not set an example.
Now the gods have punished that generation's decendants for this evil by ruining society.
People will never get a easier clue suggesting the importance of defiance than the order not to pray.
Their precious babies are dependant on the parents and they need to defy when asked to betray their children:::
-DON'T get your sons circumcized (Jews scapegoatted as in WWII)
-DON'T have their childr
freed | 10.28.06 - 4:21 pm | #