Don't Be An Asshole
Holy Mackerel !!! a rational, sane, reasoned discussion without any cuss words or smear attacks !! thank you, YD, for sharing & posting - and thanks to Titus for agreeing to do so. this nation needs a heck of a lot more of this !! please keep up the good work and writing and posting !!
I'd like to see Tim Estes comments here.
Can anybody suggest a relatively easy method to clean up the sentence breaks in this post so it's more readable?
It looks perfect in Microsoft Works and Word, which I use to compose my postings.
Thanks,
YD
dialectic:
thank you very much for your reply.
The neo-Cons are saying these things – don’t go blaming me!
point taken.
but again, you seem to think that because they've been saying these things, they will carry them out anyway, and that's where I disagree. For instance, the neocons have been indeed saying they want perpetual war, but I'm sure they don't mean it in the sense of getting sucked up into more and more quagmires! I'm sure what they had in mind was a series of WWII type overwhelming victories.
So that brings me to my second point which is, in my mind, the neocons today think very differently than they did 18 months ago, just after the "successful" invasion of Iraq. They realize as well as any of us the mess they're in, and I very much doubt they think the solution is to multiply it exponentially by attacking Iran for instance. You see, much as I hate them, I don't think they fit the Hollywood stereotype of the evil geniuses who start to laugh madly
(contd.) to laugh madly as they contemplate further and further destruction. On the contrrary, I think they are very rational people in that sense, and being effectively in charge, they are bound by limitations imposed by the real world, namely, how they're going to conjure up the means necessary to embark on a much larger war, when, as it's common knowledge, the current one is already putting severe strains on the US military.
As for the neocons aggressive rethoric (leaving aside the fact, for the sake of a clearer argument, that it's been toned down quite a bit), well, I wouldn't expect them to change it one bit until the very end, regardless of the situation, any more than I'm surprised that Hitler talked about nothing but victory even when hiding in his Berlin bunker with the Soviet troops only hundreds of meters away from it.
You need to remove the CR/LF characters that are inserted after all the original mail lines. You can do that manually or use a text editor like Ultraedit to do the job. I have sent you a version of the text without them to your mail.
The fact that 'old' US conservatives are against the Iraq war and against the 'new' conservatives isn't new nor surprising. Who would dare to call guys like William S. Lind (the one posting analysis about fourth generation warfare) and Hackworth at SFTT liberals? Only a fool. If it wasn't because we all reject this war I wouldn't probably read anything from them as from my point of view they are in the far right.
The Iraq war is beyond usual political lines (which are mostly about management of the local problems in a nation) but about you really think that war, destruction, oppression and other diverse forms imperialist behaviour are right or not. Imperialist always say they serve the interests of their host nation but in fact they are
The Iraq war is beyond usual political lines (which are mostly about management of the local problems in a nation) but about you really think that war, destruction, oppression and other diverse forms imperialist behaviour are right or not. Imperialist always say they serve the interests of their host nation but in fact they are only interested in serving their own interests. Sooner or later the host will also suffer. Take a look to the dozens of nations that became empires and how much they suffered.
You can also use Word's Find/Replace feature to replace CR (carriage returns) with spaces.
1. Highlight the (invisible) CR at the end of one line going to the beginning of the next one.
2. Copy it.
3. Open Find/Replace from the Word menu
4. Paste in the code for CR in the Find box. (the code is something like ^p)
5. In the Replace box, type a single space
6. Choose Replace all
-----
In terms of the Titus dialogue, it makes lots of sense to transcend typical "liberal" "conservative" boundaries as we build an anti-war movement.
As I see it, the reasons for this war are U.S. imperialism, interest in controlling the oil market (and making sure that oil trades in dollars as opposed to Euros), permanent military bases set up to dominate the mideast, religious zealotry, and a hawkish Israel connection. The idea of Iraqis embracing bush "democracy" borders on fantasy when bush style "democracy" means corporate capitalism, american companies profiting from Iraqi oil, pr
profiting from Iraqi oil, privatization of Iraqi companies which would then be sold off to various multi-nationals, a CIA operative with a checkered - to say the least- past, gross mismanagement, violation of basic human rights, torture.... the list goes on. The loss of life and injury to Iraqis, Americans, foreign mercenaries... is certainly in the tens of thousands and may be over 100,000. We have a disaster on our hands similar in scale to that wrought by the tsunami. In one case the disaster was caused by an earthquake. In the other, the disaster was caused by the U.S. Regardless of our reasoning and political perspective, it's time to join forces to end the U.S. (military, political, and economic) occupation of Iraq.
