The Iraq Questions

Steve, Yes, Americans are arrogant, but show us a better political philosophy? c.i.

Asherman There is a difference between truth and accuracy of facts?
Is there any doubt the US would use nukes if it suited them?

Rhetoric is a great tool if you want to highlight one thing and diminish another. What suffers is accuracy, and truth.

Asherman is correct that facts often are used to hide the truth. It's a technique of misdirection -- a conjurer's trick. If anyone here has ever seen Ingmar Bergman's "The Magician," it demonstrates this with a powerful storyline.

Blatham,

Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

I believe that the United States would use nuclear weapons in retaliation for the use of a nuclear weapon on the United States. If a nuke was used against any ally, I think it probable that the United States might respond in retaliation on behalf of our injured ally. If the DPRK unleashes a nuclear device, I believe that Pyong-Yang and at least one other target will vanish in radio-active fire. If a nuclear warhead is exploded along the Pakistani/Indian border, I think the United States would take a wait and see attitude. A nuclear strike against Israel will destroy Bagdad within hours.

The United States will not be the first to resort to nuclear weapons, but we will be the last.

Asherman: depending on what source of information you read Nixon was quite possibly within hours of using nukes during the Viet Nam conflict.

Recently, a secret tape recording did catch a president considering using a nuclear weapon. Only the president was Richard Nixon.

The tape, one of hundreds from Nixon's secret Oval Office taping system that the National Archives released last month, recorded Nixon suggesting the bomb to National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger in 1972.

Kissinger had presented Nixon with a list of escalation options, including destroying docks and power stations in North Vietnam. Nixon responded, "I'd rather use the nuclear bomb."

"That, I think, would just be too much," Kissinger replied.

"The nuclear bomb. Does that bother you?" Nixon responded. "I just want you to think big." Exactly what Nixon meant by "thinking big" we find out from a later conversation with special counsel Charles Colson: "We want to decimate that goddamned place."

Dys,

I think it is unlikely that Nixon seriously contemplated droping The Bomb on Hanoi. I greatly disliked Nixon, but he had a sure hand and fine advisors in foriegn policy. Hitting Hanoi would have risked escalation with the Soviet Union and would have certainly widened a war that Nixon wanted out of.

I know of no situation, since the end of WWII where the United States came anywhere near initial use of the Bomb. The Cuban Crisis was the closest we came to actual use of nuclear weapons, and then only if a launch against the continental United States was detected.

Dys,

I see your post that came up as I was composing a response to your previous message.

Alright, Nixon used the B word while discussing options with Dr. Kissinger. During that sort of intimate discussion looking at the full range of alternatives it shouldn't be surprising that the nuclear option found its way to the table. It was raised and shot down. Nixon, given his vindictive personality, would have loved to see Ho's Paradice in ruins -- afterall Vietnam was a millstone around his neck as it was LBJs. Wishing something, and actually preparing to do it are two different things.

agreed

perception,

Who would be the guys riding around with AK47s? And by George who ever said we need to "control the country"? What kind of madness is this?

For the record we are not going there to "control the country" we are going there to "liberate the people".

Re hatred, sure it will exist and your plans would only exacerbate them.

Ash,

I think your are greatly mistaken in regard to our values. It's a common misconception of my compatriots that American Values are either ours by design or that we perfected them. I think many countries are better off without our values and would do well with their own values.

And your nuke theory makes me wonder if our history is what makes you think we'd not use them first (as we did), or our military srength (which largely precludes the need for a nuclear strike) or just a rosy idea that all our leaders will be sane forever.

ci,
Better political philosophies exist. It's short sighted patriotism (read simplistic territorialism) to think we are the best thing since sliced bread. We are simply the most succesful and this is largely circumstantial.

I won't bother trying to convince any patriot that his unwavering loyalty is misplaced. I'd have an easier time trying to divest someone of their religion.

Craven - "For the record we are not going there to "control the country" we are going there to "liberate the people". "

My god, Craven! No wonder so many people are opposed to a forced disarmament and change of government in Iraq. I support action based solely on her danger to the rest of the world, the rest of the mid east being in greatest danger.

There has to be some possibility that a free and honest election would produce no change in Iraq's government, and it has been mentioned that "forced freedom" or something similar is oxymoronic. Actually, doesn't 'war of liberation' have something of the savor of the former Soviet Union's doublespeak?

