952 replies to this topic

[Mind]

People should favor drastic tax cuts for the sole reason that the government will have less money and power to destroy (at home and abroad). More Tax cuts, More Tax cuts, More Tax cuts. Cut taxes until the point that the government only has enough money to defend it own borders.

The Iraq issue: I view it as an expensive bluff. Put yourself in position as President of the U.S. and you might do something similar. Obviously you would not want any more random death to visit the shores of your homeland (otherwise you would not be president). The U.S. is part of an international community and part of treaties to protect other countries and other countries interests in yet other countries (all quite complicated). If you are going to make a show of force...why not do it against an adversary that cannot fight back (Iraq), that is a brutal dictatorship (Iraq), and supports suicide bombers (Iraq). One thing the Arab community understands is force. If the bluff is called, "victory" will be swift and complete. Dictators will take notice. This may lead to greater cooperation in tracking down terrorists.

Knowing the history of human warfare, it would be hard to just withdraw and hope for the best. There is no security in letting enemies grow stronger. There is little evidence that the threats against the U.S. would halt with the "withdrawal" option.

My feeling is that Saddam (and sons) will flee at the first real threat of invasion or the first few bombs (or maybe it is a hope), and another country (Iraq) will begin the long road to real democracy.

Now...I do not want to be pegged as a war-monger, I am just trying to put myself in the position of the president and sift through all the geopolitical realities.

Edited by Mind, 14 January 2003 - 06:24 PM.

[DJS]

Yes, war is morally justifiable. However I must point out that morality is a political argument used to justify conflict. Inotherwords, morality is relative and easily juxtaposed with self interest. Rather than asking whether war is morally justifiable you should be asking whether it is legally justifiable. After all, international law is what has come to symbolize morality since the end of WWII.

In 1991 Iraq signed a cease fire agreement in which it agreed to proactively submit to weapons inspections. This meant that it was suppose to cooperate in destroying all of its weapons programs. At first Iraq complied, but as the years passed it became more and more resistant to the inspections. The economic sanctions that we hear so much about were put in place by the UN as a reaction to Iraqi defiance (yet another example of failed containment). The resistance continued to grow until 1998 when the Iraqis took the opportunity posed by domestic troubles in the US (Clinton and Lewinsky) to kick the weapons inspectors out. They realized that Clinton was a lame duck President who didn't have the moral authority to wage a war over UNSC violations. Clinton proceeded to launch an air campaign on Iraq. This was, of course, anticipated and no critical programs were effected by the coalition air strikes. Since 1998 the UNSC has passed numerous resolutions to no effect. Iraq has violated every resolution that has been issued and has showed flagrant disregard for international law. On September 12th, 2002 President Bush gave a speech to the UN outlining Iraq's noncompliance with UNSC resolutions. (Basically, the current administration has inherited a problem that has become progressively worse over the 1990's.) The President's speech had the desired result and gave the international community a little backbone. The Security Council voted on a new resolution (1441) which stated that Iraq must not only submit to weapons inspections, but be proactive [!] in dismantling and destroying its weapons programs. Since the resolutions inception Iraq has continue to deny that it has any WMD. This denial is, in and of itself, a violation of Resolution 1441. WE ARE LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN ENFORCING THE SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS AND THE 1991 CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT.

Now the reality. The United Nations was created by the United States. The United Nations is funded predominately by the United States. The UN headquarters is located in New York City. Let's be honest, the UN is the US's bitch. The US uses the UN for two things. 1) To keep the international community operating under a legal frame work which makes our job easier in maintaining the balance of power through out the world. 2) Having to enforce international law (instead of our will) against rogue regimes gives us a certain amount of moral authority. However, both of these points are irrelevant if the UN doesn't follow our lead. In my opinion the UN is a kind of Frankenstein. A monster that has turned on its master. When the US and its allies created the UN it wanted it to be a moral body. However, over the years the UN has become more and more political. The result is that the United Nations has turned into a League of Nations. It is ineffective and slow to act. Any of the five permanent members of the Security Council have veto power which means it is hard to form a consensus on anything. A majority of the nations on the Security Council view the UN as a tool of the United States. This is because the international order, which the UN tries to maintain, has been created by us. Major nation-states which oppose our hegemony in the world have, as a goal, the obstruction of any action taken by the United States. They realize that any action that the United States takes without UN approval is bad PR domestically. Therefore they use their veto power on the Security Council as a new age "balance of power". While we view ourselves as a benevolent super power, other major nation-states view us as a hyper-power (a term coined by the Russians in the 90's). The term refers to a super power that is unchecked and aggressively expanding.

My prognosis is this: the impending war in Iraq is the breaking point for the United States and the United Nations. The time line for conflict in Iraq will be as follows...
January 27th--UNMOVIC gives its report on weapons inspections. It states that there has been no conclusive proof of violations by the Iraqis and that they will need more time to verify compliance.
January 28th--President Bush's State of the Union address in which he points out that Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq must be proactive in dismantling its WMD programs. He will then state that Iraq is in material breach. At this point he may also offer "smoking gun" evidence to gain momentum within the international community.
January 28th-February 10th--Iraqi opposition in the North and/or West declares Independence.
February 10th-February 25th--US forces are in place and US offensive begins. I'll predict February 22nd as the start of offensive operations.
March 1st--Oil fields and Scud boxes have been secured. Baghdad (and possibly Tehkrit--Saddam's home town) will be the only areas of resistance left.
March 3rd-April 1st--Baghdad falls and order is restored. Nation-building commences.
The time line for Baghdad falling depends on the US decision as to whether it will resort to urban combat or whether it will cut all power to Baghdad and lay siege to the city. This is the one really difficult decision the US has to make.

Another unknown is whether the United States will push for a second Security Council resolution against Iraq. After the January 27th Inspections Report there is going to be pressure to allow the inspectors to have more time. The US is not going to allow this. Instead the US will push for a resolution authorizing force. Opposition to authorization of force will come from Russia, China, France and Germany. A compromise will be reached in which the Security Council states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 1441. However no authorization for the use of force will be given. This allows the UN to save face.

The United States will justify using force by saying that it is simply enforcing Security Council resolutions lol .

In reality, the US acting without explicit authorization from the Security Council will be a major blow to the UN. An international body such as the UN lacks credibility when the sole super power in the world doesn't pay it any credence. I personally believe that the decision has already been made at the highest levels of power in the US to pull the rug out from under the UN because it is no longer serving its purpose. The power taken from the UN will be reallocate in NATO which is easier for us to control and is entirely western in its composition. Of course publicly things will appear status quo at the UN for some time to come.