...and then a line like "Iraqis neither understand nor want to embrace democracy" brings you right back to the twilight zone.
Iraqis understand, I am sure, the principles of democracy and would certainly embrace elections that were free and fair. What they will not confuse with democracy and embrace is a rigged election (see, for example, Riverbend's latest post; all males on the voter registration cards?) under military occupation.
Then again, anyone voting during the last two selections in the US may have redefined democracy themselves to actually resemble the placebo model now presented to Iraqis. Given the evidence from Florida and Ohio, it could be argued that Americans, not Iraqis, have lost the meaning of democracy and that Iraqis do get it, and may embrace it, but at a terrible cost.
dialectic:
anyway, here's my reading of the situation in Iraq, as opposed to yours:
The US is in deep, deep shambles, and knows it. The overwhelming concern is to minimize losses, namely by lowering the criteria for success to its absolute minimum, which is to be prepared to accept a "fundamentalist" Shia government that will ask the US to leave in no uncertain terms. Success for the US in Iraq would be to be able to retreat orderly (à la British in India, with some pomp and circumstance) crediting itself that it had held the first elections in Iraq for oh so many years, and having Saddam as a the only concrete prize for all its trouble.
The US has no medium or long-term plans for Iraq, much less Iran (besides some barking, but that's easy and expected), just short-term reactions to the most immediate fires under its feet in Iraq. I sense panic setting in, namely due to elections being virtually impossible to hold — the problem being, if Bush backs down now, the blowback will
(contd.) the blowback will be tsunami-like… Delaying the elections is an impossible option for Bush, for it will mean the US has pure and simply been defeated in Iraq, there'll be no more room for spin. But, unless someone can persuade me that Bush has the omnipotence to make an election, any election, happen in 3 weeks in the Apocalypse Now scenario of Iraq, I don't see how he, anymore than Hitler in the bunker, can stop reality from crashing down on him. It's completely out of Bush's control, or anyone else's, with the possible exception of the Iraqi Resistance…
I'm reminded of a quote by no other than Homer Simpson that sums up exactly my views on the situation in Iraq: "This is just like the story of David and Goliath; only, this time, David wins"… 
zig:
It's all about the long haul. The legacy neo-cons have been using these plans as porn for decades. They will wait it out for decades, if necessary; the black gold is in the vault. No one is even thinking about handing over any keys and retreating right now. 1300+ soldiers? 180 billion dollars and counting? I sense and hear that they consider this "sacrifice" dirt cheap. How do you think the financial markets consider Iraqi oil reserves today when they value the dollar? Why are Russia, China and Brazil teaming up with Venezuela to form new trade and energy alliances? January 30 means nothing.
Re neo-cons as Dr. Evil:
It is important that we don't demonize them. They're just people, a bunch of guys with a theory. That they are educated, deluded, and powerful doesn't change that.
As much as I despise his policies, I'll defend Richard Perle to a point: he was almost the lone voice campaigning against the West's export of WMD to Iraq in the 1980s.
He sent repeated demarches to Germany requesting they halt the export of chemical weapons factories to Iraq. He repeatedly tried to halt Reagan/Bush 41's export of ballistic missile technology to Iraq. So I give him points for that.
It amuses me when Bush* calls for export controls on arms for Western nations, because they're already in place. They're simply ignored, as a matter of policy. That's how Iraq happened. That's how the next Saddam (Musharref?) will happen.
Today's Conservatives
Are Fascists
Torture, dictatorship, phony "elections,"
and endless war – it's fascism
with a "democratic" face by Justin Raimondo,,Lew Rockwell has recently come to this conclusion:
"Year's end is the time for big thoughts, so here are mine. The most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing. … What this implies for libertarians is a crying need to draw a clear separation between what we believe and what conservatives believe. It also requires that we face the reality of the current threat forthrightly by extending more rhetori
zig: - 1
The manifest and undeniable disaster in Iraq has become, in my view, tangential. In a world now virtually dominated by capital, the main event has to be seen as taking place in the world centers of capital -- Wall Street, and the City of London.
