Originally Posted by cbailey

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Where were all the protests when Clinton went after Saddam in 1998? I don't recall all this fuss back then. Or did you all secretly understand the real reason for dropping bombs on Saddam, back then?

post reminded me of a conversation that I had with my GI mother the other day. She's a school teacher, and always has been very interested in politics and current events. A few days ago she was scolding herself for not remembering much about what was going on in Iraq in the late 90's, and how she hadn't kept herself educated on Saddam and Iraq much after the Gulf War.

We both agreed that our recollection of Clinton's "dropping bombs on Saddam" was really hazy. And why had we not paid the attention (that we should have) to this event? Our answer, which interestingly enough was identical to the answer to Marc's question: (HER NAME WAS) MONICA.

Niether were you concerned about Clinton's demonizing Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic -- the "designated bogey" -- and his associated war in the balkans since the summer of 1994.

Niether were you concerned about the escalating "high-altitude bombing" in Serbia that resulted in several buses full of civilians being destroyed, several more thousand innocents killed and the destruction of the Chinese Embassy.

Of course you weren't paying attention back when Clinton was president because he was your guy and you trusted that he was doing the right thing! Oh, but now, now things are sooo much diffrerent; why that George Bush is a Republican, and Republicans are evil! Republicans want the "Greatest Generation" to eat dog food, and Republicans want to stop school lunches and stuff tobacco down our kid's throats! Republicans want to pollute our rivers and steal from the poor and give it to the rich! Yes, Bush is just like all those evil Republicans, and this war is nothing more than them lining their pockets with oil money! Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Thus you are a partisan hack, just as I said.

I'm hardly a "partisan hack", Marc. Isn't a "hack" defined as someone who "undertakes unpleasant or distasteful tasks for money or reward; a hireling?' I've never been paid to take a political stand.

It seems to me the definition would better describe a Political Ad Producer like yourself. :wink:

Anyway, I was only saying that my mother and I are very ashamed of our fixation on the Monica problem during the late 90's (and the neglect of our responsibility as good citizens to be well informed about foreign affairs). Forgive us. We were manipulated.
.

Originally Posted by cbailey

I was only saying that my mother and I are very ashamed of our fixation on the Monica problem during the late 90's (and the neglect of our responsibility as good citizens to be well informed about foreign affairs). Forgive us.

Oh pleeze, you can save the "Forgive us" rhetoric. If that was all you were trying to say, I sure missed what you meant by "If Clinton was trying to divert attention from his "monica problems", it didn't work for us."

That struck me as though you were claiming that nothing Clinton did bothered you (because you either trusted him or didn't care. The latter I tossed out because you don't strike me that way).

Wha tuh bout the "hack" part of the post?

What about the "hack" part? Sheesh, I think there is such a thing as a paid "hack," but nothing in Websters suggests that hacks are hacks because they are paid for hacking. :wink:

The best I got from Websters is "to play inexpert golf." Which is something else Clinton did (he cheated).

But, in my book, a "hack" is a blindly obedient partisan that will defend the indefensible; a loyalist that will never let the facts speak or stand against what they believe to be true. It's not necessarily a bad thing to be a "hack," because sometimes even the "facts" can decieve.

But a good hack will always acknowledge they are a hack, lest they decieve themselves. :wink:

Originally Posted by cbailey

I'm hardly a "partisan hack", Marc. Isn't a "hack" defined as someone who "undertakes unpleasant or distasteful tasks for money or reward; a hireling?' I've never been paid to take a political stand.

It seems to me the definition would better describe a Political Ad Producer like yourself. :wink:

Anyway, I was only saying that my mother and I are very ashamed of our fixation on the Monica problem during the late 90's (and the neglect of our responsibility as good citizens to be well informed about foreign affairs). Forgive us. We were manipulated.
.

CBailey, I think you really ought to be supporting the Bush High Command. If you liked Clinton, then you gotta looovvve Junior! Check it out! :lol: :lol: :lol:



http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm

(Usual disclaimers)






XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 22, 2003 15:02:37 ET XXXXX

PHOTO-OP COVER-UP: BOXES READ 'MADE IN CHINA' NOT 'MADE IN USA'

When President Bush gave a speech touting tax breaks for small businesses today, he stood against what appeared to be a backdrop of cardboard boxes stamped ?MADE IN U.S.A.?

But the boxes in the south St. Louis warehouse had actually been painted on a large screen behind the president. The real boxes in the warehouse were stamped ?Made in China,? although someone tried to obscure the stamps by plastering over them with blank white labels.

Asked about one of the labels by The Washington Times, Randy Shore, warehouse manager for J.S. Logistics, smiled and said: ?I don?t know how it got there.?

He later explained the labels would be filled in with numbers to identify their location on racks throughout the warehouse. Pressed on why the stickers were placed precisely over the ?Made in China? stamps, he added: ?That?s as good a place as any.?

?Nobody instructed me? to obscure the stamp, he insisted.

But the White House later acknowledged the stickers were affixed intentionally. White House Deputy Press Secretary Claire Buchan attributed the move to ?an overzealous volunteer.?

?Obviously, it?s not appropriate,? she added.