Overthrowing Saddam and installing a pro-US regime is crucial to our long term strategic objectives in the region. Think about it like this;
9/11 was a terrorist attack and was the result of the "radical Islamic movement" and specifically Al Qaeda. The causes of terrorism are numerous. The Liberal establishment, true to its nature, will try to objectively analyze the root causes of terrorism. "We need to know the nature of terrorism before we can conquer it", they say. I disagree. We didn't try to psycho-analyze Imperial Japan after Pearl Harbor, we simply defeated them. The Islamic world has never experienced an enlightenment. Trying to "enlighten" them will not only prove futile, it will prove fatal. In reality, the root causes of terrorism stem from the fact that the Islamic world can not combat the hegemonic power of the United States (and the West in general) in any conventional way. We are simply superior to them militarily. Therefore, they needed to find a backdoor. They found that backdoor in terrorism which effectively negates our conventional military superiority and turns the conflict into an asymmetrical affair.

The location of Radical Islam is, geographically, the Middle East. Terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda need friendly nation-states to properly plan and coordinate attacks. (These nations are on our state sponsors of terror list) They are often simply called Terrorist states. Some of them include Syria, Lebanon (a puppet state of Syria), Iraq, Iran, formerly Afghanistan, etc. In other Middle Eastern states, terrorism is not state sponsored , but the government instead turns a blind eye towards terrorist activity. This is indicative of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Eygpt, etc. Because of the complexity of the terrorist problem in the Middle East, the Administration has adopted a multi-layered approach.


Iraq is part of a network of terrorist states in the Middle East. After we topple Saddam we will occupy Iraq for the foreseeable future. (When we conquered Germany and Japan in WWII we occupied both countries, there are still troops in both countries to this day. Iraq will be no different.) By having troops in Iraq it will establish a permanent, intimidating military presence in the region with quick strike capabilities. We will no longer need to ask for permission or seek SOFAs (status of forces agreements) to be there.

Additionally, from a geo-strategic perspective:
1) Syria will have its legs kicked out from under and will basically be isolated. It will feel increasing pressure to halt the terrorist activity that it encourages in Lebanon (Hezbollah). This will have the effect of easing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
2) Iran will be staring down US troops to its east (Afghanistan), west (Iraq), and south (US navy in Persian Gulf). Hopefully this will be enough to destabilize the current government, but if not it will make military preparations easier.

Further, freeing up Iraq's oil supply and distributing the wealth equitably among the Iraqi citizens will give the average Iraqi wealth beyond their wildest dreams. By establishing a viable, wealthy, democracy in the region we will put pressure on the other regimes in the region to democratize. Another indirect effect of taking control of Iraq's oil supply will be that we destroy OPEC's monopoly and consequently its ability to maintain artificially high oil prices. Why do you think all of the oil producing nations in the Middle East are so afraid of us occupying Iraq? I can assure you it is not for their love of Saddam. The real reason is two fold; their fear of US troops in the region and their desire to maintain the price of oil. Expect oil to drop below $20 a barrel when we get Iraq up and running as the largest self serve the world has ever seen. One of the side effects of lower oil prices will be the possible destabilization of regimes in the region. Countries like Saudi Arabia, where almost half of their GDP is oil revenue, would face the real possibility of social upheaval when their revenue stream from oil dries up. The result would either be democracy-great but unlikely- or the rising of a Radical Islamic regime which would give us an excuse to go in and set things up the way we want them to be. Brutal? Yes, but also very effective.

9/11 changed a lot of things in the US. One of them is the belief that international law is paramount. We are embarking on a path of unilaterism in which we will rewrite the map of the Middle East. In my opinion, it is the only way.

Interested in the neo-conservative movement? Check out
www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org and www.newamericancentury.org

Edited by Kissinger, 22 January 2003 - 09:46 AM.

[DJS]

One last thing. Everyone keeps saying that Iraq has no direct links to terrorism. This is not true. Iraq has a long history of sponsoring terrorism and has had connections with Al Qaeda in the past. Even if you don't think it is likely that Saddam would help out Al Qaeda, are you willing to take that chance? Are you willing to take the chance that chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons could proliferate from Iraq to Al Qaeda?

We are fighting a war. Excuses for procrastination are not going to fly anymore.

"We should solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict first!"-- Excuse for inaction. The conflict has been going on for 50 years and may go on for another 50. Are we suppose to sit on our hands until the matter is resolved?

"We should win the war on terror first!"-- The war on terror might take 30 years to win. Once again, an excuse for inaction.

Islamic states such as Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are gnats that need to be swatted. They pose a mortal threat to western civilization.

Here is some progressive logic on the matter:

If terrorist states threaten western society, then they threaten western progress. And if they threaten western progress, then they threaten western technological innovation. And if they threaten technological innovation, then they threaten progress in the field of life extension. And if they threaten progress in the field of life extension, then they pose a threat to my quest for immortality. And I can not tolerate that. They must be conquered and recast in a form which is conducive to democracy and progress.


Peace through Strength

Edited by Kissinger, 22 January 2003 - 10:32 AM.

[Iolair]

From my experience of active service I find it necessary to share some thoughts about the reality of war.

Forgotten Hero

Give me courage
Give me glory
Give me might for I am right
that I may steal my brother's dream
Before fear awakes in me
his screams of anguish
for the hell I create
to prove the hero in me

Awake my forefathers and show me why,
it is my duty to kill and die
for that manly god that judges itself
to be right in your sightless eye.


False Pride

My barrel is true
the rifle perfect
My brother once beautiful
his faith now suspect
My lord is master
his servant obedient
To kill and kill for him
the lust so boldly ignorant
For King and Country
I'll do anything
to parade as conqueror
for madmen to honour.


The Conscripts Curse

The sweet of my lover
The sweat of my brother
Together we are all the same
The sting of my aim
The fear of my purpose
An agony to sustain
Help me for I am drowning
for fear of the same
that I do to my brother
will come to my lover
in this endless hell of
kill or be killed to let those
who's will I honour,
live to fight yet again.

[Saille Willow]

Can an Immortal condone war? If you want to heal something you go to the root cause. Not the symtoms. In war it is the women and children that suffer most. The real villians hide in style, with an escape route planned. Often to retire in luxurious exile, while the innocents pay the price for generations.

And in the anger of the loss, the terrorists of tomorrow are born. So the cycle continues. At best war is only a short term solution. An Infinite Lifespan requires extreme long term planning. Think carefully what you condone, for surely we will live to experience the repurcussions. Is it not time humanity grew up?

[Lazarus Long]

Despite predictions and expert opinion, battle never goes perfectly according to plans and wars once begun never conclude as we wish. If they did we wouldn't even be having this discussion about Iraq in the first place.

Is killing justified in the defence of Life, Liberty, and Culture?

All will agree it is ethically defensible as defense, but few will go out on a limb to be offensive. So is offense justified? Or is it an automatic offense?

The subtletly of the debate is about who is providing the most valid defense and who is the aggressor. The problem we in the US have is that there is no way we can win the peace and not leave ourselves open to history ajudicating us as the aggressor imposing a Pax Americana upon this world.

Those of you who hate being the global cop, those of you who hate the US because it has decided to be the International Sherrif (Sharif if you are so inclined) also need to decide whether we will foster the agency we did so much to create, the United Nations, or will we repeat the actions of the Coolidge/Harding/Roosevelt Government in destroying the League of Nations with all the concurrent calamity that ensued.

