If we are guilty of killing civilians ourselves, in effect terrorizing civilians, then how can we possibly call this a "War on Terror"?

It's unpopular to say so, but it might even be different if we were in a declared war. But since we're not, some migth argue fairly that we are merely sending our military over to Iraq and allowing them to terrorize civilians. Especially if the "support the troops, even if they commit heinous crimes" crowd gets their way.

That's my point, I think in a conventional war it would be a little different. Not entirely, but it would be easier to justify.

I have to point out that JP's contention that 'conservatives' are defending the murder of civilians here on BC or elsewhere is innacurate and a politicization of what is not an inherently partisan position. The division here is not between conservative and liberal, but between those who believe that the troops are always right and always justified no matter what they do and those who believe in the rule of law, which is basically a conservative position.

Dave

That's true, Dave and JP. There are plenty of conservatives who want investigations and to hold the soliders of Haditha accountable and bring them to justice.

...those who believe in the rule of law, which is basically a conservative position.

As far as I know, the Bush administration is not quite willing to work within the laws, and am just being polite.

..."As far as I know, the Bush administration is not quite willing to work within the laws, and am just being polite."

The Bush administration is not conservative.

And BTW, Q Bit, how do you do that italic thing when quoting? Also; "What's a Q Bit?" (with apologies to Cosby--couldn't resist).

Clavos:

For italics use the tags < i > Text < /i > without the space around i.

Bit as in bit of information -- element of information. Q stands for quantum.

Thank you,sir/ma'am!

Q Bit, Whoops! Should have looked at your blog before writing that last; sorry Sir.

Clavos: Apology accepted ! You made me wondering too, but I knew you would realize it yourself from my blog before I claim my correct gender status.

MJW: That's true, Dave and JP. There are plenty of conservatives who want investigations and to hold the soliders of Haditha accountable and bring them to justice.

Which only makes sense, because you cannot carry on something like our efforts in Iraq unless you're scrupulous about maintaining the legitimacy and impartiality of our forces there.

QB: As far as I know, the Bush administration is not quite willing to work within the laws, and am just being polite.

Indeed. It's become quite clear exactly how little you know. You basically spout pre-programmed pap from the left-wing talking points and accompany it with a bundle of emotional rhetoric and not a spot of reason or logic.

Dave

Dave:

Indeed. It's become quite clear exactly how little you know. You basically spout pre-programmed pap from the left-wing talking points and accompany it with a bundle of emotional rhetoric and not a spot of reason or logic.

You show the same dismissive attitude like your right-wing friends, of course with the tone of I-know-it-all.

You can throw it at me but it doesn't make you right, nor does it change the facts.

Like it or not, (obviously you don't) the current administration is particularly competent in flouting laws and constitutional rights.

You clearly subscribe to the philosophy that if you say something enough people will begin to think it's true. The administration is certainly pragmatic and does things for expediency which make some people nervous, but your 'flouting laws and constitutional rights' charge just doesn't hold up. It's something which gets said a lot, but which doesn't stand close examination at all.

Dave

Indeed, saying something often enough to make people believe it's true is a tactic that doesn't work. That may explain why Bush's popularity continues it downward spiral.

Actually, Ray, I think the tactic DOES work. And that explains some of Bush's decline in the polls.

Dave

Well played, Dave. But I was referring to Bush's insitence that we're winning that nebulous war on terror. It's a click your heels three times and wish it were so mentality that has no basis in reality.

I'll almost give you that one. We're fighting the war on terror, which is more than was ever done before, but there's no way to tell who's winning it at this point. There have certainly been some victories along the way. Seems like a mistake to claim victory prematurely, but a politician's got to spin his work positive when it's ambiguous. It's the nature of the beast.

dave

Maybe this will just categorize me as "one of THOSE people," but I don't think we can win a war against a concept, just as we can't really win the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs. We cannot obliterate the concept of terrorism, nor can we really obliterate the threat of terrorism against the United States. Something less nebulous, like a war on Al Qaeda, is winnable.

And as J.P. points out--if the allegations at Haditha turn out to be true--we certainly cannot obliterate terror by becoming the terrorizers.

Michael, you certainly paint a grim, defeatist picture of the future when you say that we cannot win a war against terrorism.

If we accept your premise, it seems to me our alternatives are either to resign ourselves to a never-ending stream of young Americans going off somewhere to be killed for a lost cause, or withdraw our troops and brace ourselves to be attacked as we were on 9/11, until eventually, if we don't fight back, we are subjugated by the forces aligned against us; forces which have sworn publicly and repeatedly to defeat us.

Neither scenario is tolerable, in my opinion. We MUST fight back.

Michael, I have to vote with you on that one somewhat, war on a concept is a tough one to pull off. I'd be more at home with "Al Qaeda" or any .

The problem in this specific case (terrorism) is that--and please jump in with corrections if appropriate here, folks, this is my conjecture--it seems to me the Middle East perceives America as "provoking" by its involving itself to such a large degree in Mideast politics. As an example, Palestineans do not recognize the creation of Israel, and resent our involvement in and support of that state's creation and continued existence.

So it seems to me there's a view--valid or not--among many Islamists, not necessarily all, in which we're the instigators and they are fighting back. In America, we turn a blind eye to that viewpoint--particularly when our leaders tell us "9/11 changed everything."

If and only if we don't acknowledge the other side's viewpoint in some way, we're going to end up with the 2 options you listed: "resign ourselves to a never-ending stream of young Americans going off somewhere to be killed for a lost cause, or withdraw our troops and brace ourselves to be attacked as we were on 9/11..."

Regardless, by perpetrating acts that could be classified objectively as terroristic, we are not going to win the battle of ideas or the war on terror. (any instance, not just this specific allegation)

So it seems to me there's a view--valid or not--among many Islamists, not necessarily all, in which we're the instigators and they are fighting back.
Agreed.

In America, we turn a blind eye to that viewpoint--particularly when our leaders tell us "9/11 changed everything."
I disagree, we don't so much turn a blind eye to it as focus on responding to their agression toward us, whatever their perceived reasons.

