[kenrexford]

keylime, on Aug 30 2007, 11:28 AM, said:

you'll have a stepping stone effect

Is that the bridge parallel to dominoes?

[cherdano]

keylime, on Aug 30 2007, 10:28 AM, said:

I'd authorize military action against Iran; they are clearly fighting a proxy war against us through other nations and groups.

There is no rational reason NOT to get in there and make an emphatic statement to the world that the United States is no pushover. If you do not reduce Iran's capability, you'll have a stepping stone effect that will head in all directions (Turkey, the Kurds, Israel, Armenia, Georgia just to list a few). The consequences would be horrific.

Yeah, we have already seen what great effect it has to show US is not a pushover by attacking Iraq, it has had a tremendous positive effect on all the neighboring countries like Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, ...

In all seriousness, how can you say something like that after what happened in Iraq?

[Al_U_Card]

And every M-F that supports war must be in the M-F front lines during the attack.....and then watch the call to retreat.

Kill or be killed? Not even close....

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, the critical issue that people need to consider is what would the United States hope to accomplish by attacking Iran? You need to start with a set of goals and then determine whether military action would have a positive or a negative effect on one’s chances of achieving said goals.

I can’t come up with any examples where I think that a military strike against Iran would improve the lot of the United States.

1. I don’t believe that it would destabilize the Iranian regime
2. I don’t believe it would stop the Iranians aiding Shia in Iraq
3. I don’t believe that it would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. (The Iranians can always buy a nuke from Pakistan)
4. I don’t believe that attacking Iran would improve America’s public image with either our allies or the Middle East.

Furthermore, even a limited strike against Iran runs some very serious risks. Any such an attack could easily escalate into a real war. The Iranians don’t pose any kind of serious military threat to the US, but they could make life very unpleasant by closing the Straits of Hormuz and stirring up serious problems in Iraq.

I do believe that some idiots believe that attacking Iran will given them a chance a “do-over” in Iraq. They can go off and launch a glorious new war and use this to cover up the cluster-***** that these same genius perpetrated five years ago.

What’s completely unbelievable is that anyone with half a brain is stupid enough to listen to the Kagan brothers, Kristol, Fred Hiatt, and the like. They’ve been wrong about everything for five plus years and somehow their arguments are still taken seriously.

[kenrexford]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 30 2007, 12:40 PM, said:

And every M-F that supports war must be in the M-F front lines during the attack.....and then watch the call to retreat.

Kill or be killed? Not even close....

Sure, it might be morally wrong to send someone else to die in your place in a war, in theory. However, I'm not so sure that this is all that persuasive of aan objection.

You probably do not want people robbing banks. Do you yourseklf grab a gun and head down to the bank to stop the robbery, or do you send in a police officer to do that task? Is it morally wrong to ask the police to risk their lives for your money at the bank, if you yourself are not willing to carry that gun in there?

How about firemen? You want your fire put out, but are you a volunteer fireman? Do you risk your life for someone else's fire? Is it morally wrong to ask someone to do that for you?

Are you in the mines getting the coal?

Are you on the bomb squad?

Beyond that, so what? This is a real world we live in, not a fairy-tale world. Some of us have power. We use that so that someone else does not. That's not very nice, but such is life. A nice lion will starve.

[keylime]

Arend,

It would be beyond irresponsible, to simply say to ourselves, "Well, Iraq's taken care, let's take our ball and go home now.". It'll be Vietnam, take 2.

Our politicians have a very bad habit of attempting to hamstring military commanders who are on the ground seeing the SITREPS daily and are slowly but surely bringing stability to Iraq. We've done this time after time in our history under the guises of "promoting self-restraint" and "civilian control of the military". Just look at the War of 1812, the Civil War, and the World Wars, and you'll see that we have exercised tremendous restraint until we've had to unleash the horrors of war, and furthermore, has also delayed victory for the sake of scoring a few points.

It takes just as much restraint to not act glibly and to simply reduce our horizons to one country. We simply can't view Iraq as the one and sole function of protecting the United States - I refuse to allow myself the naive notion that Russia and Iran are simply progressing themselves under the guise of modernization. Currently, Armenia, Georgia, eastern Pakistan and Kashmir, the Kurds, are the next areas of view , and hopefully, opportunity.

If France and the Netherlands are reexamining the troubles of both immigration and Islamization on their societies, why wouldn't the U.S. want to be at the forefront of promoting basic rights and freedoms? You can't go around and attempt to play nice and appease that which is both alien and counterproductive to the stability of the world. It is of only a sentimental notion that integration would provide enough benefits to a nation-state to have them leave their pasts so to speak.