But understand this my fellow Americans we are playing King of the Hill and once we take this height we will only come down through abdication or death. The actions we are about to take are no longer a game of children and the consequences will be felt from now on regardless of what choice we make.

It was the same threat of Warlords, Civil Polarity, and Globalized Economy that brought an end to the Republic of Rome. Their choice was very much like what we are facing and all too many would too easily follow that path. We are not so removed from our own Age of Empire. We can deny it all we want but it is how we will be seen and that will bring on the conflict regardless of winning this round.

So is there an alternative?

As much as it bothers the Conservative Political element and extreme Left we need to rethink how we will develop policy in a global society when we are the very competition against that body politic.

We can't have it both ways, we must openly lobby for and develop a global legal authority or find ourselves in direct opposition to it. We can also drive our allies away if they percieve us as the threat . They are content with our authority and expense as their protector now but will become more than disobedient if they feel us the oppressor. So the only way for them to feel that there exists legitimate representation of their "rights' in this global body politic is if they believe they have such right of representation.

Defining the sovereignty of Nations is like defining "States Rights" before the formation of a Republic. We can build a World Government using the model of our own assembly of dissident but interdependent views. The inevitability of the conflicts that will come from this are as likely as those laid out in the Federalist Papers when the forefathers of this Federal Republic realized that those same States Rights would someday lead to Civil War. They knew this, accepted it, and strove forward to create legitimate government. The evolution of the Rule of Law continues.

Global government is inevitable with all the concurrent competition for sovereignty, submission and dominance that it includes. So what would be the best model for this Global State?

And sadly my Libertarian and Social Anarchist friends realize that between pulpits and political halls of power nobody is interested in respecting the public right to peace and privacy. So the alternative of just ignoring the fools is no longer an option.

Define the best way to heal the conflicts of Nations?

How can we build a society so broad and inclusive that all know membership without rejection and feeling subject to oppressive authority?

Or is it just that peace is what the suvivors achieve?

[DJS]

All these anti war posts and poems. Are poems suppose to convince me of something? And so much fear over going to war with Iraq. The war will last a few weeks at most. Indeed, the unexpected does happen in war, but how can anyone assert that the odds of our victory are not close to 100%?

Give me a brake. Fortunately, my fellow immortalist peaceniks are not in power, because they have no idea about the nature of the world. They live in a sheltered, wealthy and free democratic nation that gives them the ability to dream up these wonderful future worlds where everyone is happy and everyone loves each other. As Kermit the frog once said, "the lovers, the dreamers, and me...ladadadee."

Part of our reasoning for going after Iraq is because we fear proliferation to terrorist groups from terrorist host states. This is a possiblity we can not accept. Now I'm going to throw you Peace warriors a bone. The war is partially about oil. There, I said it. We are protecting our interest which any nation is entitled to do. Until we switch over to a hydrogen economy (another debate completely) oil is our achilles heel. If the oil dries up the power gets turned off on our economy. Further, if another hostile nation can gain control over a large portion of the world's oil supply then they would have leverage over us. That is the reason we need to get rid of Saddam before he acquires effect ways of detering us. You will constantly hear conservatives say that the US doesn't get much of its oil from the Middle East. Currently we get more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia. This is true. What conservatives will not mention is this thing called a R/P ratio (total reserve oil to yearly oil production). Some R/P ratios: Canada 8/1 US 10/1 Iran 52/1 Kuwait 115/1 Saudi Arabia 128/1 Iraq....518/1 Of course, this is largely because of sanctions and Iraq's untapped potential, but even with the modernization of Iraq's facilities Iraq would have a R/P above 150/1. By 2010 oil production in the western world will drop off dramatically. Eventually, the only oil reserve of any significance left in the world will be the Middle East. By that time we will hopefully be switching over to a hydrogen economy, but right now we still have to make this power grab as an insurance policy.

Saying that we should be afraid to act because of some unknown, unpredictable consequences is weak. "We might breed more terrorist." Yeah, like there aren't enough out there already. You can't worry about what your enemy will do unless you will always be afraid to act. In addition, these people are being recruited anyway. The people who have control of their hearts and minds is not us. It is their religious and community leaders. Thinking that some how we can compete with their religious leaders is absurd, they will never trust us like that. The way we can really reform the arab world is through force, direct and indirect. They must be made to democratize.

Edited by Kissinger, 26 January 2003 - 09:35 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

Being a realist is not the same as being weak, or a simple pacifist. The destruction of the republic of Rome was not the end of Rome, not by a long shot. But it did signify the end of a phase of democratic government and the rise of Imperial Autocracy.

This is not idle threat, civil wars are not fought by the extremist poles of a society they are fought by the vast majority that form a balanced, polarized, and visceral opposition near the center. In other words the majority in the middle. We see signs of such division in our own populace with the last presidential election. Could we see greater division and social strife generated by having a conflict in the Middle East? You can bet on it.

What I said was that there is no action that we can take as a Nation that will not have dire repercussions for years to come. In this I wholly disagree with your predictions as to the triviality of the conflict. But it includes the consequences from doing too little.

I feel that history will record Pax Americana as having begun sometime after WWII, just as a study of Pax Romana has to begin with the end of the Punic wars. The solution Rome had for Carthage was rather than occupy they obliterated the state, executed the capable opposition, sent the citizens into slavery, dispersed them to the corners of the empire and sowed salt into the soil of the land so as to desertrify and destroy any possible resurrection of insurrection. How will we deal with occupation of Iraq?

I agree that they can offer little resistance militarily, they possess no Hanibal, they are not true competition, the analogous situation strategically (militarily) from Roman history, is not Carthage, it is the occupation of Palestine. Funny how some situations haven't seemed to have qualitatively changed even after thousands of years.

We have not copied Rome in all our practices. We did not obliterate the political competition. Though we still have absurd socioeconomic political legacies like the embargo on Cuba. We graciously turned to help our fallen enemy in the Soviet when their economy and political structure imploded under the pressure that we applied to its weaknesses.

Yes there are differences between US and the Romans. History is not a wheel, but the socioeconomic trends and forces that make history are repeated as we pass through each phase of development and the phase that we are in in a very dangerous one. Not just for the world at large but for ourselves. We overlook that at our peril.

It will be the occupation of Iraq that is the real issue. We are not yet so secure in Afghanistan as the media would have most believe and there was even less opposition and we will not be out before we have put more in. We are beginning to have expeditionary forces on the ground in dozens of countries throughout the world and we will be maintaining their presence not for weeks or months but for years and decades. Is the American public really willing to foot that bill?

Alone?

As I have tried to point out it is not the war which I see as difficult to win, it is the peace.

We lost a major conflict in Vietnam, not just because they were supported by the Soviets, not just because we were overly confident in our technological prowess in the face of an entrenched populace that found our presence highly unpopular, and not just because we allowed domestic politics to overwhelm tactical strategy in the field that compromised the security of our forces, we lost because we grew tired of being an oppressor occupying someone else's country, a people whose desire for freedom every common soldier could sympathize with, a country where the corruption of the leadership was evident and we were the bulwark that supported those despots and tyrants.