Regardless, by perpetrating acts that could be classified objectively as terroristic, we are not going to win the battle of ideas or the war on terror. (any instance, not just this specific allegation)
Absolutely agree.

@Dave:

Ok.. certainly we disagree here and I realize it's a matter of having different perspectives. By the way, I liked your judicious (or should I say clever?) use of "expediency" .

@Mike, JP and Clavos:

I think the problem that we are addressing here is barely defined with no solution in sight.

So what do we do?

Stay the course? The situation is only getting worse everyday.

We perhaps cannot disown either. Although sometimes I think we should get out of there and cut the losses.

Can we win the war against terrorism? Yes.

But that cannot be achieved just by killing the terrorists. How many would you kill?

See-this approach has already turned out to be meaningless in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Thousands of Hamas have been killed over the years. Have you ever seen Hamas shortage of volunteers who are willing to blow themselves up? Never.

We are fighting against an ideology that hates everything we stand for. And in the middle east, there are no shortage of folks who will swear by their life that everything about America is evil.

How do we get them to believe there is a better world to live?

We have to make inroads with the values of democracy, economic and social freedom. That should be the KEY to our fight and not an afterthought.

Can we win the war against terrorism? Yes.

No. No. No. It is impossible to have an actual military victory in the war on terrorism. We can defeat certain terrorist groups, but so long as there's some group which wants to seize political power by force there's going to be terrorism. The war on terror will last forever and its real objective is to minimize the impact of terrorism on the daily lives of reasonable people.

Dave

Dave:

My point was exactly so: you cannot win by sword.

The phrase "war against terror" was meant to capture "war" from a larger perspective. And as I said, there's no way you can win this war by killing terrorists, because that's a never ending war.

The war has to go on in other fronts: democracy, social and economic freedom, lack of which causes the so called ideology of hate.

I am not a pessimist and am sure the "war" is winnable, will take time, perhaps decades and I am willing to wait (I don't have a choice but am not throwing the all-is-lost towel either).

Dave: "I have to point out that JP's contention that 'conservatives' are defending the murder of civilians here on BC or elsewhere is innacurate and a politicization of what is not an inherently partisan position. ..."

It is to laugh. The pirates who have (temporarily) commandeered the republican party have relentlessly politicized issues along party lines that they alone define. To the pirates, everything is partisan.

It occurs to me that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are no longer relevant. Toeing the party line at either end of the spectrum is functional somnabolism. The world in which we live is far too complex to label a position so casually.
What is called for, as this discourse illustrates, is rational ethics. Common sense tells us that killing innocents is wrong, and no amount of politicizing can change that.

Clavos:

Michael, you certainly paint a grim, defeatist picture of the future when you say that we cannot win a war against terrorism.

I paint a realistic picture of the future. I didn't say that it was useless to fight terrorism, although I do think it's useless to pretend we can eradicate the idea from the face of the earth.

Believe it or not, when you talk about winning a war against terrorism you are talking about winning a war against an aspect of human nature--a dark, dark aspect of it, but an aspect nonetheless.

In a way it's like waging a war against murder. Sure, it's a noble cause and you absolutely have to fight for it. But do you really believe it's possible to eradicate the existence of murder? Of course not. We can punish murder and do things to decrease its frequency, but murder will continue to happen. So will terrorism.

Dave, QB: Don't y'all ever sleep???

QB:

The war has to go on in other fronts: democracy, social and economic freedom, lack of which causes the so called ideology of hate.

Fair enough. More than one analyst, however, has contended that the historical/religious fundamentalist roots of the Middle Eastern cultures at war with us shut the door to acceptance of democratic social and economic principles.

Evidence of such acceptance in the current conflict so far is contradictory; there have been elections, a start on a constitution, etc., but for the most part, the conflicts among the Iraqi people seem to be just as divisive as ever. Real democracy has not yet taken root, much less flowered, n'est ce pas?

There is no such thing as a "real democracy," nor should there be. The result would be chaos. Imposing our will on peoples who don't necessarily share our viewpoint on how the world should operate is counterproductive, as history has shown us time and time again.
Now does this mean we throw up our hands and surrender to terrorism? Of course not. The 9/11 argument is growing tiresome, though, steeped as it is in rhetoric. Iraq had nothing to do with that attack, any more than the vast majority of good ol'boy rednecks were responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing.
You cannot outright defeat terrorism--there's always going to be a malcontent somewhere with his own personal vision of the perfect world.

The 9/11 argument is growing tiresome, though, steeped as it is in rhetoric. Iraq had nothing to do with that attack,...

True enough, but Middle Eastern terrorists did.

But that's a serious generalization, Clavos. After all, a white American soldier was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing. If we can translate the idea that "Middle Eastern terrorists perpetrated 9/11" into justification for war in Iraq, it's not such a big leap to translating the idea that "white American soldiers perpetrated Oklahoma City" into capital punishment for the white American soldiers who perpetrated Haditha.

Wasn't saying that as justification for war in Iraq, was talking about war against Middle Eastern terrorrists, as were others-see above.

...and, I'm not so sure capital punishment for the perpretators of Haditha (whomever is proved in court to be they) is out of the question--depends on what the UCMJ (if that's what's applicable) provides as a penalty--which I don't know.

I'm pretty sure that it is the UCMJ, but I'm not sure either. It was the applicable code in (I SWEAR I'm not trying to make this comparison yet again, I'm just drawing on the only context I know) My Lai.

I wasn't clear--I'm a Vietnam vet, so I know the UCMJ applies if Marines did commit the atrocities--I was just trying not to jump to any conclusions until the whole thing has been tried in court.

And the comparison to My Lai is OK, as far as I'm concerned--there definitely are common elements to both situations.

A very interesting piece, JP.


If we are guilty of killing civilians ourselves, in effect terrorizing civilians, then how can we possibly call this a "War on Terror"?