From the standpoint of the continuing and accelerating crisis in the production and reproduction of the social relations of capitalism, the costs in ‘Western’ lives and a perpetual insurgency are not only entirely acceptable: more, they are greatly preferred to the alternatives. The current and “worsening” situation in Iraq provides more benefits than it costs, as the neoCons see it. The entire globe is sliding into massive social, ecological, monetary, etc. de-stabilization, and that situation presents an ideal profit accumulation opportunity for the most vicious and rapacious elements in global capitalism. Those elements are Bush’s core constituency.
zig: - 2
The old model of capitalism requiring a stable climate for investment is now completely obsolete. In every field we can name, there are too many players who quickly rush in, having too much investment capital. Rapidly, then, the erstwhile profitable investment opportunity suffers excess productive capacity, and returns on investment dive. This is true of software, electronic gadgets, bio-tech, etc. etc. Everywhere, in every field (with the notable exception of resource extraction), there exists over-capacity, awash in a world-wide condition of over-accumulation. In technical terms, this is referred to in critical political economy as a “valorization crisis.”
zig: - 3
Enter the New World Order. It is now well understood in the inner chambers of finance capital that new cycles of capital accumulation do not, and will not, derive simply from doing more of the same, simply on a larger scale. The world crisis of over-accumulation is an inherent and intractable feature that emerges precisely from the SUCCESS, not the failure, of the normal operation of world-integrated market economies. In response to those problems, the new, “smart money” program is one of “smash-and-loot.” Iraq is simply this years version; in a different modality of domination and expropriation, Africa, central Asia, and Central/South America are ongoing, parallel versions.
zig: - 4
It is in the face of the world economic crisis that the hyper-disaster of Iraq is seen by finance capital and its epigones in the neo-Con community as being both successful and a model worthy of being emulated and applied elsewhere -- i.e.; Iran. To repeat from above, the over-arching crisis is in the production and re-production of the social relations of capital. That crisis exists at the heart of capitalism, but its irrationalities are expressed first, and most starkly, at the periphery. A phrase from the East-Asian financial crisis of 1997, blatantly expressed in the Financial Times of London, summed it all up perfectly; “Export The Sickness,” was the call, and that referred specifically to exporting the valorization difficulties of the Western monetary system outward, onto other currencies and economies.
zig: - 5
I agree with you that Bush and the neo-Cons are not, fundamentally, in control of events. HOWEVER, precisely that lack of control is a component of their success. Their primary responsibility in the system of domination known as the New World Order is to provide opportunities for “smash-and-rape-and-loot” investment policies. To be sure, there are elements within Western capitalism that oppose this new world alignment. Such groupings of capital continue to agitate for a stable world in peace. They are represented by the business sectors that tend to support the economic policies of the U.S. Democratic Party. But those elements are politically retrograde. They are “behind the curve” of the accelerating world re-alignment, and are continuing to lose ground. “Big” investment capital looks upon them as obsolete.
zig: - AA
You wrote; “the neocons have been indeed saying they want perpetual war, but I'm sure they don't mean it in the sense of getting sucked up into more and more quagmires! I'm sure what they had in mind was a series of WWII type overwhelming victories.”
Rather, I suggest, they love and desire quagmires. Quagmires represent ongoing investment opportunities. That is, a higher rate in the expenditure – and thus replacement – of rockets, bombs, helicopters, etc. A fifteen or twenty year long was against Iran is a prospect over which they are salivating. Even more vital is that perpetual war necessitates continuing repression and imposition of “discipline” domestically. The neo-Cons hate and fear civil liberties (expect for the ultra-elite class at the top), and war gives them all the excuse they require for decimating the Constitution.
zig: - BB
As for the military itself:
In a letter written in 1828 to one of his former junior officers, the great Prussian theorist of war, Karl von Clausewitz, pointed out that “the absolute worst thing that can happen to a warrior is to have just defeated his last enemy.” Of course, Clausewitz had been in war, and knew that, in fact, the ACTUAL worst thing is to lose. But the point of his letter to his former subordinate was in reference to the social relations, the social position, of the warrior class within any given society. To have defeated all your enemies, right down to the last one, is to render yourself superfluous. More prosaically, promotion up the ranks takes place faster during wartime. For professional soldiers war is not only an opportunity to “hone their (s)kills.” but to make grade at a rate simply not possible during peace.
dialectic
great post mate.lots of truths in there.
Very thoughtful emails by Titus, but he has never once mentioned the disastrous casualties being suffered by Iraqis, far greater than Americans are having. His focus is only on American military sacrifices when Iraq is the one invaded.