Contradiction is paradox, we can't keep going around talking about how we defend liberty, justice, and socioeconomic freedom while at the same time for reasons of "Real Politick" prop up every tin pot dictator that is convenient for our purposes and cause an almost unprecedented consolidation of wealth in fewer hands on a global scale.

Iraq is just the beginning and there is no end in sight. If you don't think that much of the world sees this as the case then you are not listening and if you are not listening to even our allies then this venture is doomed from the start.

We are already in the age of Pax American, we are the top global cop. What we have not done is lay out a strategy that deals with this relationship in a realistic and respectful manner that will garner more long term support instead of making enemies that will pursue our destruction for generations to come. We have yet to define the true character of Pax Americana. History is not yet written on this issue. We are writing it now.

Do not confuse the desire for a just peace with cowardice, and do not for a moment think that those of us that would willingly bear arms in defence of our neighbor as well as our nation, that have sworn to uphold and defend our Constitution at risk to our lives and property are incapable or afraid to fight, but understand this too; Violence is the last resort of incompetence and al Queda made that mistake and we have yet to make good upon that failure on their part. Instead we have ex acerbated the problem.

Iraq is a surrogate, a diversion, and a devious ploy at manipulating the global political scenario by creating an example for global edification. The example could backfire as the President did with regard to Korea. Yes they had flagrantly disregarded the "concessions" the Clinton administration had given, but we could have timed our rhetoric to have caused less distraction when we sought to focus our attention on specific, still poorly met threats.

I agree that we must address the concerns about the legitimacy of government in a modern global state, I agree that we must determine the legitimate areas of technological development that do not foster MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) as the basis of political relationships and I agree that now is the time to determine the course of human development for years to come by the actions that we, not just a Nation, but as the First World take, the reasons for them, and the results that we reap.

Iraq is a Rite of Passage not a Slippery Slope, we cannot step back for like the tiger we cannot let go. "Into the Valley of Death we will ride" but to what purpose?

Why?

Oil?

Get a bike.

To change the polemic and standards of global discourse and the creation of a just means of redress for legitimate grievance such that the underlying causes of terrorism are ameliorated?

Yes, I am dreaming.

But to say:

The people who have control of their hearts and minds is not us. It is their religious and community leaders. Thinking that some how we can compete with their religious leaders is absurd, they will never trust us like that. The way we can really reform the Arab world is through force, direct and indirect. They must be made to democratize.  

Is simply false. There has never been nor ever will be a people that were democratized by external force. It is a logical impossibility. Democracy is an expression of the will of the constituency and it is by their sweat and blood that it is made to be and it is with lives that it is paid for, defended, nourished and preserved.

Democracy is not a gift of wiser minds and gifted states. Democracy is the will of a people. All we can do is help them find what we think they might already have, perhaps secretly desire, and learn about what is possible.

Democracy is not something that can be imposed from abroad. It is a right taken and kept by the cohesive strength of common citizens that will have no other method of governance imposed, by those willing to fertilize the pastures of history with the blood of tyrants, freedom fighters, and yes, the innocents.

We can talk about democracy till we are blue in the face and none will believe us as they measure who we do business with. Yes we are judged by our friends and we are found suspect. There has never been a single incidence in all of history of a people being externally democratized by force.

All we have is various examples of Democracy as the Will of a People being forced into existence against overwhelming opposition, sometimes assisted from abroad.

[Saille Willow]

" the lovers, the dreams, and me..."
Kermit

Remember the favourite old question; 'If there was only one parachute...' I allways hated that question, for though I hold my life dear and will not give it up lightly, how can I say whose life is worth more? How can I say my fellow passenger deserves to die more than I? I would give the parachute to my fellow passenger and learn to fly.

I do not live in a sheltered and wealthy nation, I live in Africa. But yes, I can still dream and so do those worse off than me. The reasons for war concerns me not, they are long forgotten while we are still trying to heal the effects. My continent is a perfect example of why war does not work. The effects of war afflicts not only the conquered but also the conqueror.

[Lazarus Long]

In anticipation of two possible examples you might make for an externally imposed Democratic Regime change let us examine Post WWII Germany and Japan.

Both, independently were failed Democratic experiments before the war and we destroyed the forces that had come to internally overrule the democratic intentions of an evolving educated populace. We did so at enormous cost both in lives and wealth and we reaped a profit historically by the greatest advantage any experienced combatant will comprehend, we turned an enemy into a friend.

Our security rests in having succeeded in ameliorating the forces of militarism, poverty, and ignorance that were the fertile fields of traditional opposition to change. But while we helped and cultivated these post war fledgling democracies they could not, nor would not exist today were it not the desire of these peoples.

Our security does not rest alone upon the fact that we still have bases of operation that represent occupational forces in these Nations to this day almost 60 years after the conflict is over. These democracies do not exist solely because of our security forces in place.

Or go ahead make that claim, and see how those we consider our allies will react. Realize that if it is just US propping up Democratic ideals then we have already failed. We must work with the people as they are not just with who we want them to be.

[Lazarus Long]

And as a more local example of what people in the Middle East think of when we talk about supporting Democratic Regime change take some time to study the CIA's involvement in the destruction of Iran's Mossadeq Government and the return of our oil company supported puppet monarch the Shah.

Oh yeah that political decision went well didn't it? [ph34r]

Historical notes on the CIA's Operation TPAJAX for Iran, 1953

What we learned from going into Iran

Initial orders from Nicosia for Operation TPAJAX

Foreign Office Memorandum from British to US Jul 23, '53

Critique of Military for TPAJAX

Military Critique of Planning Coup d'eta, Project TPAJAX

But it did help give your namesake a start in the Foreign Service I believe. If because of their relative poverty and lack of education one thinks that the people that we are about to engage have no sense of history, they would be sorely mistaken.

Calling the mullahs of Iran part of an "Axis of Evil" has as much political validity as them calling US the "Great Satan". It hasn't helped to poke sticks angrily into every nest of hornets we see. A little subtlely would go much farther. Thereis an untested Democratic tradition in Iran that our interest in is suspect, and the interests of both ourselves and our European allies are mistrusted. And there is good historical reason to find us wanting.

[Mind]

Is simply false. There has never been nor ever will be a people that were democratized by external force. It is a logical impossibility. Democracy is an expression of the will of the constituency and it is by their sweat and blood that it is made to be and it is with lives that it is paid for, defended, nourished and preserved.

I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. Both Germany and Japan were dictatorships...and the U.S. forced democracy on them. Now, I know you can make all kinds of specious arguments about what is the meaning of "dictatorship" and did they really become democracies like the U.S. right away...blah...blah...blah. The main point is these governments changed much for the better. The world is a much better place because of it.

The list of dictators currently in the world is not infinite. It is a small list. Most of them are far from benevolent. It would be much easier and much faster to set up a just global governance without them.