Asked if an overzealous volunteer was responsible for the ?MADE IN U.S.A.? backdrop, she smiled and said: ?No.?

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 22, 2003 15:02:37 ET XXXXX

PHOTO-OP COVER-UP: BOXES READ 'MADE IN CHINA' NOT 'MADE IN USA'

Hmmm, so this is how Hitler built the Third Reich, eh, Stoney?

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

[Niether were you concerned about Clinton's demonizing Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic -- the "designated bogey" -- and his associated war in the balkans since the summer of 1994.

Niether were you concerned about the escalating "high-altitude bombing" in Serbia that resulted in several buses full of civilians being destroyed, several more thousand innocents killed and the destruction of the Chinese Embassy.

Marc, I'm just curious. Did you support the US's actions against Milosevic? If you didn't, was it because the bad guy (Clinton) supported it, or for another reason?

FYI, I think that Milosevic, Kim Il Sung, and the "Butcher of Baghdad are all slimy examples of humanity and would love to see North Korea and Iraq enjoy the same "regime change" that Serbia enjoyed a few years ago. However, us invading Serbia was pretty "safe" (as was our invasion of Grenada in 1983). I'm worried about the consequences of invading Iraq, which I've expressed in other threads on this forum.

For me, it is a question of prudence, no more or less. But that might be a clue as to why some people who supported our actions in Serbia in the late nineties may have qualms about our involvement in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Jenny Genser

Marc, I'm just curious. Did you support the US's actions against Milosevic? If you didn't, was it because the bad guy (Clinton) supported it, or for another reason?

The Balkans were a European problem, but unlike Iraq, the U.S. had no strategic motivation to intervene (ie., the free flow of oil). Therefore we intervened on purely moralistic grounds (Milosevic is bad) merely because other nations refused to do so. I did not support this excursion at all.

Iraq is much different. First, because of the oil connection. Second, because America is committed to defending the only true democracy in the region (Israel). Third, because of the unfinished business Bush 41 left behind. And fourth, because Saddam poses a real threat to, not only the region but the U.S.A.

I found what Clinton did, in 1998, abhorrent. He merely launched a few bombs, on a weekend, after an entire year of debate and buildup. That is what I tried to illuminate in the Monica and Saadam II thread. It was such b.s. And for everyone to get so tweaked now only suggests one thing... Unlike Clinton, you folks think Bush might really be serious!

It's a sixties thing, I think. But, the U.S. military is not a toy, a video game, a little "wag the dog" ploy. This is very real. And you folks are just plain scared. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Where were all the protests when Clinton went after Saddam in 1998? I don't recall all this fuss back then. Or did you all secretly understand the real reason for dropping bombs on Saddam, back then?

Her name was Monica, and this selective outrage today is quite transparent, imho. You folks are nothing more than political hacks, and your supposed prinicipled stand is completely and utterly phoney bs.

Marc, your hatred is showing.

And your assertion is incorrect, at least if I am part of the "you folks" that you flamed up above.

Where was I in 1998?
I was co-chair of my county party at the time that Clinton went after Saddam, and I was far more interested in Clinton's foreign policy than I was in Monica. I was opposed to the UN sanctions against Iraq because I thought they would not work--and they have not. I am on record as saying that Bush the 1st should have finished the job in Iraq in 1991 rather than dropping the ball on the 3rd yardline and walking off the field.
But perhaps that was the best we could expect in the middle of the unraveling.

For the record, however, I was not impressed with Clinton way back in 1992 when he ran for the first time. The 60 minutes interview did not sound genuine to me and I did not vote for him or for GB the 1st.

Finally, as I have said here and on other threads, I was not on the streets this past weekend. I do not totally agree with the protesters. Never-the-less, I would defend with my life their right to protest.

But I have very mixed feelings about the Iraq venture. I would love to see Saddam ousted (as he should have been in '91) but I have family in the military and dear ones in Israel and I am concerned about their safety when this war happens. I am also concerned about the cost of this war in terms of the blood of young Americans (I have taught a few of them over the years and I hate to see them die).

I am also concerned about the the change in US policy in that this will be the first time that we have singularly and overtly pre-emptively invaded another country to overthrow its government. That will be a definite crossing of a boundary and I am concerned about what it means for us as a democracy and what it does to our values. This is a big step and I believe that there ought to be real concern about it. This is not something that should be undertaken lightly and without due deliberation. That deliberation should include Americans who oppose the war being heard.

It has been in the grand tradition of this country that at the outset of every war, there has been vociferous discussion between those for it and those opposed. It has also been true that for every successful war we have engaged in, the President of the United States made a case for the war to the American people and has thus gotten support and a consensus. In the case of stand-offs (like the Korean conflict) and losses (like Vietnam) the president did not make a case to the people, but got us gradually involved by distraction or deception. In those cases, the wars were not supported and there was dissent throughout.

Actually, I am most concerned about the draconian measures against our liberties that have been taken by the GWB administration. This is something that, regardless of opinions on the war, ought to gravely concern every American. When they put an American citizen in solitary detention and deprive him of a lawyer, effectively subverting the 700 year old Writ of Habeus Corpus, we ought to remember the famous statement from Germany of the '30's:

"First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the homosexuals, and I did not speak up because I was not a homosexual. Then they came for the Gypsies and I did not speak up because I am not a Gypsy...When they came for me, there was no one left to speak up for me." (I don't remember who said this--it was a member of the "confessing church.").