I don't know how many generations it will take to mend the destructions imposed upon Iraq by this war, and if the US & her coalitions have any intention & ability to mend them for Iraqis' sake.
Wow! Some really interesting comments. But some very discouraging ones, too. It seems to me that people who have fundamentally different goals can nevertheless work together -- and achieve important things -- if they focus on their common interests. But cooperation is impossible if every invitation is rebuffed by a recitation of our differences. My point is that many of us recognize that Iraq is a disaster...even conservatives like myself. Let's focus on that. Let's at least consider the idea that we should stop throwing invective at one another...at least for a while. And we should simply start telling our neighbors, "You know, I really feel bad for all the people who are dying in Iraq. This is not what we were promised, something's wrong, and it's gotta STOP." That's why I like YD's site...he gives people a chance to look and see for themselves. But people won't look as long as we keep distracting them with our partisan attacks on one another. Here are a couple o
Oh...I get it: 1000 chars. Okay. As I was saying, I've got a couple of questions for you: How DO we end Iraq? And what should we be doing to protect ourselves from terrorists. They'll be back -- in Chicago, LA, Seattle -- but the US has lost (is losing?) its stomach for military intervention. What will we do? It looks bleak to me.
what should we be doing to protect ourselves from terrorists.
I think you first need to step back and ask, "Do we want to be protected from terrorists?" There's a lot of people who gain from encouraging terrorism. If you figure out why that is and deal with it then I wouldn't be surprised if the problem sorts itself out.
In short the "how" isn't difficult, so long as there is a will - but there isn't IMO.
re. conservative antiwar views vs liberal I find that it's worth asking people how they felt about Clinton's Kosovo campaign - another criminal war fought on the basis of what turned out to be a pack of lies (since no mass graves of Albanian Serbs were found after it was all over, and no 'rape camps')
Again in Iraq the genocidal sanctions started by Bush senior were carried on by Clinton (who explicitly said they would continue even if Iraq complied with UN resolutions) and then Bush junior.
These things don't get mentioned in liberal circles and there's an attitude that before Bush the US never waged a war of aggression.
Is this a party political thing?
Titus
For a start the USA could say that the UN is the uppermost Global Power.
Yeah, and hell will freeze over first.
You say: "There's a lot of people who gain from encouraging terrorism." I'm sure you're right. But does anyone doubt that terrorists are self-motivated, and that they will continue fighting until they are either defeated or they achieve their aims? Is al-Zarqawi cutting people’s heads off with a kitchen knife because there’s good money to be made? Or even because (…insert name of your favorite Evil World Manipulator…) put him up to it? My point is that we are in denial. The terrorists are serious about their beliefs, and they will be back. And a lot of people in (…insert name of your favorite American city…) will die. Bush's approach -- plant the seed of democracy, and the world will bloom -- is, uh, not working quite as well as his itsy bitsy brain thought it would. What’s next? We’re totally wedged in Iraq, and I’m not hearing anyone talk about a new plan of action. Oh, and while we’re pondering that question, how many people died in Iraq today?
"Is this a party political thing?"
The Iraq war is a current event. Do we really need to rehash history in this forum?
No, I was not outraged at the first Iraq war, nor the bombing of Serbia, nor the economic sanctions on Iraq. No, it's clearly not based on party affiliation, because those decisions crossed party lines. No, I don't believe that Clinton went to war against Serbia based on a pack of lies.
You're not going to convince me on those historical issues, so let's just stick to what we agree on, which is that the *current* occupation of Iraq is an abomination.
You say: "For a start the USA could say that the UN is the uppermost Global Power."
Okay, that's step one. Now tell me the other steps that follow logically from that one and that end with the elimination of terrorism?
My point is that this problem is real. And real problems need real solutions. I have an open mind...maybe you're on to something with the UN. Help me see it.
Oh...in the meantime, people are dying in Iraq. I don't think we fully comprehend that...or its long term consequences. Little Georgie broke an egg called Iraq, and there's no way to put it back together again. Now what?
I think Paul's got a point. The war in Iraq is an abomination...we agree on that. If we can focus on that...more than on the things we DON'T agree about...then maybe we can begin to think about the next step. How do we get out? Do we pack up tomorrow and just say the hell with it? Do we wait until after the "elections", bless the new Iraq "democracy", and then bring the troops home for a big "victory" parade? My fear is that we muddle on just as we are -- 5 dead today, 20 tomorrow -- until the nation is demoralized, our military is so tired and wounded that it can't fight effectively, and our influence around the world is slightly less than zero. And then the terrorists blow up Atlanta. Seems plausible to me, and I'm not hearing any good ideas for avoiding this disaster.
