Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by monoghan

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

There is no real sunshine in the Iraqi desert. Peter Arnett is repudiated for saying what is really true: America didn?t expect the Iraqis to fight back. And now we?re in one hell of a mess, and we can?t stand reporters telling us that. My God, we are so self-righteous! It?s very hard to find a good argument that we are not cruising right into a 4T crisis.

So can we close this thread, now? Any 3T advocates still out there?

Peter Arnett and Geraldo. Both reported on Gulf War I. Arnett gets canned for doing what got him a Pulitzer in Gulf War I.

Gee, coulda swore Arnett's prize was Vietnam, not the horrendous, stupendous, 100 hour Gulf War I.

No matter. I thought it was Nomads, like Arnold, McClellan and Lindbergh, who proved to be the backstabbers in a fourth. Not Artists. :wink:

p.s. Put me down firmly in the 3T camp, where I've been all along. And thus remain.

That's what I thought :-)... good to have your company ;-)

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

There is no doubt we are in a 4T now. 911 was certainly the catalyst, not because of the horror and tragedy of the event itself (horrible things can and do happen in all turnings), but because of Bush's subsequent obsession with avenging all terrorists to the point of eradicating terrorism where none actually existed (Saddam and Iraq).

I'm going to present another scary thought. What would you say if I told you that I have been told that there is one of the economic advisors in the Bush Adminstration (I forget his name right now) who is very aware of S&H's generational and turning theories? Furthermore, would you entertain the idea that the current Adminstration is not only aware of generations and turnings, but using their knowledge to push things along?

King Bush is an obsessive personality, and doesn't let go easily. He does not forgive easily (Saddam's threat on his father's life during the Gulf war), and he is extremely obstinate. He is the prototypical Boomer president, self-righteous and overconfident. He has grossly underestimated the power of the Iraqis, and overestimated America's infallibility--and now the sh*t has really hit the fan. There is no turning back now to 3T ways, as there may have been after 911 had he reacted differently. This is not the catalyst--it's the regeneracy.

I don't think we've reached regeneracy yet. I think we're at Brian Rush's "fulcrum". Regeneracy is coming soon, but not here yet.

All the generational pieces are in place: what Silents remain in governmental power have been rendered weak and ineffectual; they blindly follow Bush's conservative agenda.

Well, the ones chosen by Bush are. FWIW, they're doing for Boomers exactly the same thing they did for GI's--providing expertise.

Boomers are nearly at the height of their power, and they revel in that power--and in their righteousness.

It's going to get worse.

Al Gore is a Boomer, and while he could not have completely avoided a 4T, it would have come later, and 911 may not have been the catalyst. He would have reacted only when absolutely necessary--not due to his own obstinacy and obsessive personality.

He might have stalled the full force of the 4T, since he probably might have used his knowledge of "Generations" to slow things down a bit instead of speeding things up. But we still would be in 4T. It just wouldn't look like this.

Xers everywhere are rounding up the wagons. Even the young ones in their 20s are settling down and having families now. Their young children are watched very closely in these difficult times. A few are entering the political arena, and are offering pragmatic solutions to the country's problems. Many are serving in the war itself, as officers and soldiers. Some, like Justin, oppose the war, and have become involved in anti-war activities. But their protests, unlike the Boomers who protested Vietnam, will go largely unheard and ignored. This is sad.
They are not saying "whatever" anymore. In a 4T, Nomads do care.

Many of the young soldiers in Iraq now are Millennials. So are many of the protesters. They are principled and believe in cooperative action, no matter whether they are for or against this war.

Yes, the generations are finally lining up and we're getting fully into the 4T mood, but after the catalyst. According to orthodox S&H theory, the lining up should have happened first. It didn't. That means that, while generational constellations are important in mood, they're not what's driving the saeculum. I'm with Mike A. that economic cycles are more likely drivers.

So while 911 didn't have to be the catalyst, it was, because of King Bush's reaction to it and to terrorism in general.

IMHO, it was going to be the catalyst, that or the recession coming out of the stock market. Remember, I was Mike and DMMcG's first convert here to the idea of 18-year turnings, and that happened even before 911!

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

I'm going to present another scary thought. What would you say if I told you that I have been told that there is one of the economic advisors in the Bush Adminstration (I forget his name right now) who is very aware of S&H's generational and turning theories? Furthermore, would you entertain the idea that the current Adminstration is not only aware of generations and turnings, but using their knowledge to push things along?