I think we ought to speak up.

Originally Posted by cbailey

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Where were all the protests when Clinton went after Saddam in 1998? I don't recall all this fuss back then. Or did you all secretly understand the real reason for dropping bombs on Saddam, back then?

Her name was Monica, and this selective outrage today is quite transparent, imho. You folks are nothing more than political hacks, and your supposed prinicipled stand is completely and utterly phoney bs.

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


Your post reminded me of a conversation that I had with my GI mother the other day. She's a school teacher, and always has been very interested in politics and current events. A few days ago she was scolding herself for not remembering much about what was going on in Iraq in the late 90's, and how she hadn't kept herself educated on Saddam and Iraq much after the Gulf War.

We both agreed that our recollection of Clinton's "dropping bombs on Saddam" was really hazy.

And why had we not paid the attention (that we should have) to this event?

Our answer, which interestingly enough was identical to the answer to Marc's question:

(HER NAME WAS) MONICA.

If Clinton was trying to divert attention from his "monica problems", it didn't work for us. :oops:

It didn't work, for the most part, except just well enough to give the news media an excuse to pretend try to portray Clinton as being involved in something 'more important' than a mere scandal.

But that was the intended purpose. In fact, almost everything Clinton did in the last two years of his term was aimed either at deflecting legal troubles or trying to produce something, anything, to be remembered for besides Monica.

If he is actually guilty of the things I suspect he is, he should be grateful that Monica is what he is remembered for.

"Marc, your hatred is showing."

Sheesh, at least when I flame I do it with some legitimacy... like a Washington Post column! :wink:

We'll pick this up on the morrow....

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by cbailey

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Where were all the protests when Clinton went after Saddam in 1998? I don't recall all this fuss back then. Or did you all secretly understand the real reason for dropping bombs on Saddam, back then?

post reminded me of a conversation that I had with my GI mother the other day. She's a school teacher, and always has been very interested in politics and current events. A few days ago she was scolding herself for not remembering much about what was going on in Iraq in the late 90's, and how she hadn't kept herself educated on Saddam and Iraq much after the Gulf War.

We both agreed that our recollection of Clinton's "dropping bombs on Saddam" was really hazy. And why had we not paid the attention (that we should have) to this event? Our answer, which interestingly enough was identical to the answer to Marc's question: (HER NAME WAS) MONICA.

Niether were you concerned about Clinton's demonizing Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic -- the "designated bogey" -- and his associated war in the balkans since the summer of 1994.

Niether were you concerned about the escalating "high-altitude bombing" in Serbia that resulted in several buses full of civilians being destroyed, several more thousand innocents killed and the destruction of the Chinese Embassy.

Of course you weren't paying attention back when Clinton was president because he was your guy and you trusted that he was doing the right thing! Oh, but now, now things are sooo much diffrerent; why that George Bush is a Republican, and Republicans are evil! Republicans want the "Greatest Generation" to eat dog food, and Republicans want to stop school lunches and stuff tobacco down our kid's throats! Republicans want to pollute our rivers and steal from the poor and give it to the rich! Yes, Bush is just like all those evil Republicans, and this war is nothing more than them lining their pockets with oil money! Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Thus you are a partisan hack, just as I said.

Stripped of the insulting language, there's a lot of truth in that observation.

Bush is doing things that make perfect sense to his base, they seem natural, rational, etc. Likewise, prior to the scandals, much of what Clinton said probably sounded sensible to his supporters. But each side considers the other to be borderline mad.

The language from the hard-core liberal Bush haters (as opposed to Stonewall and his libertarians, who fall into a different category) sounds a lot like the conservatives who hated Clinton even before it was clear that he was even worse than they thought.

Originally Posted by Jenny Genser

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

[Niether were you concerned about Clinton's demonizing Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic -- the "designated bogey" -- and his associated war in the balkans since the summer of 1994.

Niether were you concerned about the escalating "high-altitude bombing" in Serbia that resulted in several buses full of civilians being destroyed, several more thousand innocents killed and the destruction of the Chinese Embassy.

Marc, I'm just curious. Did you support the US's actions against Milosevic? If you didn't, was it because the bad guy (Clinton) supported it, or for another reason?

FYI, I think that Milosevic, Kim Il Sung, and the "Butcher of Baghdad are all slimy examples of humanity and would love to see North Korea and Iraq enjoy the same "regime change" that Serbia enjoyed a few years ago. However, us invading Serbia was pretty "safe" (as was our invasion of Grenada in 1983). I'm worried about the consequences of invading Iraq, which I've expressed in other threads on this forum.

For me, it is a question of prudence, no more or less. But that might be a clue as to why some people who supported our actions in Serbia in the late nineties may have qualms about our involvement in Iraq.

It's almost always a bad idea to go to war for purely idealistic reasons. In Serbia, we didn't, we went to war for Clinton's PR factor, and we waged the war with a constant eye on that as the core motivation.