When you examine this entire unfortunate situation from all angles, you see that most of the world believes that from the get-go, America was never justified in making its pre-emptive strike on Iraq. Even Pope John Paul II took a carefully decided moral stand against the philosophy behind the war.

The current controversy over the alleged Haditha massacre only serves to further break apart the semblence of moral purpose. The only way we can possibly "win" a war like this one is to "win" the hearts and minds of the people whose nation we allegedly occupied in order to give them time and protection to secure a democratic government. We have not fulfilled the promise of security - too many areas of Iraq are out of control to convince anyone with a brain that we have an upper hand in "winning" this war. Hearts and minds were lost long ago - and the Haditha story is likely only a beginning volley in the campaign for Iraqis to oust us from their land. They are having a civil war before our eyes and America's cowardly political leaders are afraid to call it what it is. I've heard generals call it a "sub-rosa" civil war, but our eyes do not deceive us.

Someone tell me how we are going to get control over this runaway disaster known as the Iraq War.

I love this country as much as the next red white and blue-blooded Joe or Mary. I respect the men and women who are risking everything for their fellow brothers (and sisters) in arms. I think the media should give them the benefit of the doubt instead of publicly crucifying them at the top of every hour. But I'll tell you this, loud and clear: WE NEVER BELONGED IN IRAQ. WE NEED TO REDEPLOY STEADILY AND INTELLIGENTLY - AND REDPLOYMENT NEEDS TO START NOW.

"We can defeat certain terrorist groups, but so long as there's some group which wants to seize political power by force there's going to be terrorism. The war on terror will last forever and its real objective is to minimize the impact of terrorism on the daily lives of reasonable people."
- Dave Nalle

And thank God the soldiers brave enough to actually fight that war for "reasonable people" didn't use lame excuses like "I had other priorities" or "I'm too old" in order to evade service...

we should have a war on war. that way, we can get rid of war. then, without war, what will we have to fight with? or about? sure, we'll have terrorism... but without war, there is no holy war. if they can't have their holy war, they'll probably just drink their coffees and smoke their hookahs. and if we can't have our war on terror, we'll just sit at home and fiddle with our pricks, which is what we all want to do anyway. i think it's just as reasonable as this war on terror shit, and gets to the source of the problem.

i sincerely doubt it that muslims would feel the need to attack us if we just got our noses out of their business. don't try to manipulate them for their oil, don't get involved in their politics, don't invade their countries... it's not that we have to "resign ourselves to a never-ending stream of young Americans [being] killed for a lost cause, or [...] brace ourselves [for more] 9/11['s], until [...]we are subjugated by the forces aligned against us," we can just give into their wishes to be left alone.

it's like a bee's nest. we went in there years ago, poking at it with a stick. now, we are bashing at it with a shovel. if we just let the damn thing alone, we won't be getting attacked. it's not that they are "jealous of our freedom" or any of that complete bullshit, it's that they despise us trying to run lives. put yourself in their shoes. how would you like it if for the last 100 years, eastern influences had been trying to run america, had created russia (you know, like israel) and then let them threaten us for decades? what if we had loads of oil that they wanted and they constantly got involved in us-canadian or us-mexican relationships? what if they routinely parked their destroyers and battleships off the coast of florida?

we should lessen our impact upon their lives, and their impact upon us will decrease as well. how many times can they say, "get your troops out of the middle east," or "we bombed your city because your tanks are in ours," or "this is because of what you did in iraq," etc, before we get it? they want us out! why not get out? (...slowly, but making definite strides towards leaving them completely alone.)

problem solved. that is, unless we've started something that we can't step back from, apologize for, etc. and at that point, we've just doomed ourselves. if you think that "we shouldn't be aplogizing for anything," then you need to grow up or be shot. you (the non-apologizers) are the real terrorists, right along with the fundamentalist islamic nut jobs.

Zing, If you read your history you'll see that the many of the peoples of the Middle East have been meddling with the rest of the world for centuries; it's naive, particularly in light of recent history, to think they're suddenly going to change their ways.

Dave,
If you keep bashing the bee's nest long enough with your shovel you do, eventually, get all of the bees.

True, but we need to realize we're gonna get stung a lot in the process.

If you keep bashing the bee's nest long enough with your shovel you do, eventually, get all of the bees.

Or, you could stay the Hell away from the bee's nest.

many of the peoples of the Middle East have been meddling with the rest of the world for centuries

This is not a good argument, though. Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, and the United States have also been "meddling with the rest of the world for centuries." What does that have to do with anything?

it's naive, particularly in light of recent history, to think they're suddenly going to change their ways.

Perhaps so. But it's equally naive to think that military and political intervention by the United States is going to change that.

Perhaps so. But it's equally naive to think that military and political intervention by the United States is going to change that.

Maybe it won't, but it will at least keep 'em away from our soil. And the centuries of their meddling go back MUCH further than our own.

how does it keep them away from our soil? i'd say a vast majority of middle eastern terrorists on 9/11 were nowhere near america. i'd say there are many (and probably more) terrorists here in america now than there have ever been.

if they say that their terrorism against the united states is conditional upon our continued meddling within their own countries, why not try and stop meddling about over there. let's see what happens. couldn't be worse than constant war... maybe it's the solution. peace works better than war at stopping war.

the centuries of their meddling go back MUCH further than our own.

That's because their HISTORY goes back much farther than our own.

Truth be known, Clavos, we more than made up for lost time in meddling--ask any Native American, for starters.

Zing:

i'd say there are many (and probably more) terrorists here in america now than there have ever been.

Based on what evidence?

oh, i dunno... what evidence could i have? if they were known terrorists, they'd be in jail. but, i'd say that we've made middle eastern people incredibly angry, and that recruitment must be sky-rocketing, and lots of them must be saying, "hmm... why don't we hit them over there again?"

what evidence do you have that there aren't plenty of terrorists here? the fact that shit isn't exploding all around us? ha... we keep this up...

what about peace doesn't appeal to you? they attack us because we meddle with their shit. i know, i know, can't look weak. but we hit them back. made them know we can hurt them too. so, now we should back the fuck up and compromise with them. we don't want to be there, they don't want us there. what else could you ask for? if they invaded our country, wouldn't you just say, "look, get the fuck out and we can all live our lives..."? why not?

why do you want to go playing guns with these people? are you too old to go into the military? hmm? could be?