I think it has been patently obvious. Were you surprised?

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

I'm going to present another scary thought. What would you say if I told you that I have been told that there is one of the economic advisors in the Bush Adminstration (I forget his name right now) who is very aware of S&H's generational and turning theories? Furthermore, would you entertain the idea that the current Adminstration is not only aware of generations and turnings, but using their knowledge to push things along?

I think it has been patently obvious. Were you surprised?

Excuse my ignorance, Vince and Stoney, but which economic advisor would that be?
Though I can't say it surprises me.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

I'm going to present another scary thought. What would you say if I told you that I have been told that there is one of the economic advisors in the Bush Adminstration (I forget his name right now) who is very aware of S&H's generational and turning theories? Furthermore, would you entertain the idea that the current Adminstration is not only aware of generations and turnings, but using their knowledge to push things along?

I think it has been patently obvious. Were you surprised?

Excuse my ignorance, Vince and Stoney, but which economic advisor would that be?
Though I can't say it surprises me.

I don't know. I just meant that it has been patently obvious that Junior's handlers are using S&H's works. Hell, there have been too many times where somebody has posted something here and then Junior has regurgitated the exact same subject and phraseology from his script within 24 hours. Coincidence? Maybe.... Bwahahahahahahah!

Well McCarthyites,

Arnett was canned for saying what he thought was the truth. At least he has been to Iraq, and seen what goes on there, as opposed to most in the administration who seek a need to liberate a place they've never even visited.
This strategy is fundamentally flawed. The idea that the US can stretch its power all around the globe and remake it to its likeness can't hold water. Other countries have different values, different religions. Take a look at the French, the Romans, the Soviets.
Like I said on another thread, if Henry Hyde and his evil monsters even touch Brazil I'll be down there with my guitar ready to do battle.

It all comes crumbling down. In a way it has already begun to.
My dream scenario is where the US leaves the region, and Iraqi nationalists oust Saddam Hussein and truly liberate Iraq.
By the way, Pisces is a messy, pessimistic, pissy sign.
Take it from another water sign Scorpio, who lives with a Cancerian.

Bush is a Cancerian. Maybe thats why he looks like a B movie actor when he tries to act all tough.

Hey Bush us Liberals are coming. We are coming for you. One day Texas will be free!


Actually I think the peace movement is the hope for the future.
If we can marginalize the neoconservatives ( a small group in terms of those who are their opponents) and the islamic fundamentalists (another tiny group) and declare some kind of war against BOTH of them, we could pretty much bring the whole world into some kind of univeral victory against stupidity.

We can kill the "for us or against us" rhetoric in one swoop.
Who's with me?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

8)

J

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

I'm going to present another scary thought. What would you say if I told you that I have been told that there is one of the economic advisors in the Bush Adminstration (I forget his name right now) who is very aware of S&H's generational and turning theories? Furthermore, would you entertain the idea that the current Adminstration is not only aware of generations and turnings, but using their knowledge to push things along?

Leading up to the November elections last year, Mr. Vince Lamb, aka The Pervert, posted five stories about a hot new book called The Emerging Democratic Majority. His last post, entitled "Marc will like this...," included the following observation: "Also, there's evidence here that Karl Rove, at least, has not read S&H. Otherwise, he wouldn't be trying to compare today to 1896--wrong turning entirely!"

1896, eh? In The New Republic, the "Majority" authors summed it up as follows:

In Rove's mind, September 11 has reinforced the parallel: Bush's war on terrorism is the political equivalent of McKinley's Spanish-American War. As U.S. News & World Report columnist Michael Barone wrote in February, Rove "looks back to William McKinley, who was elected with 51 percent of the vote in 1896 but whose successful war and domestic policies built that up to a solid majority for years ahead." And the current financial scandals are merely a bump along that inevitable road. The scandals, Rove told NBC's Tim Russert on July 13, are a "business problem ... not a political scandal" and will not affect the underlying movement toward a new Republican majority. Rove is half right. He's correct that we are in a transformational political era that displays marked similarities to 1896." -- John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira, THE COMING DEMOCRATIC DOMINANCE

After getting skunked in November, it's been widely rumored that many Democrats began burning their copies of the Judis/Teixeira "Emerging" thesis. Since those dark days, the Democrats have opted for a more "kinder, gentler" approach to keeping their hopes of a Bush 'crash and burn' alive: Like opposing "Bush's War," digesting every word printed in The New York Times, and citing an unnamed "economic advisors in the Bush Adminstration... who is very aware of S&H's generational and turning theories," and believes that, despite of Rove's success, the president is really angling to be the next FDR.