One of the common differences between the conservative and liberal viewpoints is that conservatives see guaranteeing an oil supply, or some other pragmatic self-interested motivation, as being a more legitimate motivation than human rights. Liberals, often, see it in reverse.

It's precisely the fact that Serbia was a 'safe' action that makes the current case so much trickier, but possibly more necessary.

As I said before, I'm of divided mind about invading Iraq, but the fact remains that if Hussein gets atomic weapons, he becomes untouchable without terrible risk, and it won't be long before he has them (if he doesn't already, but I doubt he has the delivery systems perfected yet).

Israel immediately becomes hostage, and invasion unworkable. Further, let's say something out loud, yes, this is partly about oil, whatever else it may be about. When people cry, "No war for oil", they're indulging in pointless wishful thinking. Oil is one of the primary things that are fought over in the world, because it makes industrial civilization run. Yes, other possibilities exist, but the changeover will take years, cost a lot of money, and the kinks are not worked out of any of them yet.

At this point, someone usually says that we contained Stalin, so we can contain Hussein. Perhaps, but it's far from a sure thing. Hussein has less to lose than Stalin, from some points of view. Further, his particular obsessions (if we can trust the reports, which is debatable) might well lend themselves to using such weapons.

Further yet, it is perfectly plausible that Hussein might equip a terrorist group with such a weapon, and claim he didn't do it later. Nobody might believe him, but the cost of rataliation would be fearfully high.

There are several common criticisms used by the anti-war movement, most of them missing the point.

Someone usually brings up slant drilling, April Glaspie, etc, implying that the whole first Gulf War was a rigged up fraud. Even if true, it's beside the point. If Hussein gets nuclear weapons, the rules of the Middle East change. That's the situation NOW. How we got here is secondary.

We've got combat veterans saying that the war is unnecessary, and combat veterans who say it's a good idea. So that's a wash.

Some people will say that we created Hussein, helping him against Iran in the eighties. Partly true, though oversimplified. Also irrelevant.

I've even heard people complain that America has weapons of mass destruction, so how can we attack Hussein without being hypocrites! This is fundamentally a silly objection, since international politics is inherently a game of national self-interest. 'Fair' is not relevant. Consistency matters only as far as self-interest calls for it. That's not nice, but it's the way international politics actually work.

Some will maintain that Bush is doing the whole thing for the sake of his own numbers and power base, the way Clinton would have (though Clinton would have chosen a 'safe' target for that, this is highly risky on Bush's part, even from a self-interested standpoint). It might be true, though the risk personal political risk-factor argues against it, but again, it doesn't alter the problem of what happens if Hussein gets nuclear bombs and delivery systems.

Some people have said that only the UN has the right to take action. The UN was specifically designed to rubber stamp great power decisions, so looking to the UN for anything serious is probably futile. Certainly it's not going to be the deciding factor in this business. It has no power.

The central question: which is more dangerous, to act or to not act? I'm honestly unsure, myself, but Bush's arguments DO make sense. With the world shrunken in travel time and effective size as it is, beefing up our defenses and withdrawing from out engagement with the world is probably not workable. Ironically, many of the same people calling for that now were calling for massive disarmament five years ago. But now, they've yet to present an alternative to Bush's ideas that don't seem contrived or desperate.

If you look at the leadership of the anti-war movement, we tend to find the hard-core liberal Left. That silly commercial running lately, playing off the old anti-Goldwater ad, was the creation of MoveOn at MoveOn.org, with was originally an anti-impeachment group organized to defend Clinton, for ex.

These people hate the idea of the war more because Bush is leading it than for any more 'principled' reason. The anti-war movement is going to have to find a broader base, and a way to divorce itself from the 'free Mumia' crowd, if they want to stop Bush.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

The Balkans were a European problem, but unlike Iraq, the U.S. had no strategic motivation to intervene (ie., the free flow of oil). Therefore we intervened on purely moralistic grounds (Milosevic is bad) merely because other nations refused to do so. I did not support this excursion at all.

United States had to intervene, because the Europeans did not want to intervene for various reasons (The Euro left are wussy pacficists and the Euro Right hates the Kosovar Albanians, because they are mainly Muslim). Really striking contrast with Australia's reponse with Indonesian backed Militas trashing of East Timor, even the left which are normally pacfist wanted to intervene, because independence for East Timor has been an Australian leftist (read Socialist or Environmentalist) dream for many years.

The rest of the western world may grumble about US power, however they deep inside know that excercising of US power is necessary to keep the world from sinking into the anarchy which occured in the 1919-1945 period.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

The Balkans were a European problem, but unlike Iraq, the U.S. had no strategic motivation to intervene (ie., the free flow of oil). Therefore we intervened on purely moralistic grounds (Milosevic is bad) merely because other nations refused to do so. I did not support this excursion at all.

United States had to intervene, because the Europeans did not want to intervene for various reasons (The Euro left are wussy pacficists and the Euro Right hates the Kosovar Albanians, because they are mainly Muslim). Really striking contrast with Australia's reponse with Indonesian backed Militas trashing of East Timor, even the left which are normally pacfist wanted to intervene, because independence for East Timor has been an Australian leftist (read Socialist or Environmentalist) dream for many years.

The rest of the western world may grumble about US power, however they deep inside know that excercising of US power is necessary to keep the world from sinking into the anarchy which occured in the 1919-1945 period.