Titus wrote: How DO we end Iraq?
1) How do we as citizens end the war?
One strategy that could help would be for ex-military and other anti-war folks to travel to the neighborhoods where the military recruits, and encourage kids not to enlist until the war is over, if at all.
Or, 2) How do we as a country and a government end the war?
We remove the reasons people can justify supporting al-Qaeda: we pull our troops from Iraq, Saudi, Qatar, Kuwait, etc. We stop giving weapons to Israel and Egypt and Saudi. Then, we work with Arabs and Muslims to jointly prosecute their terrorists (bin Laden and al-Zarqawi) and ours (Rumsfeld, etc.).
So today the Iraqi resistance promises to bring the war to America's homeland. If the modern Republican party is basically fascist this will be great news for them.
But if there was a government that wanted to end terrorism then they would simply pull out of Iraq and give the resistance in Iraq whatever they demanded. Simple, easy, moral and it will never happen.
On the Kosovo thing I actually wanted to know Titus' view or the view of non-Americans, since I take for granted that the American left backed Clinton.
Titus,
With respect, you seem to really confuse the issues. Iraq and terrorism? Iraq was not engaged in state terrorism. It posed absolutely no threat to the US. This argument of the world being safer and better with Saddam gone and "terrorists" being fought in Iraq so "we don't have to face them at home" is a figleaf so tiny that the naked truth should be evident.
Al Quaeda as an organized terror organization was basically created by perjury in a Manhattan court room in January, 2001. "Terrorism" is not some global specter akin to the cave-dwelling villains found in James Bond movies. Time to be reasonable about this, to think about it, and come up with a crime prevention strategy that does not read like a really bad sequel to the Minority Report, on a global scale.
If a worst-case-scenario applied to everything at all times, we'll all be stuck inside a padded room forever, but even that brings its own risks.
David,
Yes, few people seem to know that Kosovo was another pack of huge lies. Clark going to the Hague as a star witness? Priceless.
DavidByron
The 1998 NATO campaign in Kosovo was a direct response to a viscous campaign of ethnic cleansing instigated by the Milosevic regime in Belgrade. There were mass murders. There were mass rapes. Serbian paramilitaries and units of the JNA drove hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians from their homes. These are indisputable facts.
You describe the Kosovo campaign as a “criminal war” and suggest that America has a history of fighting wars aggression.. For the sake of discussion, let’s stipulate that your premise is valid. Your basic argument is that because Clinton waged a criminal war in Kosovo, Bush is justified in waging a criminal war in Iraq.
Please explain the morality in your argument that two wrongs make a right.
YD
I'm disputing the "indisputable" facts you mention about Kosovo. I don't particularly want to get into the details here but consider this: from my point of view you are in the same position as the millions who still think Saddam was behind 9-11 and that the US found WMDs in Iraq. How would I change your mind? I can't. Your mind is made up. You say it's "indisputable". That's what we're up against. How would you feel about Iraq if you beleived that Saddam was behind 9-11? A lot different, eh?
Kosovo was not a war fought in self-defence nor did it have any UN sanction -- therefore criminal.
What makes you think I'm defending Bush for god's sake? Just because I attacked Clinton? I'm attacking them both. I see little difference in their foreign policies.
See this is just the sort of thing that (Perhaps?) Titus is talking about. I'm not American (I'm British) and I see people on the right against the war as well as on the left. True, more on the left, bu
True, more on the left, but then I wonder how much of that is party political and I bet Titus does too, but let's hear what he has to say.
It seems to me that if you are going to have an antiwar movement that includes both the antiwar left and right, this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
It seems to me that many on the left are re-thinking Clinton's influence on the party. His record on foreign policy and war should be a part of that.
2 cents:
Another Milosevic trial watcher, eh? 