If you keep bashing the bee's nest long enough with your shovel you do, eventually, get all of the bees.

True, but we need to realize we're gonna get stung a lot in the process.

Not if you wear a stylish beekeepers suit.

If you keep bashing the bee's nest long enough with your shovel you do, eventually, get all of the bees.

Or, you could stay the Hell away from the bee's nest.

As I know from personal experience, if you leave them alone they just build more and more nests and pretty soon they're everywhere and you can't avoid walking into a nest and getting the hell stung out of your bald head, and then the poison leaks down into you neck which swells up like a watermelon making you almost die as it cuts off your breathing.

Dave

or they just live their lives and you just live yours... they buzz about making honey and spreading flowers about the land, you mowin your grass and lettin your dog poop in the neighbor's... ahh, the life.

plus, bees don't get angry, they just protect the hive. terrorism spreads out of anger. if we try to "kill them all" as you so idiotically suggest, we'll never kill them all. they will grow, probably exponentially, as they get more and more angry, until we've got a full-on cultural/race war on our hands. real fuckin smart. makes me sick.

you act as if they have no reason whatsoever for what they do. bullshit. we've been finger-fuckin with them for years. they got sick of it and blew our shit up. so, now we're trying to stick it up their ass? yeah... that works.

THAT'S FUCKING STUPID!

people like you are going to get us all killed. that pisses me off.

other than that, yeah... it's a nice day. i'm gonna have a picnic and watch a movie...

are you too old to go into the military? hmm? could be?

Now I am..but 40 years ago in Vietnam I wasn't.

Ad hominem and irrelevant (besides incorrect), Zing.

40 years ago doesn't count for shit right now. if you want war, you go fight it. if all the people who WANTED war actually FOUGHT it, then we could get rid of all the people who want to fight. and then we wouldn't fight anymore. i don't want to fight. i'd bet most people in the middle east don't either. it's the stupid mother fuckers who want to fight.

it's not irrelevant, you're just a pussy who talks big when he ain't got shit to back it up with.

Very good, Zing; when you can't make logical sense, attack your opponent personally and call him names.

Ah, but zing. Terrorists are like the Africanized bees which come in and spread genetic craziness and aggression in the population of otherwise innocent honey producing bees.

Dave

Neat analogy, Dave.

clavos: how about this? go fight your own damn war. okay? what about the first paragraph didn't make sense to you? where does my logic fall apart? when i say shooting at people is stupid, and the activity of certain mother fuckers? okay, shooting kills people. if you want to kill or be killed, then go do it yourself. don't send sensible people like me to do it for you.

the "pussy" bit was answering your call for relevance. you won't fight this war, (and therefore are a pussy if you want others to fight it for you), and therefore, your age is relevant, unless you are just a pussy all the time. i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

dave: terrorism is genetic? muslims are naturally aggressive? i didn't know.

don't send sensible people like me to do it for you.

AAHHH, THERE it is--you're afraid YOU might have to go fight--now who's a pussy?

zing wries,

"if you want war, you go fight it."

You talk like a fool, zing. A 55 year old fart with a heart condition and arthritis is no good on a battlefield compared to an 18 year old who can run 20 kilometers with a back pack, jump, fall and not be exausted in 25 miuntes. The idea in winning any war is to kill the enemy or make him so dispirited that he gives up.

If you don't think of how to make sure your own soldiers survive the war, you lose it even if the enemy surrenders. That happened to France and Britain after 1919.

And in most wars, it is a matter of having to fight, not wanting to.

This war in Iraq is an unfortunate exception to the rule just stated, from the American point of view. The American gov't wanted to fight. Its opponent didn't - not in 1991 or 2003.

Zing, it's an analogy. Don't be a literalist dumbass. Radical Islam is the cultural equivalent of a gene for agression. The terrorists are the Africanized bees infected with Radical Islam. Think it through.

Dave

"I never call people names."
- Dave Nalle, ad nauseam

"Zing...Don't be a literalist dumbass."
- Dave Nalle, #61

I'm not so sure that it really is unfair to say that "conservatives" are defending the killing of civilians. It would be unfair to say that all conservatives are doing so. But is even a single one of those defenders a liberal?

nd in most wars, it is a matter of having to fight, not wanting to.

This war in Iraq is an unfortunate exception to the rule just stated, from the American point of view.

So was Vietnam. And Korea. And the Spanish-American War, and the Mexican War, and the first World War, and the first Gulf War...

Gee, when you look at the list, the wars that America fought out of necessity start to seem like the exceptions.

MCH, um...not that you don't sometimes make valid criticisms, but I have to ask: do you actually come to these threads in order to contribute to the conversations, or just to take shots at Dave Nalle? They're not the same thing.

He doesn't give a damn about productive or relevant conversation. He's a stalker, bizarrely fixated on me based on a misconception of my political views he conceived about a year ago and has never bothered to reconsider despite ample evidence that I don't hold most of the views he thinks I do.

And BTW, 'literalist dumbass' isn't calling him names, it's an accurate description of his pose in that comment.

Dave

Every time MCH quotes Dave and says something about him not serving/contradicting himself, he puts a tally mark on the wall, which is right next to where he keeps track of all our comments dating back to 2004.

We all contradict each other, with all the hundreds of comments we make. No big deal, they're just comments. K?

Now be a dear and look up the time I said "I do not contradict myself." I believe it was back in September.

Jude, thanks for your compliment.

Zing, you're in the direction I'm going--"plus, bees don't get angry, they just protect the hive. terrorism spreads out of anger. if we try to "kill them all" as you so idiotically suggest, we'll never kill them all. they will grow, probably exponentially, as they get more and more angry, until we've got a full-on cultural/race war on our hands. real fuckin smart. makes me sick."