As a matter of fact, that Kosovo BS was likely about oil as well. Early on, a Pentagon spokesman came on and stated that the whole thing was intended to prove that this pipeline could be built across Kosovo. Then, poof, you never saw the guy again!

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

As a matter of fact, that Kosovo BS was likely about oil as well. Early on, a Pentagon spokesman came on and stated that the whole thing was intended to prove that this pipeline could be built across Kosovo. Then, poof, you never saw the guy again!

Interesting, I dunno what that guy's motives was. However I was explaining the main reason for the US interventing in Kosovo. The Clinton and a lot of Americians could not stand by while hundreds of thousands of Albanians were being chased out of Kosovo by Yugoslavia Army. It is true in the sorry saga of the breakup of Yugoslav, there were no good guys or bad guys, however some groups are mostly blameless for this sorry saga (Bosnian Muslim, Slovenians and the Albanians) and some groups should get most of the blame (The Serbs and lesser degree Croats).

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

The rest of the western world may grumble about US power, however they deep inside know that excercising of US power is necessary to keep the world from sinking into the anarchy which occured in the 1919-1945 period.

The unfortunate truth seems to be that they have forgotten this. The gratitude that elder europeans expressed towards the USA has been replaced by a perception of arrogance, borishness and crass materialism. With this perception, the world wide reaction to our war plans in Iraq is not only understandable, but predictable. They also have forgotten the enormous financial sacrifice we endured for decades to effectively stalmate Soviet aggression. Now, there is outright resentment of our military might and political influence.

If our public relations in the Arabic countries has been a disaster, then it has been only slightly less so with the rest of the world. We had a sympathy card to play for awhile and that held us through Afghanistan. However, in the international spirit of "no good deed shall go unpunished", we can hardly expect any support for our actions in the long term.

Isolating the United States in the beginning of it's 4t is a pretty stupid thing to do, but it looks like that's the direction we're headed.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

IOne of the common differences between the conservative and liberal viewpoints is that conservatives see guaranteeing an oil supply, or some other pragmatic self-interested motivation, as being a more legitimate motivation than human rights. Liberals, often, see it in reverse.

In the case of the (first?) Gulf War, there was minimally a successfully propagated perception that Saddam had aggressed upon a neighbor (in spite of April Glaspie and all that). The US did not come out of nowhere as the aggressor, scavenging for oil, at least not in the public's mind. Given that most people perceived (rightly or wrongly) that another nation had initiated hostilities, then, yes, conservatives could support US military intervention strictly on the grounds of self-interest in maintaining regional stability and the free flow of oil at market prices. I still called myself a conservative at the time and I fully supported the Gulf War for precisely these reasons (and, for whatever reason, my mind refused to absorb or accept Glaspie's testimony and the other "funny stuff").

But today, the US is the aggressor. There is no denying this. It is obvious to the rest of the world (and it is also obvious to all Americans who do not have their partisan blinders on). Because it is so blatantly obvious, the US cannot begin to reassemble the coalition which so easily fell into place 12 years ago. Many of these nations now look at the US with some degree of horror fearing justifiably that they might be next on the Bush people's make-it-up-as-they-go-along list. The US under the Bush people has now ceased to proceed under even the slightest pretense of observing protocols; acting honorably, rationally, and fairly; and pursuing just war. The US is now correctly perceived as an out-of-control, lumbering giant, imposing its will with the grossest caprice.

This is now a totally different ballgame. Yes, conservatives have supported pursuing self-interest in war in the past. But they never supported it with the perception that the US was acting aggressively in initiating hostilities. This is key. When the US was never perceived as the aggressor, conservatives never needed to question the morality of US intervention. Moreover they never needed to entertain the notion that they personally (and the nation at large) might suffer retribution from newly aggrieved enemies. Reprisals are motivated by being wronged. Since it was perceived by conservatives that nobody out there was being wronged by the US, there was no need to even consider the possibility of reprisals here at home.

So the rules under which the US government acts (are at least perceived to) have changed. Conservatives in the past would not have knowingly supported aggressive warfare. Now they are faced with a moral dilemma. The principled ones cannot support this current aggressive imperialism, at least not enthusiastically. The only ones jumping on the immoral Bush bandwagon hardcore are conservative Boomers in the main because, for these conservative Boomers uniquely, politics is less about ideas than it is about personalities and "marginalizing" those whom they arbitrarily choose to despise for their painfully irrelevant manners, mores, and genitalia. Frankly, it is childish; it is basically arrested development; little kids kicking sand. But such individuals form the bulk of today's mindless Bush cheering section.

So the consequence is that the rest of the world is alienated by the rise of the US as nothing but a capricious "bully" which will honor no law, standard, or protocol. They have justifiable concerns for their safety and wellbeing given the new US unpredictability. They will increasingly draw together against the US. And Americans will justifiably become hesitant about visiting other nations, fearing for their safety. Here at home, the "conservative" coalition further fractures. All that is left securely in the GOP tent is a bunch of loud yahoos, overwhelmingly of the Boomer persuasion, motivated now solely by their childish desire to "marginalize" those who demonstrate greater libido than they, even if it requires adopting the "Stalinist" [sic] agenda of these hated ones who "get more action." We face great danger for Americans abroad and for the nation in general. And we face mounting domestic unrest here at home. All because the former internationalist game which princpled conservatives could support (non-aggressive pursuit of self-interest) is no longer operative. The old rules no longer apply because the US policy is no longer morally sound in principled conservative eyes.