Doing what good little bookkeepers do best, Walter, I've added your Constitutions Worldwide link to our Political Links topic. Once again, thanks.

Craven

We are going there to liberate that majority of the population that has been victimized by Saddam and his thugs. Since we cannot simply look into someone's eyes and determine which group they are from we must disarm everyone then ask questions. If you are in the larger group you will happy we are doing this because you know it must be done---if you are in the other group you will hate us but at least you won't have your gun to shoot us in the back.
You seem to have great difficulty accepting the reality of some situations.

In view of some of your responses I seriously question your compatibility with military service. First of all your motive of joining just to get an education may be a little too self serving. Also your contempt for flag wavers may not endear you to your fellow soldiers. Your position on patriotism is unclear to me at this time----this is not meant to be derogatory or demeaning---I just think you will be very unhappy in the military. Please reconsider your decision to enter military service.

Perception, I think we're going there to neutralize a militarist totalitarian reqime which repeatedly has demonstrated contempt for and danger to the global community. That a portion of the population of that regime's state may be comforted and another portion dispossessed is essentially incidental. As to disarming a nation by your standard, that hasn't even worked in Northern Ireland, or for that matter in Detroit.

I find folks who confuse jingoism with patriotism troubling. In the case of this particular impending war, my sentiment toward it is that it is a distasteful, but, if not diplomatically avoidable, necessary chore. Threading the slalom of a Post Saddam Iraq will be equally, if differently, unpleasant yet necessary a task. Its going to be a very long time before the average Iraqi concerns himself much with anything like a 401K plan.



timber

timber

Your differentiation between jingoism and patriotism is astute. But I think the confusion comes down from the top, rather than the other way around.

roger,

I've never liked the notion of war to liberate a nation that isn't being occupied by foreign troops being called a "liberation".

perception,

I accpet the reality. And the way OI see the reality is that disarming a population is not logistically sound. If what you meant to say is that I have great diffivulty in accepting your proposals I'd hearily agree. I think they are often outlandish.

I'm sure I will not enjoy the military (my jingoistic brother doesn't) but I don't really care if you think I'm being self serving. I'll make it very clear: I am being self serving in my wish to enter the service and I do not think there is anything wrong with it nor do I feel you are entitled to question my actions. Feel free to but I won't pay heed any of it. Using the military to get my education is a valid endeavor and I will pay my dues to get it.

No I do not have contempt for those who wave flags. I simply care little about symbolism. I reserve my contempt for those who take issue with others who are not as enthusiastic as they think they should be and become obnoxious about it. I've known many such people in many countries and they strike me as petty and simple minded.

perception

Are there specific requirements regarding your "patriotic feeling" when joing the military forces?

[Here, in Germany, you have to act according the 'basic law'. Which clearly means that you can't join, when belonging to unsticonstitutional organisations. Or criminal ones.
(German Criminal Code: "Section 80 Preparation of a War of Aggression
Whoever prepares a war of aggression (Article 26 subsection (1), of the Basic Law) in which the Federal Republic of Germany is supposed to participate and thereby creates a danger of war for the Federal Republic of Germany, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or for not less than ten years.
Section 80a Incitement to a War of Aggression
Whoever publicly incites to a war of aggression (Section 80) in a meeting or through the dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) in the territorial area of application of this law shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.)

Since most of your statements are in the view of the German basic law and criminal code so radical, you surely would so radical be under surveillance here and had minimum change of thinking of joing the armed forces.]

Craven
Merely trying to prevent a lot of heartache on your part----Your response could be anticipated and I took that chance but I strongly resent your implication that my patriotism is jingoistic and simplistic.

You can hold your reply until your are able to obtain an honorable discharge from the organization that you hold in such contempt.
If you are able to obtain an honorable discharge................................

Walter

I think Germany was forced to take extreme measures to prevent a reoccurence of activities that resulted in two World wars and your defeat in both of those wars that in turn resulted in great loss of life and property.

I hope you will excuse me if I happen to think that the actions of this country could hardly be viewed in the same light.

I don't see a point, why I should excuse that opinion of yours.

However, I DO think that your have a more than just only "risqué" language re your answer to Craven!

Perhaps, you better should think of re-editing THAT answer!

Besides, you didn't answer my question at all.