The US, The UN and Iraq

Funny how Mr. Lind calls is a "war," not a campaign within the Cold War. We did not prevail (your word, not mine). We did get the effect of putting further stress on the Soviet economy which eventually helped lead to their downfall. We paid dearly for that with the loss of life and maiming of our soldiers, a demoralized and often mentally abberated fighting force who had by-and-large became alcoholics and dope addicts. We really won that war, now didn't we? You can shove as many books at me as you want out of what I'm sure is a very selective library but I am underwhelmed.

As long as we all seem to be fascinated by the subject of war, I would like to share some startling statistics regarding war and violence in the 20th century. The data comes from the works of R. J. Rummel, now professor emeritus of political science, university of Hawaii. Dr. Rummel has written several books and articles on war and violence in the 20th century and could be considered to be an authority on the subject.

The startling statistics

Wars of the20th century have killed 36,000,000 (mostly soldiers)

Totalitarian dictatorships have killed(thru mass murder and genocide.......................................150,000,000(mostly civilians)

150,000,000 dead in the 20th century alone due to genocide and mass murder.................Plus...............36,000,000
due to wars caused by these same totalitarian regimes.

Dr. Rummel's conclusions: Democracies foster peace.----Totalitarian regimes foster, hate, violence and murder.

It would seem logical, in view of the above, that we would all be more useful to society by fostering democracy instead of being anti-everything

This link for Dr. Rummel's short bio and a starting place to explore his writings.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PERSONAL.HTM

So, the conclusion is,

if you are for war - you are fostering democracy


if you are for anti-everthing - you are fostering totalitarianism

if you are for peace and negotiations - there is no conclusion


logic is horrible here?

BTW, I'll give you Afghanistan as a 21st Century war (unless you one to classify it as a post Cold War campaign) as far as throwing out the Taliban -- our future success there is in question and Bin Laden is still at large, Al Queda is still active. How do you define "prevail?" Are you sure that's the word you wanted?

The UN and NATO prevailed in Kosovo, largely with our assistance. We did accomplish our goals there -- there's a certain ruler ousted and up for trial as a war criminal Yet, we don't have a history there and won't for another twenty years. Seems like it's the most successful of these "campaigns." The Gulf War left us with Saddam and a pack of troubles because Bush I didn't want to subject our troops to chemical, biological and street warfare. Doesn't look too different today.

Rumsfeld is enigmatic one day and then as transparant as Saran Wrap the next. I don't know what to think of him, except perhaps his coy acceptance of being labled as "sexy." Yikes!

BillW

I didn't say that if you are for war you are fostering democracy ----------You did that all by yourself.

I am not trying to pick a fight-----you again are doing that all by yourself.

Not picking fight - showing logic, if it ain't right - then what are you concluding? Seems to be something?

BillW

Would it be logical that expenditure of energy being positive("for" something) would be preferable to doubling your blood pressure being negative about everything?

Sorry perception, I am positive that negotiations is the right course of action and preemptive war is not! Now that is solved, let's move on to the next item!

didn't mean for you to double your blood pressure, sorry!

What I got out of perception's post is that totaltarianism is more dangerous than war when it comes to killing humans, therefore, war is preferable. c.i.

Asherman

I congratulate you on eloquently stating your positions in a positive manner in the face of all the negative positions that seem to prevail on this thread, anti-administration, anti-war, anti-logic, anti-Rumsfeld, anti-democracy, anti-America---and on and on...........

War is positve - peace is negative?

Rewriting history and now the dictionary!

C.I.

You have a very unpredictable sense of humor.

perception, I think you should become one of Bush, the lesser's writers - this is his kinda spin!

There are far more agreements among us here than some appear to realize, to my view. Some of the alleged inconsistancies seem to me matters of perception more than of substance, and argument is being offered where none was called. Oh, well ... that's much of what keeps a thread moving. A discussion without dissent can be tedious. After all, this is "An Idea Exchange", and we've all come to trade.

BillW, I suspect "Our Leaders" are much craftier, more calculating, and goal-focused than you may realize. I do not attribute to them the specific petty venalities you award, though. I think they have much bigger fish to fry.



timber

The language of the "leaders" is less that desireable - then, timber. I wish they could learn to rattle the sabres of peace

BTW, timber - I fully agree with you comment:



I have noted this many times - when the events are allowed to take their course, a true action will follow. When they are forced, then blame will fall on those that force the issue.

Timber
Did you retire from the state department(diplomacy degree) instead of the Marines?

perception: actually, aside from the obvious that i as a poet am usually out the back door smoking dope, rendering me anti-logical etal, i read Asherman with enthusiasm for he offers an understanding of areas of knowlege that i am lacking, but mostly i read Asherman because he does NOT offer an omniscent, cosmic gnosis of the world we all live in. there are many people on this forum with a variety of views and understandings none of which are all right and none of which are all wrong. i dont think, but here again maybe its the pot talking, that any of us are anti-america, rather i think that most everyone is concerned about the events of our lives.

dys

At least I provoked you into something besides your usual "one liner". You take a noble position and I agree.

HeHeHeHe ... no, no State Department. I did have a little "Conflict Management" training, though. I'm probably the most "Dovish" Hawk you're likely to encounter.



timber