As I said before, I'm of divided mind about invading Iraq, but the fact remains that if Hussein gets atomic weapons, he becomes untouchable without terrible risk, and it won't be long before he has them (if he doesn't already, but I doubt he has the delivery systems perfected yet).

He has not even conducted a nuclear test much less perfected a delivery system! Iraq was disarmed after the Gulf War, for godsake! Iraq is no danger to the US whatsoever. Israelis, who actually live in the region, are of divided mind about whether Iraq even poses a genuine threat to them!

Israel immediately becomes hostage, and invasion unworkable.

Saddam cannot do a damn thing to Israel unless he launches a few Scuds. And he knows that to do so would be suicidal. But, hey, now the Bush administration's aggression has actually given him reason to pursue this option. In the absence of the Bush people, Israel need fear nothing from Iraq as that Israeli general explained so well.

Further, let's say something out loud, yes, this is partly about oil, whatever else it may be about. When people cry, "No war for oil", they're indulging in pointless wishful thinking. Oil is one of the primary things that are fought over in the world, because it makes industrial civilization run. Yes, other possibilities exist, but the changeover will take years, cost a lot of money, and the kinks are not worked out of any of them yet.

Yes, but the US has never waged aggressive war before in pursuit of oil, at least not in the public's mind. What the Bush people are doing now is no different from what Hitler did in Europe in the years leading up to the invasion of Poland.

At this point, someone usually says that we contained Stalin, so we can contain Hussein. Perhaps, but it's far from a sure thing. Hussein has less to lose than Stalin, from some points of view.

But there is NOTHING Hussein can do to us!

Further, his particular obsessions (if we can trust the reports, which is debatable) might well lend themselves to using such weapons.

Only if the Bush administration makes it worth his while through this aggression. Otherwise, it is suicidal for him. If Saddam manages to kill your grandmother through proxies in response to this aggression, you can thank Junior, Poppy, Unka Dick, and Cousin Karl. The blood is on their hands.

Further yet, it is perfectly plausible that Hussein might equip a terrorist group with such a weapon, and claim he didn't do it later.

Only if the Bush administration proceeds with this aggression. Otherwise, it is suicidal for him.

Someone usually brings up slant drilling, April Glaspie, etc, implying that the whole first Gulf War was a rigged up fraud. Even if true, it's beside the point. If Hussein gets nuclear weapons, the rules of the Middle East change.

Hussein is years away from testing such a weapon much less devising a delivery system.

That's the situation NOW.

Yes, the situation NOW is that Saddam poses absolutely no threat to the US. That will change the moment the Bush people back him into a corner in pursuit of their treasure.

We've got combat veterans saying that the war is unnecessary, and combat veterans who say it's a good idea. So that's a wash.

I do not recall such a large number of combat veterans opposing such an action before. Therefore it is far from a wash. And we do not need combat veterans to show us what danger this Bush administration's pride and avarice poses for all of us in the long term as they proceed to unite the rest of the world against us.

Some people will say that we created Hussein, helping him against Iran in the eighties. Partly true, though oversimplified. Also irrelevant.

Well, it would sure be nice if Rumsfeld, Cheney et al. would be HONEST about the whole thing seeing as they might get a whole lot of us killed in response to this foolishness.

I've even heard people complain that America has weapons of mass destruction, so how can we attack Hussein without being hypocrites! This is fundamentally a silly objection, since international politics is inherently a game of national self-interest.

Self-interest is an invalid defense for military aggression.

'Fair' is not relevant. Consistency matters only as far as self-interest calls for it. That's not nice, but it's the way international politics actually work.

No, international politics does not tolerate military aggression! That is why a coalition was successfully formed when it was at least perceived that Iraq had aggressed on Kuwait 12 years ago. Will these nations now coalesce in opposition to us in response to the Bush people's aggression???

Some will maintain that Bush is doing the whole thing for the sake of his own numbers and power base, the way Clinton would have (though Clinton would have chosen a 'safe' target for that, this is highly risky on Bush's part, even from a self-interested standpoint). It might be true, though the risk personal political risk-factor argues against it,

No, it doesn't. The primary objective of this Bush administration is to keep the American public distracted from the economy and scandals. They will stretch this thing out for as long as they can get away with it. The mercantilists see no hurry in seizing that black gold. They just need to keep the impatient neo-cons cool. Work it, work it, work that distraction all the way into E2004! That is the name of Herr Rove's game.

but again, it doesn't alter the problem of what happens if Hussein gets nuclear bombs and delivery systems.

Utterly absurd. His nuke program was dismantled and destroyed after the Gulf War and he is nowhere near testing a damn thing much less coming up with a delivery system.

Some people have said that only the UN has the right to take action. The UN was specifically designed to rubber stamp great power decisions, so looking to the UN for anything serious is probably futile. Certainly it's not going to be the deciding factor in this business. It has no power.