Hmmm. I think I see what DavidByron is getting at. Maybe. I think his point is that people have become so partisan that they tend to evaluate the same (or nearly same) set of facts differently depending on where they believe their partisan interests lie. So, liberals thought Kosovo (and Haiti) were fine...because Clinton initiated them. And conservatives think Iraq is fine...because Little George initiated it (and he pretends to be a conservative). Yes, I think that's true. I think partisanshp blinds most of us, and I believe that's a grave danger. Frankly, I've always thought that if liberals would just relax for a moment, they'd realize that they detest (or at least aren't thrilled about) Clinton. After all, his big accomplishments were...uh, uh. Similarly on the right. I cannot abide the "conservative pundits" who rally around Bush...who's done more to expand the size of government than anyone since FDR. And then there's the Iraq thing. So much to be proud of.
(2) In fact, I believe that rabid partisanship is the thing that makes it hardest for us to recognize our mistakes (Iraq is a perfect example) and back out of them. If "conservatives" would just stop rallying around Bush long enough to evaluate his strategery in Iraq, they’d see he's a fool. There I go…still being to soft on him. But you get it. And in my mind, one way to break through the partisanship is by asking liberals to please stop bashing conservatives long enough for them (conservatives) to look at the bodies of the maimed, mangled, mutilated people who are being crushed by the disaster we affectionately call the Bush Administration. If people will LOOK at the carnage, they will wake up. But they (conservatives) are so busy yelling at the left-side that they don't really see. How will they wake up? By reading YD’s site…where the actual facts are a kind of irresistible tsunami of truth. Iraq is a cancer, but we are in denial. So it will get worse. Maybe terminal.
Titus Livy wrote:
"My fear is that we muddle on just as we are -- 5 dead today, 20 tomorrow -- until the nation is demoralized, our military is so tired and wounded that it can't fight effectively, and our influence around the world is slightly less than zero. And then the terrorists blow up Atlanta. Seems plausible to me, and I'm not hearing any good ideas for avoiding this disaster."
I think you nailed it, Titus old chap. What you described, above, IS an exit strategy. It's just not one that is ideal or humane, that's all. It is the basic way that exit strategies have unfolded ever since the onset of the modern world system. Reference; Britain out of India, et al; France out of Algeria, et al.; U.S. out of Indochina, etc. etc. etc.
2cents wrote:
"Al Quaeda as an organized terror organization was basically created by perjury in a Manhattan court room in January, 2001. "Terrorism" is not some global specter akin to the cave-dwelling villains found in James Bond movies. Time to be reasonable about this, to think about it, and come up with a crime prevention strategy that does not read like a really bad sequel to the Minority Report, on a global scale."
Excellent point, and very relevant to the important and searching questions Titus L. has been asking.
Al Quaeda isn't an 'organization such as S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Rather, al Quaeda is a PROCESS; the encounter of traditional Islam with the rapidly changing, globalized system of capitalist domination. There are many different currents within Islam which reflect this encounter, Osama's being only one variant. Al Quaeda is a dimension of historical unfolding, at one and the same time both a reaction and the articulation of an alternative.
YD,
You can read this:
Kosovo - the site of a genocide that never was
John Pilger needs no introduction. Note that current Brit "anti-war" celebs like Cook and Short are playing for the other team here...
By June 1999, with the bombardment over, international forensic teams began subjecting Kosovo to minute examination. The American FBI arrived to investigate what was called "the largest crime scene in the FBI's forensic history". Several weeks later, having not found a single mass grave, the FBI went home. The Spanish forensic team also returned home, its leader complaining angrily that he and his colleagues had become part of "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines, because we did not find one - not one - mass grave".
I'm not familiar with the facts of how and why Kosovo was attacked by the Nato forces, but I heard a Serb from Kosovo saying that the mass massacre theory is all lying. But then again I also remember reading & watching news about the Balkan conflicts for several years before the Kosovo attack even in Korea.
I think the reason why the Kosovo attack didn't get as much international criticism as the Iraq war, is (1)because it has a more solid & powerful coalition, NATO, and the "old Europe" was the active initiators not active protesters, and (2)because its capitalistic & imperialistic intent wasn't so obvious as the Iraqi war.
As 2cents said, islamic terrorism must have been handled as criminal elements like the US did with Timothy McVeigh. But by declaring an all out war against the islamic terrorism & by invading an islamic country, the US gave it a political status, ethnical & regional identities, and even moral justifications.
Another problem is depleting the authority & morale of the UN by pursuing a virtually unilateral invasion of another country. Recently both China & Russia declared that they have the right to unilateral preemptive action as well. How will we stop them from invading, say Taiwan or Ukraine for example?