P.r.e.t.t.y f.u.n.n.y. :wink:

If our global rebel movement could get some heavy hitting countries behind us, who have guns, we could really fuck some shit up, peacefully and democratically of course.

Why, I'd bet both sides in the Columbian civil war would back us up!
Canadian nationalists, and Quebec nationalists.

We could save the whole world.

It would be beautiful. Oh I am a genius.

Our slogan can be
*Orgy tie in..ahem***

HUMP OR DEATH!

J

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Furthermore, would you entertain the idea that the current Adminstration is not only aware of generations and turnings, but using their knowledge to push things along?

After getting skunked in November, it's been widely rumored that many Democrats began burning their copies of the Judis/Teixeira "Emerging" thesis. Since those dark days, the Democrats have opted for a more "kinder, gentler" approach to keeping their hopes of a Bush 'crash and burn' alive: Like opposing "Bush's War," digesting every word printed in The New York Times, and citing unnamed "economic advisors in the Bush Adminstration... who is very aware of S&H's generational and turning theories," and believes that, despite of Rove's success, the president is really angling to be the next FDR. P.r.e.t.t.y f.u.n.n.y.

Oops. I failed to include the Meece's Thesis: "Uranus has moved into Pisces. Pisces is the worst possible sign; a classic symbol of quagmires; historically verifiable. Bush waited too long; he should have struck in mid-February, and gotten it over with in a week or two--- if he could have done so (which I doubt). In any case, now it is too late. It's going to be a mess, it looks like!"

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN!

Astrology, the last refuge of the hopeless. :wink:

Lamb, who are you to piss on astrology? You probably think Jesus was the son of God, and he "rose from the grave" and all that jazz.
I have read that only a Gemini could pull that off. And Jesus was not only a Jew, good Christians, but a Capricorn as well.

Watch out for Lambo, Meece.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Originally Posted by Justino

Actually I think the peace movement is the hope for the future.
If we can marginalize the neoconservatives ( a small group in terms of those who are their opponents) and the islamic fundamentalists (another tiny group) and declare some kind of war against BOTH of them, we could pretty much bring the whole world into some kind of univeral victory against stupidity.

We can kill the "for us or against us" rhetoric in one swoop.
Who's with me?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

I'm with you, sweetie, as always.

Count me in...'cept for the sweetie part.

--Croaker

Originally Posted by Justino

Lamb, who are you to piss on astrology? You probably think Jesus was the son of God, and he "rose from the grave" and all that jazz.
I have read that only a Gemini could pull that off. And Jesus was not only a Jew, good Christians, but a Capricorn as well.

I remember learning in school that it was thought that Jesus was actually born in the spring (or was it the fall?). His "birthday" was simply moved to coincide with the pagan solstice orgy (Saturnalia?). If he actually was born in the spring, then he may have been a Gemini. But I'll bet Meece will claim that he necessarily must have been a Pisces.

BTW, I just read something which claimed that he actually was born in December. Who knows?

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Justino

Lamb, who are you to piss on astrology? You probably think Jesus was the son of God, and he "rose from the grave" and all that jazz.
I have read that only a Gemini could pull that off. And Jesus was not only a Jew, good Christians, but a Capricorn as well.

I remember learning in school that it was thought that Jesus was actually born in the spring (or was it the fall?). His "birthday" was simply moved to coincide with the pagan solstice orgy (Saturnalia?). If he actually was born in the spring, then he may have been a Gemini. But I'll bet Meece will claim that he necessarily must have been a Pisces.

BTW, I just read something which claimed that he actually was born in December. Who knows?

All this kvetching about a 2000 year-old rabbi is a waste of time, yet I have an opinion. Everything was based on the Roman census. If anything pertinent and Roman still exists, try relating dates to headcounts in Bethlehem.

Originally Posted by Justino

It all comes crumbling down. In a way it has already begun to.
My dream scenario is where the US leaves the region, and Iraqi nationalists oust Saddam Hussein and truly liberate Iraq.
By the way, Pisces is a messy, pessimistic, pissy sign.
Take it from another water sign Scorpio, who lives with a Cancerian.

