paxx made a good point about presumptions.

when i and other war vets bump into someone who won't go to war because of principles, there is a great tendency to presume that his sense of self-preservation has its thumb on the moral scales and is adding to the weight of his anti-killing beliefs. presuming is almost always bad, and the result is often false.

people strongly opposed to killing return the favor, and assume that a military person is a jingoistic hothead lacking in self-restraint who can't wait to take his newest hitech toy and go try it on someone. i only met a few of those types during all my years in the military.
Part of the problem at times is the escape and dissemination of military humor which was never intended for public consumption. military people use humor to counteract total lack of freedom and control over one's life, unpleasant conditions, unbearable superiors, and even boredom. This humor is usually rough, insensitive, totally irreverent toward human life, and in no way reflects the deepest convictions of the person dishing it out in a "can you top this" joke session. bottom line: if a war comes, everyone in the military knows who's going to bear the brunt of the suffering and dying.

So, the "real" bombings have begun
Let's just hope that they get to Saddam and spare as many people as possible.

It's strange to sit here in my comfy chair, looking out the window past my lava lamp and seeing this beautiful spring day and trying to imagine what it is like in Iraq right now.

"The United States seems to believe this military action shows its world leadership. But that is its misconception. Real world leadership is to take initiatives in promoting the Kyoto Protocol, nuclear disarmament, and arms control, and solving environmental issues." --Mikhail Gorbachev said. --March 19, 2003

"It would be wrong to suggest that this is a war between Christians and Muslims. This is a war of self interest launched by the sole superpower," said India's law and parliamentary affairs minister, Muzaffar Beig. --March 19, 2003

And U.S. Senator, Robert C. Byrd, on March 19, 2003 said:

"The Arrogance of Power"

I believe in this beautiful country...

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves.

The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?
Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

(read the full statement here: http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2003march/byrd_speeches_2003march_list/byrd_speeches_2003march_list_4.html


and I say... I see no difference between premeditated war and premeditated murder.

#607 by DavidK - 3/20/2003 1:59:35 PM
"The United States seems to believe this military action shows its world leadership. But that is its misconception. Real world leadership is to take initiatives in promoting the Kyoto Protocol, nuclear disarmament, and arms control, and solving environmental issues." --Mikhail Gorbachev said. --March 19, 2003

"It would be wrong to suggest that this is a war between Christians and Muslims. This is a war of self interest launched by the sole superpower," said India's law and parliamentary affairs minister, Muzaffar Beig. --March 19, 2003

And U.S. Senator, Robert C. Byrd, on March 19, 2003 said:

"The Arrogance of Power"

I believe in this beautiful country...

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves.

The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?
Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

(read the full statement here: Link


and I say... I see no difference between premeditated war and premeditated murder.

--------------
Most, if not all I recon, is true.
I fear that the administration took to arms way beforethey went to the UN6-7 months ago. I strongly believe that this Administration handled this situation wrong.

Nevertheless

when it comes to Iraq I say again:

World politics is not easy. There are and will be interests other than what appears. I don't agree with Bush or with his tactics. Nevertheless, I have yet to here anything that says that Saddam has disarmed.

"Give him 30 more days." That's fine with me, but what happens when those 30 days are up? We know it happened before.

"America is only interested in oil".
Just oil? Not just from Iraq I hope because it is not worth it. We would spend more than the oil they have just fighting the war. I guess Iraq could become a launch pad for 'conquering' other oil rich places. The cost for doing so? More money than most of the oil in the region. Good investment? NO.


Why is the USA friends with China? They do the same thing as Iraq... Iraq has oil to fund its weapons production, China has a struggleing economy. The chinese soldier is more loyal. I doubt they would sell weapons to those who would later use them against themselves.


People, people ,poeple!!! It is not just about this country does the same thing or hey you have them too... it is about location, location, location, economy, additudes, stability, population comfort level (food, shelter, education, jobs)

When you include all of those factors who is more dangerous? Iraq or Argentina? Iran or Canada? North Korea or China? Serbia or Seria?


Is Saddam in breach of the agreement???

Does he have loads of money???

How loyal is his army???

Population comfort level???

How many resolutions for disarmerment????

How many years under said resolutions???????

------------------------------

As wrong as I think the Administation wwnt about this, can anyone answer those questions? What do we do about the situation? What does Iraq really pose as a threat?

Clearly there is a wait and see idealism here. I agree that you wait to be attacked first before hitting back... but this situation, there is a man who will do his best to attack in a way that will leave many dead.

When it comes to humanity, usually, someone has to die first before anything is done about a piticular situation. A stop light gets out up because 4 children die there. but before those chilren died there, there was 2 years of complaints about the intersection, and 15 accidents.

What would you do?
Any responces?

davidk:

"No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. "

When, exactly, have we ever been a considered a "benevolent peacekeeper?" When have we *ever* undertaken anything that wasn't harshly criticized or begrudgingly agreed to, in the last, say, 60 years? Where is this natural state of "peace" that we are foiling, DavidK? In Iraq, where Coalition planes protect people from genocide? Is it in the homes of people the Iraqi regime rapes, tortures, and executes? Or is that blessed peace just over at *your* house?

The world was spared "premeditated war/murder" as the citizens of Sarajevo suffered and died. The UN took the high road, and dropped food and medicine that snipers used as *bait*... bait... Was that 'peace' to those who were victimized?

