The US, UN & Iraq II

Potential is one thing, demonstrated, ongoing, active participation is another thing entirely. I own many firearms, which gives me the potential to shoot up the neighborhood. There is no reason to suppose I might, and much reason to conclude I would not.

Your observation here suffers from oversimplification, unwarranted assumption, and flawed logic.

The role of states as the sole entities of global politics has ended; there has evolved an entirely new class of entities which are stateless geopolitical operators. The world is a bit slow catching up to the phenomenon. A threat need not, in fact increasingly will not, have a flag, borders, or civil infrastructure. The Community of Nations, by and large, is and has been moving away from the practice of overt State-vs-State Armed Conflict. Proxy war has become the norm, wherein a state will, either covertly or otherwise, endorse and support a faction engaged in a third-party dispute, generally of internecine nature, with a faction the defeat of which would be of strategic benefit to the sovereign entity providing the aid. A given conflict may be subject to a number of proxies, working to differing ends, and often in most Byzantine, complexly intertwined, multi-tentacled fashion. By nature of the dichotomy of "Establishment" and "Anti-Establishment", an anti-establishment faction may be expected to be required to exersize unconventional means to attempt the effecting of its ends. Terrorism is a frequently employed tactic. The conflict in which Civilization is engaged is not with any particular State or States, but against the ideology which employs terrorism. This ideology is stateless, areligious, and bears no ethnicity. Terrorism is a vile, vicious, detestable, contemptible evil which, as largely has been slavery, must be eradicated.

Have I addressed that to your satisfaction?

frolic wrote:

This is a funny story

Saddam Hussein: Honorary citizen of Detroit, Michigan

Can someone confirm this?

Of course its true. And when that happened The Soviet Union was a Super Power, Disco was King, I had considerably more hair, and Alan Alda starred on the number one TV sitcom. None of that is any more relevant.

Impatience and short attention span are not good reasons for incoherence but I will accept them since we are off topic.

Did you ever think your simplistic explanation of seeing colors differently might be due merely to a physiological genetic defect called "color blindness"?

Since I only respond to "pet peeves" when there is nothing better to do, I won't legitimize this one with an answer. This is not intended to be a slight but we are off topic.

You made the statement that the war "is a cakewalk" . This is a sloganistic term of the type you have vehemently protested in the past but I don't want to make that an issue----just point it out as being contradictory and inconsistent with many of your past statements.

Since you have concluded we are passing swiftly into the post war effort of keeping the peace and the more important effort of rebuilding the Iraqi economy so that it will be self sustaining----what would be your plan for accomplishing this goal? I'm assuming of course that you wouldn't just pull our troops out and let chaos prevail.

This is World War Three. Terrorism knows no borders. It festers as surely in the heartland of America as it does in the mountains of Afghanistan, the plains of Iraq, or the slums of Ireland.

Consider for a moment that it is possible that this truly is one of the motivations for initiating this war----would or could you deny this a valid moral justification for going to war?

Consider for another moment that removing a murdering tyrant from power as another true motivation for initiating this war. Is that not another valid moral justification for going to war.

Consider for another moment that seeking to bring stabilization to the most turbulent section of the world is another valid motivation for initiating this war. Is this not another moral justification for going to war.

I think the above possible justifications are at least as valid as your reasons for not going to war which as far as I can tell is only one----we have not been attacked by Saddam.....

The real issue is morality for you---my reasons are a bit more pragmatic but I have given some moral justifications as proof of my good intentions to find an acceptable basis for this war.

There are many other considerations to be sure but do you agree that my intentions are at least honorable and this war could be considered justifyable---depending on the criteria established.

I understand the nature of the desire to prevent such attacks as 9/11. I understand, but do not share, the fears of an attack with WMDs. But I can't fathom what makes you see the situation as so dire.

In addition, other that the specter of WMD terrorist attacks, what relevance to the "war" on terrorism does this war (no quotes) have? There were easier ways to prevent the proliferation of WMDs (such as indefinite inspections and "smart sanctions"). I really am curious as to what tangible benefit in terms of the reduction of terrorist attacks you see as so integral.

Each side says they need to arm themselves because it's inevitable that such armaments will be needed. That humans are unlikely to end their vicious cycle I admit. It is indeed inevitable that humans will stoop to violence.

But this doesn't come close to justifying the propensity for violent resolution of conflict. Every "war monger" that walked the earth tried his best to put on the grim concerned face and say they hate war but it is sometimes necessary. It's kinda like the Steven Segal movie trailers, <deep movie trailer voice> "An innocent man... forced to violence.."

Simple men on both sides of any conflict invoke the existential threat, the inevitbility of violence and then proceed to drag their counterparts into their sick world.

So if at crunch time the Iraqi people tell us to shove democracy ...... will it be democracy at the point of a gun? Force fed freedom.

Your observations of reality create vastly differing mental concepts from my observations of the same reality. I am puzzled by that realization and have no answer.

If you do consider this kind of outright war an effective and justifiable means to stamp out terrorism in the world overall, where's the benchmark, upon what criteria is an attack justified? If this is indeed "the beginning", how many of these cases are still ahead? Here, I'm not commenting, but asking?

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

Kara wrote:

You ask if I can prove that what we are doing is not the right thing. Perception, only history will answer that question. I would not presume to do so. I have grave doubts about what we have done and are doing, and mostly I doubt our reasons.

Now you have only grave doubts instead of vehement criticism of the administration. I detect a softening of your previous confrontational stance.

Now you only doubt our reasons---again a softening of your previous stance.

Do I detect a change in your mental concepts albeit ever so slight?

I am hopefull that the Turks will pay a heavy price for their bad decisions. They have caused and will continue to cause many people on both sides to die needlessly.

At the base camp of the Fifth Marine Regiment here, two sharpshooters, Sgt. Eric Schrumpf, 28, and Cpl. Mikael McIntosh, 20, sat on a sand berm and swapped combat tales. The marines said they had little trouble dispatching their foes, most of whom they characterized as ill-trained and cowardly. "We had a great day," Sergeant Schrumpf said. "We killed a lot of people.... We dropped a few civilians," Sergeant Schrumpf said, "but what do you do?" [In one incident], he recalled watching one of the women standing near the Iraqi soldier go down. "I'm sorry," the sergeant said. "But the chick was in the way."