I'm concerned that we're making this a "war" at all, because on the other side we're the meddlers ever since the creation of Israel, and because by not Ensuring we didn't have any Haditha's, we've now lost any moral high ground on that issue.

To that end, it's discouraging to see the Vietnam era practice of not releasing opposition death count estimates continue in this war; this is a war, by definition against terror, that is best suited for being fully aware of the human costs.

clavos: i don't want to fight. that has something to do with the fact that i don't want to die. if that makes me a pussy, fine, i'm a pussy. can't argue with you there. i am very afraid i'll have to go fight. i really don't want to. life is fine. why the hell should i fight? really, though, it makes me smart, and not the sort of hypocritical old man who will send off younger people to die for his bullshit.

ruvy: shut it. i don't care to fight old men's wars. fair? if it's old men who want to fight, old men can fight. if you try to send me off to your stupid fucking war, i'll throw a grenade in your tent. of course, not YOUR tent, as you having nothing to do with this war. i WILL NOT fight in this war. ever.

dave: the analogy got too literal long ago. you continued, i continued. i could have told you the same thing ages ago. literalist dumbass... that's not much of an insult. radical islam is a reaction. take away the thing they react against, and you've got no radical islam. sure, a few will still exist, but the reason why more and more and more and more and more of them keep popping up will quickly disappear. and that's a fact.

and anyone who thinks war is about saving the world... grow up. it's about land, conquest, money, religion and hatred. name me a war that wasn't started for those reasons. one. go on. i can't think of a single war we ever HAD to fight. especially not now.

i WILL NOT fight in this war. ever.

This is why we have a volunteer military and should continue to have one as a matter of policy. Just be prepared. If Hillary gets into the White House with a democratic congress you're going to be drafted before you can even start to scream in outrage.

Dave

Your naivete is breathtaking, Zing.

Nobody SENT the troops to Iraq--they're all volunteers, remember? And don't tell me they didn't volunteer for Iraq--anyone who volunteers for military service understands that war is the reason for the military. But rest easy, Zing--unless Dave's right about Hillary, you won't have to go.

i can't think of a single war we ever HAD to fight.

True--back in 1776 we could have stayed loyal to King George--the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are just pieces of paper, why spill blood for them? Slaves were just property--why should brother fight brother to free them?

The rest of your screed isn't worth the effort of a response.

clavos: if we do like you want and constantly march around the globe, trying to stop terrorism by shooting up people's countries and houses, there will HAVE to be a draft. ever heard of rome? yeah, that's us in your future.

and we weren't a country yet in 1776. we just wanted to be. and the civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about the union. but whatever. ok-- i don't see any reason why we should ever fight a war away from american soil. if we have definite proof that someone will launch an invasion against us, maybe then too. but that hasn't happened.

you and i don't see eye to eye. you assume that i say one thing, when i am saying something quite different. i think it is your naivete that is amazing. how can you think that a us-global march against terrorism will work? equal and opposite reaction? der? war leads to war. don't you want to see it end? where does anyone profit (real profit, not money) from war? does it do one bit of good?

wait... wait... "war is reason for the military?" what the fuck is that supposed to mean? yeah, war is the reason for the military. but does that mean we have to make war so that we can use the damn thing? what are you thinking?

dave--why do you think that? i would hope she (or a dem congress) would scale back our military's bullshit conquest of the middle east... hopefully she wouldn't be as stupid as bush, roaming around the earth, meddling and ignoring as he chooses, threatening military attack on anyone who doesn't do as he wants them to.

Zing. Every draft measure and draft proposal has come from a democratic congress and president. Johnson initiated the Vietnam draft. Carter started the current draft registration system. And since the start of the War on Terror it has been prominent democrats - Rangel, Kerry and others - who have proposed either a draft or universal conscription. If Hillary gets into power she's going to keep fighting in Iraq and elsewhere - she's said it and no democratic president is going to want the legacy of being the one to LOSE a war. As a democrat her methodology to do that WILL be to increase troop deployment and institute a draft.

Dave

i would hope she (or a dem congress) would scale back our military's bullshit conquest of the middle east... hopefully she wouldn't be as stupid as bush, roaming around the earth, meddling and ignoring as he chooses, threatening military attack on anyone who doesn't do as he wants them to.

A democratic president, JFK, got us involved in Vietnam. And another dem, LBJ, escalated our presence, thereby prolonging the war.

yes, they were all white men too. does it mean that any time a white man gets into office, we're going to go to war? timing has something to do with it, you think? and has a dem ever not gone to war? yes... hrm. i'm against war more than i am for dems anyway. maybe it's because i could actually go. something about that. yeah.

i'm sure that the democratic idea of getting out of this war will lead to us increasing troop deployment and instituting a draft. it follows. yeah.

i don't think you can point to vietnam as your only proof that dems institute drafts. and i wonder how much the current calls for drafts are ploys designed to say, "either do it or don't. if you want this war, you're going to have to really do it." i mean, come on, universal conscription? who the fuck does that?

all i'm saying is put your gun where your mouth is. (oohhh, that sounds good...)

if you want something, you do it. i'm fine with that. if you don't want to do it, don't ask someone else to do it for you, and don't make a problem worse (and more dangerous) by continuing to make the same mistake. i'm not out to protect the likes of you, as, and it's pretty obvious, you just want to fight. i can't fathom why.

Zing, I can't actually point to a Democrat who hasn't gotten us involved in a war, at least not in the last 100 years. On the other hand, we do have two Republicans who either didn't get us into any wars or got us out of one - Ford and Nixon.

And all the presidents have been white men, so that's a complete red herring.

And Clavos HAS put his gun where his mouth is. I don't actually support war as an instrument of foreign policy except as the last resort.

Dave

has--past tense. doesn't matter at all what he did then. let him do it now. i once touched my mother's vagina. doesn't mean anything now. (i am truly sorry.)

of course all white men have been presidents, but that's no more of a red herring than yours. what actual wars did clinton start? carter? you knew i would ask. so let's hear it.

clavos: what is your motivation for supporting this war?

ahem... yeah. all presidents have been white men. christ.