Nice quatrain, dude. But you gotta give it more of an f'ed up Haiku burnt-out hippie sound. Like this:

Fire from the sky with Betelguese in Uranus.
Sakura and sake in the New City.
Hister meets Mabus as the eagle flies.
Toranaga and Anjin-san climb Mount Niitaka.

Dear Justino,

Perhaps reading the story of The Astrologers of Baghdad will shed some light on the mystery?

"The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom."

Personally, I can't help recalling the "shock and awe" of it all.


Destruction of Saddam Hussein's Presidential Palace



HTH. :wink:

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

There is no doubt we are in a 4T now. 911 was certainly the catalyst. (snip, snip) Even if we are not attacked from the outside, the country is falling apart from within, and now it's only getting worse. The Red Zone (pro-Bush, pro-war) and Blue zones (anti-Bush, anti-war) are drawing ever farther apart, and the nation may not stay intact. It would not surprise me if the Blue Zone actually seceded from the nation. (snip) I am not joking about this.

Also, any nation that has been weakened from within is all the more prone to be attacked from the outside. We pose less of a threat. (snip, snip) Giuliani, to me, would be an excellent candidate for a Gray Champion; Hillary Clinton is another. (snip, snip) Many of the young soldiers in Iraq now are Millennials. So are many of the protesters. They are principled and believe in cooperative action, no matter whether they are for or against this war.

Concerning 9/11 being the catalyst for a 4T, I quite agree. As for the rest, I wasn't sure what to say at first. At first, I thought that maybe you were just expressing your anger over the Iraq War. Now that I have thought it over, I fear you may be right about the possibility of a Civil War II later in the Crisis. After all, if you look at the roll call of events relating to the Red Zone/Blue Zone split, (the Oklahoma City bombing, the Clinton Impeachment, E2K, the short duration of the country's illusion of unity after 9/11, and now the deepening rift over the War in Iraq, just to name a few), the record is clear that the mutual hatred is there, and nearing levels last seen in the US about a century and a half ago. Also, there is the fact that I feel that Boomers, as a generation, bear more resemblance in collective personality to Transcendentals than to Missionaries. I remember back in the 90s that I could tell a liberal from a right-winger by mentioning the idea of another Civil War (liberals would dismiss the idea as utter nonsense, while right-wingers would often say something like, 'Bring it on.'). Now, with you and one other liberal no longer so willing to dismiss the idea out of hand (Eric Meece), I would say that the rift between the two is growing worse. Especially given that a big part of the basis for the illusion of unity mentioned above was the expectation on each side of co-opting the other, which I feel left a bitter taste of betrayal and double-dealing in both sides' mouths when reality set in about a year ago.

As for how Civil War II might develop, I could see it starting out as a nationwide nightmare, possibly growing out of a repeat of E2k next year, as the two sides sort themselves out as to where they're strongest - and quite probably eliminate anyone they can who is caught on the politically wrong side of the developing lines and can't make their way to relative safety, in a manner reminiscent of the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939. As the lines do firm up by states, secessions could become more likely, as what would by then be merely a formality. I personally expect that, in many ways, the first six months to a year would be the worst. By the time the secessions begin, (assuming the two zones would both be willing to give up all hope of conquering the other's territory, which is what I feel secessions would mean at that point), the Regeneracy would also begin, on both sides. As for Grey Champions, I could see George W. Bush continuing as the Red Zone's, while Hillary R. Clinton becomes the Blue Zone's. I could also see other countries being at least tempted to enter the war to help the Blue Zone - an intervention which, if the two sides are as nearly evenly balanced as they appear to be, would clinch the permanence of the separation.