Also the constituency who live in these oppressive societies may have a strong will for democracy, but that is a very dangerous will to express when you live in a dictatorship.

[DJS]

This is not idle threat, civil wars are not fought by the extremist poles of a society they are fought by the vast majority that form a balanced, polarized, and visceral opposition near the center.  In other words the majority in the middle.  We see signs of such division in our own populace with the last presidential election.  Could we see greater division and social strife generated by having a conflict in the Middle East?  You can bet on it.

External threats tend to galvanize a nation. Another terrorist attack and the divisions in the US will disappear for a while again. The odds of a civil war in the US are zero. Social strife is another issue, but the protests that have taken place so far are marginalized because the majority of the populace knows that these groups are radical in their beliefs. If you think the Middle East could turn into another Vietnam you are mistake. Why do you think the establishment did away with the draft? Some people, especially in liberal democracies like the US, are not fighters. That is fine. Instead of prejudicing their decision by instilling fear in them about being drafted, they should be able to make an informed, objective opinion about war from afar.

Edited by Kissinger, 26 January 2003 - 07:11 AM.

[DJS]

What I said was that there is no action that we can take as a Nation that will not have dire repercussions for years to come.  In this I wholly disagree with your predictions as to the triviality of the conflict.  But it includes the consequences from doing too little.

I feel that history will record Pax Americana as having begun sometime after WWII, just as a study of Pax Romana has to begin with the end of the Punic wars.  The solution Rome had for Carthage was rather than occupy...

I did not say the war in Iraq would be trivial, I said it would be short. Big difference. If you didn't notice I went on for quite a few paragraphs about the geo-strategic implications of taking down Saddam's regime.

God, I'm not going into another comparative analyses between the US and Rome. I really don't find it very applicable to tell you the truth. Are there some similarities? Yes, but there are many many differences. Modern times are so different from the rest of history. Our strength is based on economic efficiency and technological superiority, not conquest and agriculture. I just find it hard to make a convincing case one way or the other using Rome as an example.

Edited by Kissinger, 26 January 2003 - 09:41 AM.

[DJS]

Though we still have absurd socioeconomic political legacies like the embargo on Cuba.  We graciously turned to help our fallen enemy in the Soviet when their economy and political structure imploded under the pressure that we applied to its weaknesses.

You had to bring up Cuba, didn't you? lol The Cuban Embargo is stupid and outdated, I'll give you that. It is also politically charged. My memory has failed me as to the name of the Congressional Act--it is the something-Helms Act. It stated that companies that did business with Cuba can't do business with us. A lot of nations of the world view that as us trying to dictate international trade policy. This has created a lot of animosity between us and the EU and they have found ways to subvert it.

It is my general contention that sanctions do not work. Cuba is the perfect example. If we can't topple a dictator 90 miles off our coast using an embargo how are we suppose to do it half a world away?

It is better to flood Cuba with consumer goods and American tourists. That way, when Castro dies and burns in hell (as my grandfather would say lol ) we can gradually bring Cuba into the fold. Of course, the Cuba issue has become Presidential Politics. After the Elian episode the Cuban exile community switched from the Democratic to the Republican party, a huge voter shift that quite possibly won Bush the election. This is why Bush will continue to maintain a hard line on Cuba--he needs their vote in 2004. Real reform in Cuba will not happen until either Castro dies or the Congress gets the necessary votes to over rule the President's veto.

But let's not blame this all on Bush either. Clinton had the perfect opportunity to normalize relations with Cuba in the 90's, he chose not to. He was in the pocket of the Cuban exile community at the time. It also amazes me how Americans have come to view Carter as some modern day Ghandi. People forget that he is still a politician. Going to Cuba and showing up Bush was a blatantly political move. Why didn't he do it during the Clinton Administration? Answer, because Clinton is in his party.

As far as your second comment on us helping out the Soviets...I wish that were true. We actually wern't very gracious. Just ask the Soviets, after the Cold War we went home and enjoyed the 90's. I read a whole book on how we had the Soviets thinking we were going to bring them into the fold and instead left them to rot in a depression estimated at three to five times worse than our Great Depression.

Edited by Kissinger, 26 January 2003 - 10:33 AM.

[DJS]

It will be the occupation of Iraq that is the real issue. We are not yet so secure in Afghanistan as the media would have most believe and there was even less opposition and we will not be out before we have put more in. We are beginning to have expeditionary forces on the ground in dozens of countries throughout the world and we will be maintaining their presence not for weeks or months but for years and decades. Is the American public really willing to foot that bill?

Alone?

I agree, the occupation of Iraq and the nature of that occupation is the real issue. Let's not get crazy on Afghanistan though. There are limits to the amount of reform we can hope for there. The main thing is that we destroyed the training camps and made it difficult for them to reconstitute.

As far as footing the bill, that is part of the commitment of fighting a global war on terror. However, the bill may not be as large as you think. Special forces do not require the funding nor the accommodations that conventional military forces do.

[DJS]

We lost a major conflict in Vietnam, not just because they were supported by the Soviets, not just because we were overly confident in our technological prowess in the face of an entrenched populace that found our presence highly unpopular, and not just because we allowed domestic politics to overwhelm tactical strategy in the field that compromised the security of our forces, we lost because we grew tired of being an oppressor occupying someone else's country, a people whose desire for freedom every common soldier could sympathize with, a country where the corruption of the leadership was evident and we were the bulwark that supported those despots and tyrants.  

Contradiction is paradox, we can't keep going around talking about how we defend liberty, justice, and socioeconomic freedom while at the same time for reasons of "Real Politick" prop up every tin pot dictator that is convenient for our purposes and cause an almost unprecedented consolidation of wealth in fewer hands on a global scale.

I agree with your overall assessment of why we lost Vietnam. Keep in mind that all of the elements that you listed were partially responsible, especially domestic politics influencing tactical strategy. We were simply unwilling to pay the price that the North Vietnamese were willing to pay. The North Vietnamese lost 1.1 million, we lost 58,000. Its all a matter of how far you are willing to go.

The corruption of the South Vietnamese leadership is a different matter all together. It is hard to set up a viable democracy under such hostile circumstances. If we were able to win in Vietnam I think that Vietnam would have eventually resembled a present day South Korea. A thriving capitalist democracy.

When you speak of propping up dictators I assume you are referring predominately to the Middle East. The reason that we have done this in the past is because regimes that we have in our pocket are easy to control. A regime will do what is in its own self interest. Does this inequality in the Arab world breed terrorism? Yes, but its not the only factor. The real problem with the Arab world is that their culture is inferior. They have never had an enlightenment. I am not sure that we can reform them effectively. Iraq is going to be the test case. If we can't initiate effective reform in Iraq, then we will have to rule them with an iron fist, focusing on suppressing terrorist organizations in the Middle East and having superior homeland security.

Edited by Kissinger, 26 January 2003 - 10:36 AM.

[DJS]

Iraq is just the beginning and there is no end in sight.

I agree completely.