Right now I really don't know the solutions for all these, if the authority of the UN or a similar international organization over superpowers will ever be gainable, if there is a way to take away the moral justification & political authority given to Al Qaeda.
a fan of this site: ...if there is a way to take away the moral justification & political authority given to Al Qaeda.
On top of that, Americans themselves acquired the erroneous belief that terrorism is something you fight by military means, which is like being stung by a hornet and blindly striking back at its nest.
As to a previous question posed by Titus Livy, how do we stop the war in Iraq, that's a no-brainer: if you really mean it, set a date for departure - say, December 2006 - and stick to it. Violence would subside noticeably. Most Iraqis are fighting you, and most of the world is refusing to help, precisely because they believe the US has no intention to leave on its own.
"Washington should establish that its ultimate goal is the complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces as soon as circumstances permit and that it has no intention of seeking a permanent military presence in the country."
Iraq: Winning the Unwinnable War
So why isn't the obvious thing being done, one wonders?
To reinforce the notion that there's no exit strategy simply because leaving was never an option, there's also the "parking lot problem". American bases in Saudi Arabia have been abandoned. Fourteen large military bases are being built in Iraq, far from urban centers but close to oil facilities. Would the US military abandon its main foothold in the ME if they didn't expect to have another place to park all those expensive military toys?
1. Pedro makes a number of excellent points. First, even though you’re mad at a hornet, there's no good reason to stir up a hornet's nest unless you intend to utterly destroy it. And even then the risks are grave. Little George's strategy in Iraq is roughly equivalent to knocking the nest down, kicking the stuffing out of 4 or 5 wasps, and then promising the rest that he's going to build them schools and hospitals while freeing them from the evil hornet tyrant. Doesn't seem to have worked very well. Among other things, this illustrates that social animals (including mankind) have various ways of organizing themselves, and democracy is not necessarily their first choice. Iraqis seem to have a preference for theocracy…of the radical Muslim variety.
2. Second, I’m intrigued by Pedro’s suggestion that: “Washington should establish that its ultimate goal is the complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces as soon as circumstances permit and that it has no intention of seeking a permanent military presence in the country." What circumstances would permit our withdrawal? Just curious how people think this could be implemented practically.
Finally, Pedro’s point re airbases is disturbing. And while it’s not one I can confirm, it rings true. This underscores the fact that Bush’s real plan has always been quite different than the “eliminate the WMD” and “sow the seeds of democracy” rationales he’s publicized. But his real plan (about which I can only guess) is clearly failing, and the challenge now is to help the public recognize this fact and see the need for a big change. I think conservatives like me have a special duty here, since liberals will never be able to end the war in Iraq unless they regain a political majority in the U.S. There are many reasons why I would personally not much like that (having nothing to do with Iraq), but in any case, it’s years away. Looks like conservatives are going to have to stop speaking up…not just against the Little Idiot and his moronic minions, but against the Ann Coulters of the world, who reflexively defend Bush just as liberals defended Clinton. We should stop defending o
5. We should stop defending our presumed “leaders” and start to think and speak for ourselves.
6. WHOOPS! I meant: Looks like conservatives are going to have to START speaking up...not just against the Little Idiot and his moronic minions, but against the Ann Coulters of the world...
Sorry, I hit reload and posted twice. Anyway, since we're here: Titus, the sentence you mention is just a quote extracted from the article pointed to by the link, which reinforces my point of view. As to withdrawal itself, what must be acknowledged is that most Iraqis are fighting - and the numbers are growing - not because the US invaded their country or removed Saddam, not even due to the incredibly murderous mess Bush managed to make of it, but precisely because they honestly believe (as I do myself) that the United States intends to steal their country from them. You or I would do just the same. Therefore, if you change that perception, you reduce their willingness to fight. As I said before, if I were an Iraqi and had reason to expect that the invaders would leave my country in the foreseeable future, I'd think twice before strapping myself to a car full of explosives.
Titus, I must take exception to your statement that "Iraqis seem to have a preference for theocracy of the radical Muslim variety." In fact, before the invasion Iraq was one of the few secular Arab countries where all religions coexisted peacefully. This is changing because religion is the only remaining organized force that can oppose the invaders. Something similar happened in Brazil during the 70's, when all secular structures were crushed by our military rulers and the Catholic church remained as the sole voice speaking against torture and oppression.