Actually, as a slight modification of the above scenario, I suspect that secessions under the conditions outlined above would more likely occur as part of the 4T Climax, as a result of both sides being forced to give up all hope of total victory over the other after a (horrendously bloody) final effort. The Resolution would be the recognition of the Union's final break-up, and a damping down of the war to a cold one. If you wonder why I think it could end with a stalemate, both sides have roughly equal populations and, I suspect, equally good conomic bases. The Red Zone would have, all other things being equal, most of the real estate, and with a central location, good interior lines of communications. That advantage would most likely be cancelled out by the help the Blue Zone would likely get from overseas - help of a sort which the Red Zone would not get, though not enough to give the Blue Zone the total victory which both sides would be seeking. Thus, stalemate. As for the Millennials, the conflict could certainly cement their identity as a Hero Generation, on both sides, especially if it doesn't begin before 2005 (which would make the oldest Millennials 23 at the time), and lasts for the remainder of the allotted 4t era (by which time the oldest Millennials should be approaching 40). All in all, let's hope those who would still dismiss all of the above as hogwash are right.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Originally Posted by Justino

If we can marginalize the neoconservatives ( a small group in terms of those who are their opponents) and the islamic fundamentalists (another tiny group) and declare some kind of war against BOTH of them, we could pretty much bring the whole world into some kind of univeral victory against stupidity.

I'm with you, sweetie, as always.

You mean, "with you, sweetie" who can't spell "intolerant,", er, "univeral"?

Hmmm, mom is castigated as an "idiot" when she recently misspells, while friend, Justino, is cooed and called a "sweetie."

The adjectives, blatant hypocrite seems appropriate, here.



p.s. Maybe she meant to say Justino is a idiot sweetie? :wink:

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Fire from the sky with Betelguese in Uranus.
Sakura and sake in the New City.
Hister meets Mabus as the eagle flies.
Toranaga and Anjin-san climb Mount Niitaka.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You Beatnik you!

By the way, after reading today's posts, I've finally decided that I have to read Bush's Brain and Boy Genius in order to find out who's really in charge here! :-o :-o

Lambo,

I don't make alot of money. I work hard though, so hard that I don't spell check my posts. However, even if I did have the money, I wouldn't spend it on building bombs, training pilots, building planes, and bombing Saddam's presidential palace. That to me, seems like a big waste of money.
If there is a civil war, I hope that the majority of Britons, Italians, French, Germans, Brazilians, Chinese, and pretty much everybody in the world except for the neoconservatives and the foreign ministers they can buy, will come to the aid of the Blue States, which seems quite likely.
Meanwhile Lambo, you can move your swete ass down to Dixie and uh..squeal like a pig.

The Reverend

Originally Posted by Justino

Meanwhile Lambo, you can move your swete ass down to Dixie and uh..squeal like a pig.

While I detect a bit of unabashed and ugly bigotry in your comment, thanks, anyway. Yes, I'll join my brothers and sisters on the pilgrimage, Rev, thank you. :wink:

"Census 2000 numbers show that the non-Hispanic black population of the South surged in the 1990s by 3,575,211 people ? more than in the other three regions of the United States combined. This number represents 58 percent of the total increase in the country's black population. It is roughly double the number of blacks that the South gained in the 1980s (1.7 million) and well above the gain for the 1970s (1.9 million), when blacks began returning to the South." -- William H. Frey, demographer at the University of Michigan Population Studies Center


p.s. I don't engage in the petty misspelling game, like your friend Xer. But I do point out hypocrisy when I see it blatantly demonstrated. :wink:

Where is all this "hatred". Don't confuse overheated rhetoric, a part of democracy with a willingness to pick up a gun a destroy the country.
We have stettled the issue of of whether one can get out of the union after first getting in to it. No civil war will occurr, neither the left nor the right will win some ultimate victory something different will occurr.

Those who want to break up the country will find themselves in a tiny minority no one will listen to.

This board is full of alarmists, the left wing version of the black helicopter fearing militia.

Bush will not be the next FDR there will never be another FDR presidential term limits have seen to that.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

I've heard that Jesus was born in the spring, because that's when the shepherds slept outside with their flocks.

Croaker, I think you're being paged, here.


In other news...

(3/31/03, 7 a.m. ET) -- The Dixie Chicks controversy continues with the trio getting some support from former Vice President Al Gore. Gore spoke to a college audience last week on the subject of fewer companies owning more media outlets, and what he sees as the increasing lack of tolerance for opposing views.

According to the Tennessean, Gore used recent attacks on the Dixie Chicks that followed anti-war comments by Natalie Maines as an example. Gore told the audience, "They were made to feel un-American and risked economic retaliation because of what was said. Our democracy has taken a hit," Gore said. "Our best protection is free and open debate."

Record sales have fallen for the Chicks and radio stations across the country banned the trio's music after Maines told a London concert crowd that she was "ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." Maines later released an apology. -- Nancy Brooks, Nashville

What I think Mr. Gore is trying to say here, is that freedom to purchase is precluded by the First Amendment.