Screw the UN! But there is still no excuse for aggressive war on the US's or any other nation's part. Even with UN support, the Bush administration is still wrong!

The central question: which is more dangerous, to act or to not act?

Initiating aggression is always the most dangerous path. There is absolutely no danger to us here minus the pride and avarice of the Bush people.

I'm honestly unsure, myself, but Bush's arguments DO make sense.

No, they don't. They are all over the map (which of course they would have to be since there is no valid excuse for their aggression in the first place). Bush administration's reasons (changing by the minute, TBA): Jehovah's Witnesses -> Candygram -> Floral delivery -> Girl Scouts -> Land Shark.

With the world shrunken in travel time and effective size as it is, beefing up our defenses and withdrawing from out engagement with the world is probably not workable.

No, it is the only workable plan. Our troops do not belong out there in the first place.

Blogger, Steven Hayward, author of The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order comments on yesterday's Michael Kelly piece and George Orwell:

Others blogs have linked to Michael Kelly?s spendid vivisection of the so-called "anti-war" march last weekend. I thought, since it is the centennial of George Orwell?s birth, that it would be worthwhile to recall some of Orwell?s observations about supposed pacifists and anti-British sentiment in Britain during World War II. (This year is the centennial of Orwell?s birth, and I have made it a winter reading project to read his collected works, which I picked up used several years ago.)

This, from The Lion and the Unicorn in 1941, which sounds very much like a description of the American Left today:

"In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions form Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionable true, that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during ?God Save the King? that stealing from a poor box."

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Initiating aggression is always the most dangerous path.

As usual, Stonewall ignores the unbroken history of aggression between the U.S. and Iraq all through the years 1991 through 2003.

(1) The map of Iraq is not the map of a sovereign nation. With the American occupation of the north, and the "No-Fly" zones, the map of Iraq is more akin to what Germany would have been like if we left Hitler in power in a small region around Berlin, under an agreement that he would disarm. The so-called "end" of the Gulf War was a botch job by the silents, who couldn't decide whether they wanted completely out (and to hell with the Iraqi people), or they wanted Saddam out (and take the consequences as they come), so they went for the screwed-up hodge-podge that gives Stonewall fits. In this, we agree.

(2) The actions of the regime in Iraq are not those of an authority that we or the world should feel obliged to respect. Iraq is ruled by a murderous insane regime no better than the perpetrators of the genocide in Rwanda. The regime has no legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people, as any honest reporter who has spent time there will attest. To have any sense of deference to such a tyrant is quite un-American of Stonewall, contrary to the spirit of Americans towards tyrants since 1776. If Saddam was any damn good, his people would not have to fear having their ears cut off and their daughters raped by governement decree. To hell with Saddam and his "rights". Anyone who feels more hostility towards Karl Rove than towards Saddam Hussein has lost touch with reality. How many ears has Karl Rove cut off, Stoney?

(3) The state of affairs between Iraq and the U.S. are not the state of peace. With the constant attacks and counterattacks that have been going on since 1991, as well as the fact that technically there was no peace treaty (but only a cease-fire, the terms of which have been repeatedly violated by Iraq), no honest observer could argue that there is any "peace" to be broken, only a war to be finally finished, or finally abandoned.

Hopeful, you are probably too young to remember the WMD policies of the early 1980's.

The idea being floated to sell the Iraq War is that Saddam is a great threat to the US should he get WMD. Twenty years ago, this same idea was advanced about the Russkies, who ALREADY had WMDs, lots of them, pointing at us. The Russkies were an evil empire, far worse than the axis of evil in terms of the threat they posed. It was universally believed by conservatives (and some liberals such as myslef) that the Commies in Russia would use their WMDs if threathened with regime change. I believed this myself. Well we were wrong, the Commies went down w/o firing a shot.

Now that the Cold War is over, it has been revealed what we covertly knew about the Russkies. We knew they were as afraid of us as we were of them and that both of us were mightily deterred from that final dance. But that is not how it was sold to the American people then. It was not what I believed (I tend to be conservative in foreign policy matters). I based my views on the publicly-available data, which didn't tell a complete story.

The same situation hold true of Iraq today. The idea of WMDs falling into Saddam's hands is being employed as the reason for this war. I don't buy it at all. First of all, he has been trying to get them for 25 years and was closer to it in 1990 than today (since he had a free rein to act then). If WMDs and Saddam were a real threat we would have taken out Saddam in 1991. This is obvious.

And the general issue of WMDs in the hands of evil dictators is shown by our tepid reaction to North Korea, who probably has several bombs and the means to deliver them. Washington isn't particularly concerned.

No, the real problem is terrorism. The solution the Bush adminstration has come up with is the WOT. This is not a shooting war (although military means are employed at times), but rather a "moral equivalent of war" like the War on Drugs. (A lot of the insider details for the Bush adminstration here I got from the recent book Bush at War--its fascinating--I highly recommend it). The analysis is my own.

Saddam is not (mainly) a threat to us because he might supply terrorists with WMD. He is a threat to us because of the embargo. Bascially the first Bush adminstration screwed the pooch. They left Saddam in power, but then boxed him in so tightly that he couldn't directly threaten anyone. The idea was that he would be so humiliated that he would lose support and be overthrown. Well it didn't work. Eleven years later he was still there, and still boxed in so we can't get another coalition to take him out like we did in 1990 (this was the situation before 911).