I think you meant to say all of our president have been white men and not "of course all white men have been presidents," Zing.

Also zing.....nalle said got us involved in war....not started a war...... pay attention


Clinton got us involved in Bosnia and Kosovo zing...... did you just forget?


He also lobbed a couple of miissiles into Iraq to distract attention from his impeachment hearings.

yeah, the missiles i'll grant you. and i called him on that then. well, didn't call them. bosnia and kosovo... wouldn't call that a war, but say what you will. plus, wasn't that u.n. stuff? or did he go ahead without their consent?

oh, and i caught myself before you did. ha. nyah.

Mike West - quoting me:

and in most wars, it is a matter of having to fight, not wanting to.

He then says:

"This war in Iraq is an unfortunate exception to the rule just stated, from the American point of view.

So was Vietnam. And Korea. And the Spanish-American War, and the Mexican War, and the first World War, and the first Gulf War...

Gee, when you look at the list, the wars that America fought out of necessity start to seem like the exceptions."

Sorry to disagree just a tad there, Mike. WWI was entered by the US because the Germans were trying to cut a deal to effect a "reconquista". The Germans had offered the Mexicans a deal to help them reconquer the America Southwest. It wasn't as dramatic as the raid on Pearl Harbor, but it was an act of war.

Korea also was a necessary war - unless you think that South Korea should have been allowed to fall to the Communists.

You're only thinking of American wars here, my good man. And you are only thinking of the American side... Others have also entered the battlefield. For the Prussians in 1870, the war with France was a war of choice - but it wasn't for the French, etc...

Zing, the problem with American involvement in the Middle East is that you guys are (IMHO) fighting on the wrong side and backing the wrong horses altogether. Your government SHOULD be getting rid of the damned Wahhabi cancer that plagues Islam. You SHOULD be occupying the oilfields in the Middle East and bringing the pice of oil to a reasonable $15/bbl (and bringing prosperity back to America). You SHOULD be backing Jewish control and re-settlement in all of the Land of Israel and pushing most of the South Syrian Arabs to Jordan, Syria, central Mesopotamia and Hijaz WHERE THEY CAME FROM. You SHOULD be helping to build an independent Arab state stretching from the Jordan to the mountains of Iran.

That would bring peace and allow you all to bring your troops home and keep your foreign aid. When you do the right thing, you generally do not screw up with massacres like Haditha.

But you guys are doing it all ass backwards and screwing yourselves over in the bargain. The Haditha massacre and all the shitty consequences that flow from it are your country's reward for being idiots and insisting on doing what is wrong and evil.

Zing, the problem with American involvement in the Middle East is that you guys are (IMHO) fighting on the wrong side and backing the wrong horses altogether. Your government SHOULD be getting rid of the damned Wahhabi cancer that plagues Islam. You SHOULD be occupying the oilfields in the Middle East and bringing the pice of oil to a reasonable $15/bbl (and bringing prosperity back to America). You SHOULD be backing Jewish control and re-settlement in all of the Land of Israel and pushing most of the South Syrian Arabs to Jordan, Syria, central Mesopotamia and Hijaz WHERE THEY CAME FROM. You SHOULD be helping to build an independent Arab state stretching from the Jordan to the mountains of Iran.

Well said, Ruvy! You really nailed it.


Zing: i mean, come on, universal conscription? who the fuck does that?

I believe the Israelis do, Zing.

ruvy--i think you guys can fight your own wars as well. you've said before you don't want our help (or money), and since we are such evil screw-ups, if i were you, i'd not tempt fate. ah, fuck, doesn't matter now does it?

clavos--um, you ignored the rest of his statement where he says we've royally fucked up, done the wrong thing and have now screwed ourselves into a bad position? yeah, time to back off of that i say. selectivity! god bless.

israel is constantly at war. we shouldn't be. finland has universal conscription as well i think. god knows why. it will never happen in america. and you know it. so answer my real question: "i wonder how much the current calls for drafts are ploys designed to say, "either do it or don't. if you want this war, you're going to have to really do it.""

well? it IS politics after all. it's a double-dog dare.

zing,

Everything I recommended above benefits America. First of all, you get rid of terrorism, second of all you bing back prospoerity - real prosperity with hope in the horizon - something you are probably too young to even remember. Finally, you get the good feeling of fighting the good fight. War is hell, and it is hard on the soul, as well as on the body, but it is easier on the soul when in your heart, you know that what you do is RIGHT.

Just to make the point, the reason I'm a police auxiliary volunteer is that it is the RIGHT thing to do.

Because your country insists on doing what is WRONG, I don't want the likes of it anywhere near us. From my point of view, your government is evil and bent on evil. The proof of the pudding is that the price of oil has not fallen one bit since you unhorsed Saddam Hussein. The proof of the pudding is that Arab terror and the danger of Arab terror all over the world has increased and not decreased, in spite of the price in blood your soldiers are paying. The proof of the pudding is that you government is forcing evil down the throats of Jews in Israel.

THEREFORE, we don't need you or your money or your soldiers around. They are all poison to this nation. It is that simple.

It's all a matter of being able to see right from wrong, zing.

withdraw our troops and brace ourselves to be attacked as we were on 9/11

No. Withdraw and SEAL OURSELVES OFF from any possibility of such attacks on our own soil. That means unbreachable walls, reliable AMB defense, extraction from entangling political and trade alliances, and 100% economic self-sufficiency.

In other words, let the rest of the world go to hell by itself, rather than joining the party and going to hell with it.

ruvy--i agree with lots you have to say, but i don't particularily want to believe that america is evil. just stupid. with stupid leadership. our government does things for the wrong reasons, or for reasons that they don't want to tell us...

i believe that it would lessen a shit load of tension in this world if we just stopped trying to influence anything going on in the middle east, especially for shitty reasons like oil. obviously the arab-israeli conflict is a religious one that does not involve us. if we were to take a nuetral position and only attempt to influence what is going on there through diplomacy and setting up peace-talks, then that MIGHT be okay. but that's not what we do. and we can never again try to say that we are nuetral. so we just need to back off.

we've screwed the place up enough.

richard--yeah. sounds good. i think the rest of the world actually might like that as well.