Vigilance is the order of the day. I'm not waiting for the "what if", I've already steeled myself to the "when it happens". It frankly pisses me off to no end that we want to pussyfoot around the obvious: granting concession after concession without challenging the foe is paramount to extinction. Why did 6 million Jews have to die needlessly? Why did Poland suffer such loss? What about Czechoslovakia, who got sold out by the Brits?

When we are going to stop hiding behind technology, and actually do some of the hard labors required to turn back this wave of hideous destruction that is a lot closer than most are willing to admit?

[cherdano]

Well there are so many things I disagree with in what you said, Dwayne, but let me just ask: Where do you get the idea from that "military commanders ... are slowly but surely bringing stability to Iraq"?
Just give me a source where you got that idea from...

[hrothgar]

keylime, on Aug 30 2007, 09:01 PM, said:

Our politicians have a very bad habit of attempting to hamstring military commanders who are on the ground seeing the SITREPS daily and are slowly but surely bringing stability to Iraq. We've done this time after time in our history under the guises of "promoting self-restraint" and "civilian control of the military".

Comment 1: Almost by definition, local commanders lack global perspective. They have an indepth knowledge of a very limited area. They are normally are in a poor position to assess theater operations.

Moreover, these same local commanders often have an extremely biased view about whats going on. They are the ones who just spent two / three / X monthes fighting and dying over some godforsaken clump or dirt. They often aren't in a good position to saw that all their sacrifices are for nought.

Comment 2: To the extent that the civilian commanders are biasing the system, they are doing so in favor of military action in Iraq. The Bush administration has been ruthless in suprressing dissent within the military. They have forced the army to adopt new vocabulary in the hopes of doing a better job "seeling" the war. Take a look at the uptick in the use of the phrase "El Qaeda" insurrgents a couple monthes back. Our beloved Commander in Chief started requiring that all insurrgents are referred to as El Qaeda.

[Al_U_Card]

The only real problem is that those who advocate killing all of the violent people are themselves against suicide.....otherwise they could start with themselves...

The greatest civilizations of mankind flourished while undergoing renaissance and openness (the US back at the turn of the 20th century is in that pile). Why do short-sighted, pig-ignorant, boot-licking excuses for humans insist on killing and destroying? oh yeah, they are short-sighted, pig-ignorant boot lickers. Good luck on judgement day, I only hope that your stay in hell was worth the effort.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Wikipedia has this to say:
(The prosecutor of the international criminal court)
the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal.

Helene, this refers to a specific mandate for a specific court.

The Nuremberg Charter defines “Crimes against Peace” as “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties or participating in a common plan or conspiracy to wage an aggressive war.”, and goes on to say "to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime.”

The U.S. is signatory to and subject to the U.N. Charter, which is certainly an international treaty. The Charter forbids one country from unilaterally attacking another except in self defense.

It's clear, and quite limited. It doesn't say it's OK to invade when Country A doesn't like Coountry B's government, or thinks that it may become a threat in the future, or doesn't like B's actions, or even if it thinks that B is itself guilty of war crimes. The recourse is the Security Council.

Peter

[pbleighton]

Quote

If France and the Netherlands are reexamining the troubles of both immigration and Islamization on their societies, why wouldn't the U.S. want to be at the forefront of promoting basic rights and freedoms? You can't go around and attempt to play nice and appease that which is both alien and counterproductive to the stability of the world. It is of only a sentimental notion that integration would provide enough benefits to a nation-state to have them leave their pasts so to speak.

Vigilance is the order of the day. I'm not waiting for the "what if", I've already steeled myself to the "when it happens". It frankly pisses me off to no end that we want to pussyfoot around the obvious: granting concession after concession without challenging the foe is paramount to extinction.

What concessions have we been making?

More importantly, it seems from this post and others that you think we are in a war with the entire Islamic world. Is that what you think?

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Its Armagheddon, don't you know?

Right vs. wrong, good vs. evil. black vs. white. Christianity vs Islam; for they are diametrically opposed after all......they have nothing in common like

patriarchs

god-figure

peaceful nature of their religious philosophy

promise of heaven for good behavior

promise of hell for bad behavior

rituals and rites to be observed

organizational heirarchies

oh darn it...they are the same... so they are just fighting amongst themselves after all. It now makes more sense.

[pbleighton]

Quote

It would be beyond irresponsible, to simply say to ourselves, "Well, Iraq's taken care, let's take our ball and go home now.". It'll be Vietnam, take 2.

The theory of sunk costs is relevant here: a rational person, business, or country does not let sunk costs influence decisions, because doing so would not be assessing a decision exclusively on its own merits.