[DJS]

What we have not done is lay out a strategy that deals with this relationship in a realistic and respectful manner that will garner more long term support instead of making enemies that will pursue our destruction for generations to come.  We have yet to define the true character of Pax Americana.  History is not yet written on this issue.  We are writing it now.

Iraq is a surrogate, a diversion, and a devious ploy at manipulating the global political scenario by creating an example for global edification.  The example could backfire as the President did with regard to Korea.  Yes they had flagrantly disregarded the "concessions" the Clinton administration had given, but we could have timed our rhetoric to have caused less distraction when we sought to focus our attention on specific, still poorly met threats.

I agree that we must address the concerns about the legitimacy of government in a modern global state, I agree that we must determine the legitimate areas of technological development that do not foster MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) as the basis of political relationships and I agree that now is the time to determine the course of human development for years to come by the actions that we, not just a Nation, but as the First World take, the reasons for them, and the results that we reap.

Argh, your foreign policy is so liberal! "...respectful manner that will garner more long term support instead of making enemies that will pursue our destruction..."

How can you be so confident that the people you are trying to win over can be won over? Second, are you willing to allow our foreign policy to be restrained because we are afraid of a negative reaction from the Arab world? Once again, it all depends on whether reform in the Arab world is possible.

And then you go and bring up North Korea. You have a lot of balls trying to pin that one on the current administration. I'm sick of playing the blame game on North Korea. The problem spans over many administrations. I'll just say that the Clinton administration was naive and history will not look favorably upon it's policies of appeasement and deferment. Be honest, he front loaded the 94 Agreed Framework.

MAD is indicative of the human condition. We don't trust each other. The problem with MAD is that we are no longer willing to grant MAD status to small rogue states. When the relationship between two nations is so disproportionate MAD turns into nuclear blackmail. That is one of the reasons we are developing missile defense. The other reason is that the principles of MAD are no longer intact. A DoD study that took place last year found that a missile launch from a cargo ship with an erect mobile missile launcher was not only possible, but probable. Such an attack would have no signature (return address), thus MAD would not be applicable in such a scenario.

Edited by Kissinger, 26 January 2003 - 10:47 AM.

[DJS]

Why?

Oil?

Get a bike.

Get real

[DJS]

Both, independently were failed Democratic experiments before the war and we destroyed the forces that had come to internally overrule the democratic intentions of an evolving educated populace.  We did so at enormous cost both in lives and wealth and we reaped a profit historically by the greatest advantage any experienced combatant will comprehend, we turned an enemy into a friend.

Our security rests in having succeeded in ameliorating the forces of militarism, poverty, and ignorance that were the fertile fields of traditional opposition to change.  But while we helped and cultivated these post war fledgling democracies they could not, nor would not exist today were it not the desire of these peoples.  

Our security does not rest alone upon the fact that we still have bases of operation that represent occupational forces in these Nations to this day almost 60 years after the conflict is over.  These democracies do not exist solely because of our security forces in place.

Japan was never a democracy until after WWII. Are you suggesting that democracy is not possible in the Middle East? If so, wouldn't that suggest taking even more of a hard line approach?

My only point about the troops was to point out that when we put our troops somewhere they stay there. Of course it is absurd to suggest that the only reason there is democracy in Germany and Japan is because of our troops. The troops are symbolic and political in nature. And sometimes a trip wire, like in South Korea.

Thinking that the entire Arab world will become democracies over night is naive, but over the course of many decades it may be possible. I am an optimist. Until that point in the utopic future, force may be needed in many instances. By making Iraq home turf we will have an easier time in pursuing offensive operation against other nations in the region.

If you really want to make a comparative analyses between Germany/Japan and the modern Arab world you would have to conclude that we first have to conquer, then enlighten.

Edited by Kissinger, 27 January 2003 - 01:31 AM.

[DJS]

Calling the mullahs of Iran part of an "Axis of Evil" has as much political validity as them calling US the "Great Satan".  It hasn't helped to poke sticks angrily into every nest of hornets we see.  A little subtlely would go much farther.  Thereis an untested Democratic tradition in Iran that our interest in is suspect, and the interests of both ourselves and our European allies are mistrusted.  And there is good historical reason to find us wanting.

One word for you and Iran--Carter.

You are missing the whole point in labeling Iran part of the Axis of Evil. First, the term "Axis of Evil" was made directly after the 9/11 attacks. No one was criticizing Bush at the time. Second, it is not the people of Iran that are "evil", it is the regime. We were putting Iran on notice--"Stop state sponsoring terror or we're going to stomp you."

Why do we have to be subtle? Are you afraid we will offend them? [ggg]

Edited by Kissinger, 26 January 2003 - 10:53 AM.

[Thomas]

I agree with Kissinger here.

I hope, US will be strong enough, to prevail against almost all other (hypocritical) countries in this case.

- Thomas

[Lazarus Long]

I don't have time at the moment to give a full response to the articulate and considerate posts you have made Kissinger. I only want to say that I will but I also want to add that it is a pleasure to spar with a gentleman. We must be willing to cross swords both to learn to shield ourselves from the wayward strike and to keep our rapiers sharp.

Mind, Germany's Weimarr Republic was consummed by vote of a democratic, but manipulated electorate in favor of granting Hitler's NAZI's Military authority. Democracy collapsed not through threat of external force, or internal overthrow, but through manipulation of mass hysteria, common prejudice, avarice, socioeconomic collapse and the media. Look up the history of Cristal Nacht.

Japan is more complex as it was gravitating toward a Democratic Parlimentary Monarchy and had an elected "Diet" before the war that was also overun by Military Industrialists. But Japan was experimenting with democratic reform even under the Shogunate, even as the House of Lords is the beginning of democratic reform in England. I didn't say they had Successful Democracies, I said they were fledgling, in other words the were already on that path independently and we simply played favorites with the survivors of the war.

Was that wrong? Of course not, as the victors we had the responsibility to do something and despite how vilified some treat Gen. MacArthur on this I happen to think he did a better job than most would have as he came to respect and understand the culture that he was to rule as the last Shogun, the American Shogun.

Could we have done better with regard to the Russians after the fall of the Soviet, yes. We broke nearly every promise and virtually exploited the rise of oligarchy and cleptocrats. We also lied and reneged and failed to comply with most of the promises we made. Our intentions had been honorable, our practices were something else. But again this is why so many find us suspect when our deeds do not conform so uniformly to our promises.

No I don't blame Bush for Korea, in fact if you read carefully I hold Clinton responsible for the "Concessions" that paved the way for their duplicity but I do hold him responsible for creating the distraction at this time and compromising our quiet diplomatic resolve to encourage democratic reform and stability in Iran.

One reason that most people don't like to admit is "why" we are fully cognizent of the Iraqi possession of WMD is that WE GAVE THEM TO HIM.

In fact Rumsfield himself was part of the initiative that was secretly done under the Reagan Administration to provide and train Iraqis in the use of Biological and Chemical Weapons. In fact during that time analysis of CDC records will show significant shipments of Weapons grade viral agents sent to Iraq under "Research Grants". Do you think for a minute that the Iranni are unaware of this? We gave the weapons to Saddam precisely so he would use them on the Iranni and instead he used them on his own people (the Kurds) as well.