This is just getting sillier and more entertaining with each post.
Ruvy--you in particular, need to read American history before interpreting it. Furter, you sound every bit as extremist as any Muslim radical we've ever encountered. Read real history, my friend, seek it out and quit making an ass of yourself. Oh, and don't call us "evil" with acapital E-- you know how we are when we get pissed off.
Zingzing--say something rational--I don't want to die is getting old.
And Clavos, we know you were in 'Nam, and you're old now. Get over it.
Other than that, carry on, all!

of course all white men have been presidents, but that's no more of a red herring than yours. what actual wars did clinton start? carter? you knew i would ask. so let's hear it.

Carter invaded Iran, remember? I certainly do. My father-in-law was stuck in the desert for a couple of days trying to evacuate his men from crashed choppers. As for Clinton, are you familiar with Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia? And I didn't say they 'started' the wars. The US rarely starts wars. I said they had 'gotten us involved'.

As for your 'that's all in the past' argument, it doesn't fly. The same pressures which made past democrats engage in meddling interventionism over and over again still apply.

Dave

Ruvy:

First of all, this part:

"This war in Iraq is an unfortunate exception to the rule just stated, from the American point of view."

was also quoted from you (comment 68). So, in responding to your quote, OF COURSE I only talked about American wars, and from the American side. That was the perspective you introduced, not I.

Secondly, the Zimmermann telegram (which is the "deal to effect a 'reconquista'" you referred to, is it not?) was NOT the direct cause of U.S. entry into the war (especially considering it took a full six weeks between our learning of it and the declaration of war against Germany). And indeed it could be considered an act of war, as could the sinking of the RMS Lusitania before it...but so could the fact that a so-called neutral nation (the United States) was using the Lusitania to ship weapons to England. (And let's remember that Germany took out ads in the US warning us not to travel on the Lusitania). Considering that OUR act of war took place a whopping TWO YEARS before the Zimmermann telegram, it's fair to say the U.S. picked that fight.

It's a consensus among historians, Ruvy my friend: the U.S. entered World War I because it recognized the potential for profiteering.

Thirdly, I'm not necessarily saying that "South Korea should have been allowed to fall to the Communists." I'm saying, what gave us the right to decide either way? Our choice. That's what.

And even assuming it was necessary to stop South Korea from falling to the Communists, it certainly wasn't necessary to invade North Korea after we'd driven the communists back across the 38th parallel, thus escalating and sustaining a war that could have ended immediately with an armistice once the North Korean army was back where it belonged. That was CERTAINLY our choice.

And I didn't say they 'started' the wars. The US rarely starts wars. I said they had 'gotten us involved'.

Bear in mind that it was Harry Truman (yes, a Democrat) that got sent the first advisors over to Vietnam, one must conclude that it was he who 'got us involved in Vietnam.' Most say it was Kennedy, who certainly did send over a lot more of those advisors, but he was not the initiator. So unless you have another war for Kennedy, that's one Democrat that didn't get us involved in a war.

Carter invaded Iran, remember?

Uh...that wasn't a war. He invaded in a hostage rescue attempt. And it was a failed invasion, too.

Michael, Michael. Have you forgotten the Bay of Pigs invasion already?

As for the invasion of Iran, ask the Iranians what they thought it was.

Dave

Dave, Dave.

1) The Bay of Pigs invasion did not involve us in a war--unless you're counting the Cold War, and you can't possibly claim that JFK got us involved in THAT.

2) The Bay of Pigs invasion was an Eisenhower initiative (and if you want to be exact about it, it was largely then-Vice President Nixon's initiative), and you know it perfectly well.

3) Asking the Iranians whether they perceived it as a war is a bit of a nebulous standard, isn't it? Still, I've never seen any indication or indeed any implication that Iran considered Operation Eagle Claw an act of war. Many Iranians, however, declared that by virtue of taking the hostages in the first place, they were effectively declaring war on the U.S.

4) Mentioning these two incidents, the Bay of Pigs and Eagle Claw, makes me wonder whether you consider ANY U.S.-initiated act of military engagement to be "involving us in a war." But if that's the case, you could certainly add our secret and illegal bombing of Cambodia, and whoop! There goes Nixon from your non-involvers list.

Good lord, when was dropping a thousand troops in a foreign country not an act of war, Michael?

And yes, Michael, I consider any intrusion of troops from one country onto the soil of another an act of war no matter how good the reasoning for it. I suppose I could replace 'involved in a war' with 'gratuitously invading people'.

And yes, Nixon might have to be scratched from the list because of Cambodia.

The point of all this is that the GOP is perceived as being strong on defense and therefore GOP presidents aren't really under any pressure to 'prove' they are strong and effective in foreign policy by using troops. Democrats are perceived as wishy washy and weak, plus they're the ones who are generally more interested in nation building and spreading peace, so they are more inclined towards Wilsonian diplomacy and the kind of meddlesome military intervention it leads to.

Dave

Mike, most of our disagreements here are semantic quibbling. When you read history - what Ray Ellis says I don't do - you learn that very often "neutrality" is not this simon-pure abstention from all involvement in a conflict. It generally means not openly going to war against one side or the other. The United States shipped arms to the British via their own merchant marine during the Great War - and then whined when the Germans tried to starve the British of arms by sinking said ships.

That is why one reason I did not mention the Lusitania or other ships sunk by the Germans in that time period.

The second is that the Zimmermann telegram was a proposal to open a military front against the United States on its southern border - something very different qualitatively from shipping arms or otherwise doing business with one side or another in a conflict...

Finally, all war is profiteering. War is good for business - as long as the shells don't fall on your shop.

Mike,

About Korea.

Just this point. When I was a little pisher, Americans had this very healthy attitude about going to war. If you did, you kicked the shit out of the bastards - none of this "stop at the border so as not to be the agressor" garbage. Heh - that is what the Americans feed us...