But the US has already said it intends to leave as soon as it can. No one believes it - and of course it isn't true. More empty promises won't reduce the attacks.
The war will end when the American elites find it is no longer profitable. And not a moment sooner. The Iraqi resistance are working hard to make occupying Iraq unprofitable.
Finally, about the hornet analogy: during an interview I watched many years ago, the great boxer Cassius Clay was asked whether being enraged during a fight helped you to win. "Absolutely not", he replied. "Rage blinds you. During a fight you must keep cool and try to enrage your opponent, because then he will make mistakes." Which is, in my opinion, precisely what Bin Laden is accomplishing.
Terrorism is primarily a criminal business, not a military one, and must be fought with intelligence, patience, international cooperation and a cool head. Unfortunately, all these items seem to be in short supply in the US since 9/11.
DavidByron: More empty promises won't reduce the attacks.
Precisely. Since American credibility has worn out completely, the only way out of this mess would be to act on your promises. Setting a clear date for departure, as I proposed, would serve as a lithmus test about the real American intentions. I honestly hope I'm wrong, but I believe they don't do that simply because it's not part of the plan. Therefore, a sensible course of action by the opposition would be not to demand immediate withdrawal, which is unrealistic, but to demand that such a date be set - something most people would view as a fairly sensible request.
Of course here we're in the realm of speculation, since I suspect the present low-intensity warfare plays in favour of American long-term interests and not against them. Nevertheless, let's consider what would happen if the US just said, "OK guys, get your act together because we're leaving in December 2005." It seems clear to me that American presence is the single unbalancing factor in Iraq right now: the Shias are vying for power because they count on American firepower when they move on to crush the Sunnis; the Sunnis, who hold the required military know-how to form a credible army, are disgusted at the Shias because they see them as American puppets; and the Kurds are pretty comfortable in their autonomous zone, protected against Turkish intervention by the American umbrella. I am sure after such an announcement all of them would scramble to sort it out among themselves and repair the cracks in the crumbling Iraqi structure before it falls on their heads.
The constituency of economic interests (war material, re-construction, etc.) has long since been too great for any merely political decision to oppose. The White House, even if it received complete support from the State Dept., the War Dept., CIA, etc. are no longer in unilateral control of the decision of whether to stay or to exit Iraq. There have been VERY long range plans drawn up relative to oil infrastructure, military force projection, etc., to which both U.S. industrial capital as well as finance capital are irreversibly committed. The pure economic costs of anything like a pell-mell exit would be utterly unacceptable.
Looks like we're pretty much out of gas on this issue for the time being. On that assumption, I want to thank everyone for their ideas and comments. I've found them all very helpful, and I'm busily digesting what you've said. It'll take some time for me to put it all together.
I can already see that I want to do more to resist Bush...whining just won't cut it anymore. Maybe it's time for a "Conservatives Against Bush" blog...with links back to YD's site (etc). After all, there's a limit to what liberals can do to persuade conservatives to re-evaluate bush, because we're all living in hardened, partisan bunkers these days. No one will listen to “the other side”. So it looks like it's up to those of us on the conservative side of the fence to start saying, "Hey, wake up! Bush is an idiot, and he's going to take us all down with him!"
Thanks again for your great ideas and for your thoughtful responses to my point of view! I’m really glad I found this sit
Final Note: It seems that other conservatives are also concerned. By coincidence, here is a timely article:
www.amconmag.com/2005_01_17/cover.html
I feel Titus Livy is being disingenuous. He claims that we (I think he means liberals) should stop carping on the liberal-conservative divide, and what does he say next?
He says that he thinks Bush is a raving idiot, a loony, _and_ a closet liberal.
In other words, even as he tells liberals to stop being offensive, he declares that the most misanthropic f*cktard in Presidential history is one of them.
You are invited to check out the sites about blackjack site blackjack site http://www.epraha.info/blackjack.html ... Thanks!!!
wvbpzaup [URL=http://bzgdjgne.com]muubdzlb[/URL] pleztluq http://umookgjt.com laagbors mchnfxft
c238db 5470e8e862
COOL !!! canada evista vicodin m357 information generic meltabs viagra
bestcasinodirectoryonline.com casino casino directory directory gambling online revies bestcasinodirectoryonline.com casino casino directory directory gambling online revies bestcasinodirectoryonline.com casino casino directory directory gambling online revies. student loan consolidation student loan consolidation student loan consolidation.
Commenting by HaloScan