As for Carter, he was a good man in a bad situation that inherited the problem and was not up to the hard task of making a Democracy out of a Peacock Throne. The FOIA documents that I linked are all real, we intentionally and duplicitously conspired to destroy a successful democratic regime in Iran in 1953 because it didn't meet our "Standards" as sufficiently controllable, not too unlike what we did with Chile's Salvador Allende. I am sure you remember that one, right?

We say democracy but if you as a people are foolish enough to think that you have a right to the kind of a democracy that we don't want you to have (socialist) then we have willfully and repeated destroyed the democratic process in favor of imposing military juntas.

I am not a Democrat, in fact quite the opposite. I simple broach no bull---t.

As for the references ad nauseum to Rome, get this straight, before their Civil War that tore down that Republic no one there gave any credence either to the possibility that the Triumvirate would decay into an internecine Civil War. Et tu Brute?

They were loyal opposition to each other and partners in the building of the Corporate State of Rome, just like Yankee Bankers and Cowboy Oilmen. The people were a mix of new (immigrant & Plebians) citizens and old established wealth (Patricians) and were all more concerned with enjoying the new found wealth of their successful military industrial economy and their mass media, while worried about such subtler problems such as economic deflation/inflation, unemployment, wealth consolidation and empovershment of fringe classes, illegal immigration into the Capitol, Crime, Social Decadence, the loss of dominance by the original classes, and much more. Does any of this sound familiar?

The Romans took a stand that they were responsible for everthing within the confines of their empire and they would ignore all that occured outside the borders, a policy that is exactly parallel to what many Right & Left Wing Isolationists in this country would have us adopt.

Well enough about Rome, the fact that this country was intentionally modelled upon its politics, legal traditions, social mores and even archictecture (Washington DC is intentionally a Vetruvian design) is only incidental. Incidental to the fact that it is socioeconomic trends and cultural biases that make history seem to repeat. It is caused by similar decisions being made in relation to parallel trends and forces. Can we determine a new outcome?

Of course, or I wouldn't be interested in having this debate.

I now have to do things like split wood so I won't be back to address in detail the rest of your eloquent and detailed responses until later tonight but I will only add,

[ph34r] en guarde [!]

[DJS]

Lazarus, the pleasure is mine. Practice does make perfect and the stiffer the resistance, the better prepared ones arguments will become. Sorry about my lengthy responses, I've just been hibernating indoors this weekend because of the cold. Shooting the shit on imminst.org is a way to occupy my mind.

A little history about myself. I have been playing chess since I was seven years old. I view foreign policy in much the same way I view chess. At the age of 19 I left college and went cross country, spent a year backpacking. I really wasn't sure what I wanted to do with my life. When I finally came back to Jersey I had to get a job. I fell into a job as a commercial appraiser. I've been doing that for three years now. It pays the bills. Around two years ago I found a book at a yard sale--Diplomacy, by Kissinger. I started reading it in the mid afternoon. I kept reading straight through the night until I passed out early the next morning. I knew that I had found my passion. After that I read everything ever written by Kissinger. He is a genius. This not to say that I am not diversified, I've read stuff by almost everyone. Currently I am saving my money to go back to Rutgers in the fall so I can eventually get into the field of strategic analyses.

Also, I see you are in the New York area. Have you ever listened to Batchelor and Alexander on 770AM from 10-1 weekdays? They are not neohawks, but I enjoy listening to them nonetheless. They have very little fluff (a term I use to refer to news with no practical value, like missing children) and they have updates for each hot spot around the world. Seeing what your perspective is, I think they would hook you.

Edited by Kissinger, 27 January 2003 - 01:01 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

I happen to agree that Kissinger is a genius, but for me he is the quintessential "Evil Genius". Did you know he is the real life model for the archetypal caricature by Peter Sellers of Dr. Strangelove?

Most people thought at the time that Kubrik was mocking Dr. von Braun but that was because Kissinger was so secretive about his doings that he was still a relative unknown in the early 60's. By the end of the decade it was another story.

Regardless, he is brilliant and while I despise his values I value greatly his perception and intellect. I disagree with many choices he made but I respect the logic he used to come to his conclusions. But one reason that we won't validate the World Court and we continue to undermine our legitimacy and ability to operate in this new emerging global scenario is precisely so we can protect the likes of him personally from legitimate prosecution abroad. There are warrants on his head for good reason.

I still owe you a lengthy response to your comments. I find this stimulating and for similar reasons that you may not expect and I thank you for suggesting that I am a worthy sparring partner. We need to invite Mandela and Cheny to the discussion too. I would love to hear Powell's unofficial take on this. A good reason to be immortal is to live long enough to get to hear the White Gouse Conference tapes being made today.

Shall we continue?

[DJS]

One reason that most people don't like to admit is "why" we are fully cognizent of the Iraqi possession of WMD is that WE GAVE THEM TO HIM.  

In fact Rumsfield himself was part of the initiative that was secretly done under the Reagan Administration to provide and train Iraqis in the use of Biological and Chemical Weapons.  In fact during that time analysis of CDC records will show significant shipments of Weapons grade viral agents sent to Iraq under "Research Grants".  Do you think for a minute that the Iranni are unaware of this?  We gave the weapons to Saddam precisely so he would use them on the Iranni and instead he used them on his own people (the Kurds) as well.  

As for Carter, he was a good man in a bad situation that inherited the problem and was not up to the hard task of making a Democracy out of a Peacock Throne.  The FOIA documents that I linked are all real, we intentionally and duplicitously conspired to destroy a successful democratic regime in Iran in 1953 because it didn't meet our "Standards" as sufficiently controllable, not too unlike what we did with Chile's Salvador Allende. I am sure you remember that one, right?

We say democracy but if you as a people are foolish enough to think that you have a right to the kind of a democracy that we don't want you to have (socialist) then we have willfully and repeated destroyed the democratic process in favor of imposing military juntas.

This must all be framed within the historical context of the Cold War. Did we do things that weren't always consistent with our principles? Yes, but in the real world when you are fighting the Soviets for global primacy, compromise is sometimes necessary. In the mid 80's, during the Iran-Iraq War, America was still smarting from Vietnam. We had adopted a policy of indirect involvement. In the Middle East we wanted to maintain the status quo. Unfortunately, Saddam's Iraq was on the verge of collapse. Allowing Iran to over run Iraq was not acceptable (for obvious reasons). Supplying Iraq with unconventional weapons was the only way to stabilize the situation. At the time, we viewed the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism as more imminent than a secular Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20. As far as sabotaging democracies that were socialistic--Cold War, Cold War, Cold War!

Edited by Kissinger, 27 January 2003 - 02:19 AM.

[DJS]

But one reason that we won't validate the World Court and we continue to undermine our legitimacy and ability to operate in this new emerging global scenario is precisely so we can protect the likes of him personally from legitimate prosecution abroad.  There are warrants on his head for good reason.