Vietnam was a tragic mistake.

Iraq is a tragic mistake.

Bite the bullet and come home. We owe them a LOT of humanitarian aid for our war crime, but we can't repay it with the present govenment, and our presence just impedes their (painfully slow) evolution.

I was strongly opposed to the war to start with, but I would support staying there, even indefinitely, if there was a convincing argument (meaning logic and evidence) to do so. I haven't seen any such argument.

Peter

[kenrexford]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 30 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

The greatest civilizations of mankind flourished while undergoing renaissance and openness (the US back at the turn of the 20th century is in that pile). Why do short-sighted, pig-ignorant, boot-licking excuses for humans insist on killing and destroying?

What world are you living in?

I'll assess a euro-centric world history.

Greece. Origin of democracy. Had to fight like hell for it.

Rome. Fought like Hell for it.

Northumbrians. I have no friggin' clue on that one, but it seems like they fought like hell for it.

Reformation. Fought like hell for it.

Renaissance. Fought like hell for it.

The U.S. at the turn of the century, isolated but still at war with Spain and with native Americans, embroiled in WWI quickly, just out of the Civil War, ready for WWI around the bend.

I'd like to see one example of an open renaissance that was not the fruit of kicking someone's ass.

[Winstonm]

I see the pros as being in the class of "what ifs". There could be benefit if..

Iran were in the last few months of completion of nuclear arms and had plans for using those weapons aggressively.

The downside is to create more hate and alienation in the Muslim world against the U.S - and to risk Russian intervention.

I agree that I am not privy to all the facts; unfortunately, believing what our leaders claim comes down to trust, and the present leaders have shown themselves to be untrustworthy.

[mike777]

Well a downside might also include if one of the those Nukes were used by someone.

But bottom line I do wish there was more debate and information and less posturing by both sides of the aisle on this one.
OTOH in a perfect world we would know the endgame before we pull the trigger, that may be naive and always impossible?

As insane as it sounds perhaps going into any, I mean any war is always a case of tinkering, trial and error?

[Al_U_Card]

kenrexford, on Aug 30 2007, 03:29 PM, said:

What world are you living in?

Just the one where in each of your cited cases there were intelligent people who, despite the machinations of the power-hungry, militaristic and inhuman, managed to create out of that chaos the demonstration of the humanity in themselves.

Their vision and their success is the kind of world that I want and need to live in. Don't you?


There is still a chance.

The U.S impeaches and imprisons all of the war profiteers and guilty parties for 9-11 and its aftermath.

They offer their apologies along with reparations to the Iraqi people.

About one in a gazillion.

[Al_U_Card]

Hmmmnn so far it's 18-5 in favor of sanity. About the same % as little dick's popularity rating.....what a coincidence.

[kenrexford]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 30 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 30 2007, 03:29 PM, said:

What world are you living in?

Just the one where in each of your cited cases there were intelligent people who, despite the machinations of the power-hungry, militaristic and inhuman, managed to create out of that chaos the demonstration of the humanity in themselves.

Their vision and their success is the kind of world that I want and need to live in. Don't you?


There is still a chance.

The U.S impeaches and imprisons all of the war profiteers and guilty parties for 9-11 and its aftermath.

They offer their apologies along with reparations to the Iraqi people.

About one in a gazillion.

Let's have some ice cream and listen to the Monkeys and tickle each other under the bed sheets, while we are at it.

Do you think that there were no intelligent people with humanity in the midst of the chaos when these enlightenment periods were not under way? Of course there were, intelligent and humane people hiding in the shadows and being tortured if they spoke up.

The hunger for power, the tend toward militarism, and acts of inhumanity do not come from global societal success, they are necessary attributes precursor to and sustaining of global societal success.

"Their vision and their success" is also a part of the kind of world that I want and need to live in as well. I'm just not so naive as to think that I can sing a song to accomplish that success. At some point somewhere someone who wants to grab things away from me must be beat down or threatened with a beat-down, because they will no more listen to anything reasonable than would the idiot on the street in my town would if he was given a big gun and a pile of money in front of him.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Aug 30 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

luke warm, on Aug 30 2007, 05:49 PM, said:

pbleighton, on Aug 30 2007, 07:00 AM, said:

If you attack another country which has not committed an act of war against you, it is a war crime. It's pretty simple.

this is obviously false

Wikipedia has this to say:

The prosecutor of the international criminal court said:

the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal.

well yes, that makes perfect sense... how can one have a war crime unless there's a war? when saddam invaded kuwait it was an act of war... his treatment of the kuwaitis after the invasion could indeed be considered war crimes, but not the invasion itself