Ray, the nice thing about living here and writing to you in America is that if I honestly think your government is bent on evil - and I do - I can say so. I don't have to worry in the pit of my stomach - unconscously - about a mob of goyim screaming "kill the kike!" because I said the wrong thng. And I certainly do not have to worry about you saying "love it or leave it!." I left.

Norh American Jews are usually a lot more circumspect in what they say because of that nearly unconscious self-censoring. It is that visceral and that basic.

You can argue that Israel should not get American "foreign aid" - and you will find me agreeing with you, and recommending that you write your congressman to accomplish just that goal... Unfortunately, I do not have the power to turn down the aid - or kick America's military influence out of here.

Finally, bear in mind that it is one thing to abominate Americans generally - and quite another to abominate the American government. I would argue that you government largely works against the interest of the average American - and that the Israeli government works against the interests of Israel. But Americans are a top-shelf bunch, by and large.

Democrats are perceived as wishy washy and weak, plus they're the ones who are generally more interested in nation building and spreading peace, so they are more inclined towards Wilsonian diplomacy and the kind of meddlesome military intervention it leads to.

Now you see, Dave, that statement works only if you overlook Eisenhower's interventions in Zaire, Guatemala, Iran, and the Suez Canal; Nixon's interventions in Pakistan, Chile, and of course Cambodia; Reagan's interventions in Lebanon, Grenada, Nicaragua, the Iran/Iraq War, El Salvador, Libya, Afghanistan; Bush 1's intervention in Panama and Iraq; and the engine behind the bulk of Bush 2's foreign policy.

If anything, we'd have to say that Democrats and Republicans have been equally interested in "meddlesome military intervention."

Ruvy,

My friend, I'm not interested in debating the merits, per se, of our involvement in the Korean War. At least not right now. I was just elaborating on my initial point: that America doesn't really enter into wars all that often out of necessity. Our geographic isolation has long kept us from needing to do so, and our vast military and economic hegemony has done much more in that regard.

hey, better control the president before he hurts himself.

he's not independant and above the senate, the law, the world.

bets,
best.

dave used the phrase "meddling interventionism." what are we doing now?

and ray, "i don't wanna die" pretty much sums up my feelings toward the war, this presidency, and most of my politics. it's a very valid point that some people (read: old) want to forget. "i don't wanna die" pretty much says it all for anyone who is approaching 18 and a few years away from 30 yet. that's a lot of folks, and there isn't much that is more important to them. so, if political stupidty increases my chances of dying (don't you warmongers even remember the cold war?) then, fuck that. so there. (ray ellis: commentcritic.)

You can always tell a teenager, but you can't tell him much.

yeah.

interesting stuff.

People around the world love the American people, the movies, the coke/competition and others American.

What they do not like is US Government meddling in their affairs.

As simple as that.

I wd agree with Ruvy about the Israeli govt. too.

both the governments do not represent what the American people and Israeli people (majority) want and stand for.

Some where I heard about Wahabis. By supporting Saud and who took support from extreme Islamists, Wahabis, US G screwed the world.

All other saner and moderate voices in Islam are drowned and starved of funds.

The Saudis fund Wahabi principles around the world and tout it as the only interpretation of Islam.

Ask the Indians. They will tell the story.

Only request to my friends in US. Cut down the dependence on oil. Use all the creative juices that US is known for. Find alternatives. The oil prices wd come down. So do the Wahabi influence. Many Indian muslims who seek jobs in Saudi and work there find the religious police there stifling and retrogade even by their muslim standards. Only a few think that is the thing.

Islam is as widely interpreted as there are denominations in Christianity or Hinduism. Supporting inadvertently a virulent strain, the US put its hand in the bee-hive. Nay it is helping it grow.

If the republicans believe in little government and little government's meddling internally, they shouldd demand the same elsewhere.

We in the world do not see much difference between democrats and republicans. Except for a little of demogoguery and some stances on taxes and social benefits. Where foreign policy is concerned, USG is seen hawkish irrespective of dems or reps.

USG folks had no business in Bosnia or Kosovo. Had no business in many places. Unless it has fantasies of an empire. And all empires however powerful, Roman, Greek, Ottoman and the last one which enslaved us in India, have lost in the long haul. It is a utopian myth.

If Israel wants to make peace with Palestine, and their people want to, let them. I think the Palestines were gracious enough so far to let their country be taken over by immigrants from all over the world.

What would you say if the Native (Red) Indians told all the folks who made US their country to go where they came from? would those places allow them to come back? Religion or no religion.

The Poles, Germans, the Irish and many more?

Zing zing makes sense. Even if he sounds pussy. Machoness, if I have to believe Carlin, comes from feeling small.

American people are great. Let them not get into macho stuff. It's ok in the movies. Not in real life.

We in the world do not see much difference between democrats and republicans. Except for a little of demogoguery and some stances on taxes and social benefits. Where foreign policy is concerned, USG is seen hawkish irrespective of dems or reps.

Many of us here in the USA agree with you on that point, Balaji.

You can always tell a teenager, but you can't tell him much.

There's a teenager here?

Michael,

I don't know, but zinzing said:

"i don't wanna die" pretty much says it all for anyone who is approaching 18 and a few years away from 30 yet. that's a lot of folks, and there isn't much that is more important to them.

That, Clavos, approximately covers the ground between 17 and 28.

Gee, I don't want to die either. Do I get to knock off 20 years from my age? Please?

You're right, Michael.

ruvy-you can if you fight in our little war. perks!

I already get to fight in my own little war, zing, though I feel sorry for the Israel Police if they have to rely on me to chase down a terrorist... I'll wound the bastard, but unless I wound him, I ain't gonna give chase.

I wouldnt want to kill the bastard. You can't "imterrogate" a dead man...

Balaji, you are ultimately correct--outside the states the R's and D's look nearly identical. Whoever wins, as long as we move toward centrism and away from neoconservatism, I think we'll all be better off.