Why do you even think 'peace' would work? When has it ever? Is war a nasty, *new* thing? The world as you know it owes its face to war, and evil men have been thwarted by force for ten thousand years of recorded history. Suddenly, though, it 'doesn't work' and nature demands inaction as a solution.

****

I believe that, were my nation to fall to such an evil state, that I couldn't count on many of the people here to support coming to my aid. That effects me deeply. I pray that no one here ever silently hopes for help that doesn't come because the world finds their oppressor harmless enough to warrant inaction. I pray that the world never opts to starve anyone here, instead of coming to their aid.

***

I'm tired of talking. I doubt anyone reads my posts, and in light of what I have read, I am not sure that some here don't secretly and happily accept that they are writing off millions of people over a philosophical ideal. Sick and sad.

Paxx: I recall people *in the United States* claiming it wasn't a big deal and that we brought it on ourselves. US celebrities characterized the hijackers as 'brave'. Many parties in Asia, the Middle East and Europe claimed we deserved it, openly. I don't think it was much of a reprieve from the usual angst.

I'm happy you are safe where you are, paxx, but I think your comfort is much more responsible for your ethos than logic is.

Please, Auguste, after 9/11 you have the heart of te World. Everyone was with you guys. Of course there were a couple of rogues and idiots, but they will always be.
If your medias made it sound like the World was happy to see 5,000 people die in NY, then I'm sorry for all Americans. It's not the case.

I can tell you that very rarely will you see an American flag in Canada as bumber stickers, on baseball caps, etc. But After 9/11 they were everywhere. And I know that most of the World was the same. 9/11 was a tragedy for all humankind and everybody felt attacked.
But I can tell you, you won't see much American flags anywhere right now. I'm not stating a personnal opinion, I'm just telling things the way they are. It's sad.

except mine....

Auguste, the very people who are now taking on (in your mind) the noble and moral duty of 'liberating' the Iraqi people from a heinous dictator are the ones who supported him and armed him before. You are very correct about the lack of peace in the world and the seemingly inevitable consequence of war. Your leaders would have it no other way. Less than two months after this wretched dictator gassed the Kurdish people with chemical weapons provided by the US our own State Department (represented by Donald Rumsfeld) was handing him a check for $50 million. No mention of his crimes. All the way into the late 1990's our State Dep't was approving the shipment of 'dual-use' materials and technologies to Iraq. Dick Cheney was making millions by servicing the oil fields in violation of the UN sanctions. When he was told to stop, he opened an offshore affiliate that continued bringing in those Iraqi bucks.

It's the easy response to say, it's always been that way, or, they all do it it'll never change. The only hope for mankind is the people, not the politicians, taking control of their destiny. Only the people can hold their leaders accountable for their decisions and it is their moral duty to do so. That's why we see more secrecy than ever in history applied to government, even in our wonderful democracy.

The installation in Iraq of an "American face" in every level of government (as the State Dep't said today) is about strategic advantage. We did the same thing in Afghanistan, which was also planned way before the 9/11 events gave them the 'moral' imperative to do so. The Taliban was not only the recipient of millions of dollars from us but we actually funded their creation. We invented them because the cold-war was ending and we needed a new enemy to justify our military expenditures and our global presence. It has to do with maintaining the American lifestyle more than it has anything to do with liberating an oppressed people.

Bush and his administration do not represent me, my values or my vision of what the world can become. To say they are self-serving and devoted only to their own special interests, at the expense of everyone else in the world's well being, would be a gross understatement. It's been said that for $30 billion world hunger could be eliminated. We currently spend over $400 billion on "defense". Thanks to the internet, people all over the world are getting a vision of hope for a world where there are no borders, no racial or geopolitical exclusion from a decent life. Over half of the world's population has no safe drinking water. Health care, the environment, economic reform, these are issues that this administration subverts to serve globalized industrial interests. State and local governments all over America are cutting back drastically on education, police, closing libraries, cutting assistance programs, releasing criminals back onto the streets etc because of cutbacks in federal programs and lost revenue due to the crappy economy Bush has created (yes, he gets credit for it, it's on his watch and he's only made it worse).

Iraq is not being liberated, it's being colonized. America is on the course it is following to serve the wealthy and subdue and control the impoverished masses. We are breaking away from the rest of the world because the EU shows promise of surpassing the US in economic strength. Strategic alliances between China, Europe and Russia could (and probably will) challenge America's economic superiority. That is, it could unless we control the Middle East and have a strong enough military presence in Asia. Meanwhile, the people be damned, there are more important fish to fry than human rights, dignity or worrying about the needs of a bunch of damn human beings. Even the very planet we live on is a casualty of this policy because protecting the water, the air and reducing the impact of mining would cost a few precious percent of profit right off the bottom line of the companies that own our leaders, and being good managers, they can't allow that.

kthxbye chuckles.

It's all good, Thibaud - the legions of ravenous fans I was talking about were the Hoverdesk fans, who're likely to hunt you down demanding new versions... it was just a moment of lightheartedness, and slightly OT, but something which I felt was needed at the moment!

Dave...an impressive and pithy post, that #621.
I tend to agree with its content...

Perhaps we are finally on the way to 'Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceana'. [1984 is just a tad delayed]...