As a result we have troops in Saudi Arabia, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's have died as a result of the embargo. These facts serve as a focusing point for Arab resentments (lots of these--read about the post-WW I Middle East and you will see the origin of much of it). We need to get out troops out of Saudi Arabia and end the goddam embargo. But we can't do either as long as Saddam is still there. So he's gotta go. These issue were brought to VERY clear focus by 911. My first thought was "we are at war" when I heard about the attack. So was the President's. I then went on to think about other things. The President did not, he's can't, its his job to keep thinking about it.

Right after 911, the adminstration brought up the issue of let's hang 911 on both Saddam and UBL and go after Iraq now. This was what I thought we should do, and Rumsfeld favored this approach. But Cheney (the #1 hawk) wouldn't support him. Powell was opposed and so was Tenet, so it went down in the vote and Bush took it off the agenda for now. Thus the immediate military response was solely against Afghanistan.

But there was a major CIA offensive worldwide. There are many regimes who bad mouth the US publicly, but who closely co-operate with our government behind the scenes. It is no accident that there have been no further terrorist attacks. They have been decimated by the covert WOT.

Most of this is secret, but the Afghanistan operations has been partially revealed. The CIA was in there almost right away, with an extremely potent weapon--suitcases full of cash. The first Taliban losses were the loss of 1400 troops through defection effected by a CIA bribe, before the bombs had even started to fall.

Once the bombs started it got even more intense. One warlord was offered $50,000 to turn sides. he said he wanted to sleep on it. So the Air Force dropped a bomb right next to his HQ to help "focus his mind". The next day he settled for $40,000.

In all some $70 million of CIA cash was spread arround, where, with the additional "persuasion" of US smart munitions, the Taliban lines were perforated and then collapsed, and the Northern Alliance poured through. At the time the Taliban fell there were only some 300-400 US troops in Afghanistan. Today they are some 7000.

Last spring the CIA went into Iraq with more suitcases.

A successful "war" in Iraq would see Saddam resign and go into exile. The suitcases are there. Now some "mind-focusing" persuasion is needed. Bush must reprise his wild-ass cowboy unilateralist role to "help focus Saddam's mind". And if he refuses to budge then he is going to have to go in there, not just with targetted munitions, but "boots on the ground". (My understanding is there are already some 300,000 boots in the region). There may be no other way to dislodge the sonofabitch.

All this ties into the saeculum--specifically the war cycle. I wrote in my book back in Sept 2001 that the WOT would go much easier than people thought because of our current position is the World Power phase of the war cycle, when hegemonic power is at its maximum. As the President promised, we will prevail.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Where were all the protests when Clinton went after Saddam in 1998? I don't recall all this fuss back then. Or did you all secretly understand the real reason for dropping bombs on Saddam, back then?

Few protested Clinton's bombing of Iraq and of Serbia because the public was not interested in public events, and were totally content to leave it up to the government. Not very many people protested against Papa Bush's war either. Reagan was treated far better in this regard. Recall the amount of media coverage that wars in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, and other nations received.

The different today is that there is much more interest in political matters today than during the 1980s and 1990s. The anti-war demonstrations also show how the community is able to mobilize for an effort, with many noting how quickly an organized movement got off the ground, even with the fact that the war has yet to begin. Would this ever happen in the 1980s and 1990s? Well, recall the reaction against the Iran-Contra Affair, a very severe issue. Like a 3T event, it was quickly deferred, even though the issue itself was severe. Imagine a similar scandal popping up today. Would it be deferred in the same way? I very highly doubt it.

Also, the anti-war protests no longer attract just the fringe left, but now, they are attracting mainstream Americans, and even conservative Americans. People who have voted FOR Bush are speaking out against the war. Most who are speaking against the war are speaking from pro-American convictions rather than anti-American sentiment.

Nice analysis there, Mike. Obvioulsy the Bush administration is following the Nazi tactics to a tee. Your analysis will give Stoney much ammo in his fight with those "human vermin in the White House."

As for me, I especially loved this little ditty, "One warlord was offered $50,000 to turn sides. he said he wanted to sleep on it. So the Air Force dropped a bomb right next to his HQ to help "focus his mind". The next day he settled for $40,000."

Yep, this is just the way those evil Nazis operated their Gestapo. What's amazing is how this stuff got out. There must be a mole of some sort in the White House. Needless to say, if he/she gets caught, there will be some kind of mind focusing reprisal. :wink:

Sieg Heil!

Originally Posted by madscientist

Not very many people protested against Papa Bush's war either.

Actually, kid, this may surprise you, but I heard that MORE people protested against Papa Bush's war then are protesting now.

Like many statistical facts, this will be hard for me to back up, and if you don't believe me, I'm not sure I care enough to track down hard numbers.

That said, the demonstrations in Washington D.C., for example, were much larger in terms of number of partipants in 1990 then the paltry few who demonstrated last weekend (during which, for example, it was noted that you would hardly realize a protest was happening if you were a mere block away.)