What, Cambodia? You liberals will never let that die. Good-Evil, Right-Wrong--its all relative. What really matters is winning the game. The reason we are unwilling to submit to the authority of a World Court is because we value the Sovernty of the United States.

A question, how do you put multiple quotes in one post?

Edited by Kissinger, 27 January 2003 - 02:36 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

Actually Kissinger is also under indictment for his involvement with Pinochet in some European countries. I believe it is Spain but on this don't quote me.

There have been attempts to link him to the assassination of Letellier (sp.) in Washington DC. He was the Chilean diplomat killed by foreign security forces right when the coup in Chile was organized.

While no one to date has been able to tie the chain of "facts" conclusively to Kissinger as the CIA's mastermind of that domestic murder, there is circumstantial evidence that keeps many interested investigators convinced he is a prime suspect.

If the doc's that link him to this ever got declassified he could go up on "Conspiracy to Commit Murder" charges here in the US.

His involvement in Cambodia wasn't germane to my arguments, yet...

That was just genocide as "Object Example". Usually that is done by just personally killing civilian members of the families of protagonists, like is done by Drug Cartels, African & Asian Warlords or Columbian Death Squads and how WWII German occupational troops treated local resistence movements from France to the Balkans. That was the cauldron the created Tito and set the stage for what came to pass in the former Yugoslavian States.

In Cambodia we didn't just bomb the crap out of innocent neutrals caught between a rock and a hard place we intentionally destroyed a stable parlimentary monarchy that wouldn't bow to our will and encouraged its replacement with ... Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

Now that is a wonderful page of history to have brought up, a real Gold Star on our record as the bringer of Peace, Freedom, Security, and the American way.

You do realize what the death toll in Cambodia is that many people around the world ultimately hold the US responsible for?

1,700,000 to 3,000,000.

And that is apart from your statistic about Vietnam which you acknowledge was at least 1.1 million but they claim three times as much with effects extending till todays children.

In fact the same problem with claims about current casualities in Iraq.

So when will we acknowledge that if we treat other people's lives with contempt and scorn and as simple statistics that we make our own individual lives less valuable? Our credibility less world wide? And our ability to secure a stable and peaceful future more tenuous?

Yes, didn't you say that you felt it was that we didn't have the stomach back then to face more deaths at home that was the reason we folded up and went home from Vietnam?

I wasn't in 'Nam, but I was around for that tidbit of history and what I know we didn't have the stomach for was committing anymore genocide. Officers got "fragged" after a while for putting soldiers in the position of making My Lai's. We brought that war home and that domestic conflict was resolved only little better than Iraq in 1991.



Oh yeah, I almost forgot, if you call me a liberal one more time I'll have to go and smack youupsidedahead child. [ph34r]

Just becasue you see stereotypes in everything don't make the mistake of labeling someone in order to categorize them. It never occured to you that calling me a liberal is worse than a racial slur? I was offended the first time and the second time you really got my "old goat".

It takes really radical thinkers to refuse the "party line" and attempt to deal with both the facts and consequences. It also takes people of courage and conviction not to take incompetant cowardly ways of violence just because it is more convenient and easier for a people that are wealthy and overwhelmingly more powerful. Most around the world don't just see us as today's bully shoving smaller states around in the world right now they are beginning to see us as tomorrow's threat to their domestic well being.

You do know that China has a garnered a lot of respect world-wide because it has no history of being an Expansionist Imperial Power?

Many historian's seriously believe that the Great Wall wasn't built to keep invaders out as much as a means to define the limits of a society and keep people in. But regardless, the toothless Non-Alligned groups are beginning to find legitimate common cause. The best thing we could do is preempt this trend before we are trapped by circumstances that escalate out of control.

The only way we can ultimately secure our future in a positive manner is to demonstrably change this impression of long term American Policy.

The current Conservative movement from Strom Thurman (BTW he belongs on the list of longevity examples) to Clinton's evident duplicity by signing the Helm's /Burton is evidence of a definitive trend to undermine and neuter the United Nations since your namesakes role in the Nixon Administration. It is fitting irony that it was Bush that paid the over due bill to that institution, not Clinton (he was busy pardoning felons for favors).

We did it because the American People believe in the legitimacy of that organization not the govrnment. We did it because otherwise we couldn't even begin to prosecute this war we are taking into the field. We will get back to this as part of the topic but I meant to address your earlier posts first.

Suggested reading:

The Art of War Sun-Tzu, Ralph D. Sawyer, Narrated by Joe Mantegna
http://search.barnes...n=9781402508622

Book of Five Rings Miyamoto Musashi, Musashi Miyamoto, Thomas Cleary (Translator)
http://search.barnes...n=9780877739982

The Art of War Sun Tzu, Thomas Cleary (Translator)
http://search.barnes...n=9780877735373

And you might add Rommel and Cicero into the mix along with the Pliny's (both elder and son). I also think Plutarch is as valuable as any modern author at giving a view toward motive for many character's and events in history.

[DJS]

First, sorry about the liberal stuff, sometimes I just slip [blush] . I'm going to expand on some thoughts I have but first I want to give a general statement.

I think, Lazarus, that the main difference between your approach and my approach is that you view human nature as essential good and I view it as essentially bad. Greed, ambition, ego, such is the human condition. "Just because you are paranoid does not mean there are not people out to get you." Not every nation will be on our side because we treat them well and not every act of humanitarianism will equal a net gain. In nations with no democratic tradition kindness is often viewed as weakness.

The US has an ethical standard light years beyond its less enlightened competitors. We don't bomb civilian targets intentionally. We don't use civilians as human shields. We don't roll over student protesters with tanks. We are essentially for the good. Saying that we have to live up to some unrealistic standard and never break the rules is a frustratingly simplistic and rigid perspective. If we did so we would be going into battle with one arm tied behind our backs. No great power in the history of the world has been held to such standards and it is a testament to our state of enlightenment that there are those among us who view the US as unworthy.

How are we unworthy? I think that is what really makes me mad, the people who take every negative example throughout our history and try to make it seem like we are the villains. And this sentiment is out there, you know it is. They are the ones (and you do this too I notice) who will talk about how our bombings in Cambodia or Iraq caused massive civilian causalities. What they will not mention is that the legitimate military targets we were aiming for were intentionally put in civilian area by that nation's government. Are we suppose to be deterred by our sense of humanity or are we going to get the job done? It is called collateral damages and it is part of war.

This whole twisted perspective has arisen from a radical fringe on the left (there I go again [wacko] )which views war as barbaric and incompatible with modern civilization. What they don't realize is that the brutal regimes of the world only understand one thing, absolute force. The rule of law can only be an effective system of governance when its participants respect it. When a criminal robs a store you don't negotiate with him for the stolen goods back, you throw him on the hood of the car and cuff him. When rogue states break international law and they refuse to submit to the rule of law you don't beg for them to submit to the will of the international community. You give them an ultimatum and if they don't submit you take them out.

Edited by Kissinger, 28 January 2003 - 01:55 AM.