Sorry, former Dixie Chick fans, but you are being unAmerican by your failure to continue to buy the Chick's CDs.


p.s. Man, am I glad this guy lost.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Sorry, former Dixie Chick fans, but you are being unAmerican by your failure to continue to buy the Chick's CDs.

Hey, I did my part last weekend. Or at least my daughter did.

Hi, I'm back after a long weekend of seminars that had nothing to do with politics and turnings. I am still trying to catch up on what is happening with the war.

A few days back Eric Meece wrote:

So international law is of no concern to you. America has the right to act as dictator of the world order? Our own interests are all that count?

I think the problem with international law is that it has no legitimate power behind it. Nation states have some kind of agreement with their citizens--a social contract (?) in which citizens give up the right to violence to the state in order to secure other rights. The laws of the state are then a contract that people agree to--they give the state sovereignty over the political aspects of life.

Of course there are states that have no legitimate sovreignty over their people--no one agrees on them. Setting up structures without the reality of that sovereignty results in sort of a phony nation--but I digress here from my point.

International Law was made by a body that has no power to back it up--the UN. They rely on nation states to agree to enforce that law within their borders but there is no sovereignty ceded to the UN by the states that participate in it. Therefore, if there is a conflict between the sovreignty of the state and international law, the state is obliged by the citizens to protect the agreement made aong the citizens.

I do not want the United States to abrogate the agreement we have--the Constitution--cause of any international law. That would give the UN power over our citizenry that we (as citizens)never agreed to. The other nations in the UN are certainly pursuing their own interests.
Bottom line: I do not trust the UN.

As far as our national interests go--yes, I would like our government to pursue them. The problem of what those interests legitimately are and how they ought to be pursued is properly debated by the citizenry.
That is where the protests and the differing views on this board come in.

Originally Posted by elilevin

International Law was made by a body that has no power to back it up--the UN. They rely on nation states to agree to enforce that law within their borders but there is no sovereignty ceded to the UN by the states that participate in it. Therefore, if there is a conflict between the sovreignty of the state and international law, the state is obliged by the citizens to protect the agreement made among the citizens.

Incorrectamente.

International Law has been made by many conventions and agreements over the years, not the UN.

Nations that join the UN agree to abide by the UN Charter, I believe. The USA has broken that charter; not for the first time, but this time is by far the most agregious breach. Nations in the UN agreed not to invade each other. The US has now deliberately and without reason crossed borders by force and invaded the sovereignty of another nation.

The UN DOES have the power to back up its agreements; there are UN forces that have been and are deployed around the world to back up its decisions. The most impressive and earliest example was probably the Korean War; the Gulf War was a similar case. There are many peacekeeping forces in operation as well. It is true of course that member states need to supply troops; but there is a UN force under UN command.

I do not want the United States to abrogate the agreement we have--the Constitution--(be)cause of any international law. That would give the UN power over our citizenry that we (as citizens)never agreed to. The other nations in the UN are certainly pursuing their own interests.
Bottom line: I do not trust the UN.

By joining the UN we agreed to its provisions. We would not be in the UN were that not so. I understand not trusting the UN as an armed force. I believe in the long run that will prove the best way to keep international security. The current war is a violation against our constitition, the UN Charter, and international law.

If the UN does not keep the security of a member nation satisfactorily, in the opinion of that member nation, then it still has the right to protect its own interests. In this case, of course, neither situation applies. Iraq does not and did not threaten our national security. This war is an act taken by an incompetent and illegitimate administration to pursue aims of power and glory for their own sake, with the stated, unattainable "goal" of remaking the Middle East in its own image to prevent terrorism. That is against international law and our national interests.

If we wish other nations to respect our rights, we had better do the same. That is in our interest. We are NOT respecting the rights of nations in this current war. We may think we are creating a new democracy that will cause democracy to sprout in the Middle East. History gives no support to the possibility of such a goal being realized. Nor does one nation have the right to determine the affairs of other sovereign nations. We now think we have that right, because we think we have that power. We have neither that power (as time will show), or that right.

As far as our national interests go--yes, I would like our government to pursue them. The problem of what those interests legitimately are and how they ought to be pursued is properly debated by the citizenry.
That is where the protests and the differing views on this board come in.

It is in our national interest to obey international law.