>>>>Is it not just a bit puzzling that no one will discuss that decision, which consigned 23 million people to another 12 years of hell and left Saddam to work on WMD in peace?
It is very puzzling that few in the media have discussed this. However, in many circles (on both the right and the left) this has been a troubling question for some time. I for one am glad that we are finally going against the UN and taking action to make the world a better place in which to live.
What I find hard to accept is how many people make a statement like yours, above, containing elements of truth, and then give into the smug temptation to stop right there, where it feels most satisfying, instead of exploring deeper implications.
Ah but there is a lot more to it than the half-truth, Jan.
First let me partly agree: the left does not understand that we still live in an age without true international law. The 'international law' we do have is set up to (1) protect commerce, (2) provide a framework for gross-level war-prevention, and (3) protect national leaders, not the citizens they might abuse. Under such circumstances, 'national sovereignty' leaves a tormented people with no recourse, no one to appeal to except the imperium that is strongest at that time, which happens to be us right now. It has been this way for 4,000 years.
Moreover our imperium, "Pax Americana" is inarguably the noblest and most decent of all empires since history began. It is the only imperium that hates the word 'empire' so much that we spurn any use of it and pretend that it does not apply.
We have a track record of being fair and brave and charitable that runs above 50%, in this century that is. (But not if you don't count Native Americans and slaves etc brutalized in the past.) At this moment, we are the only thing standing between the world and an inevitable spiral into barbarism. Those who compare the aftermath of the Treaty of Versailles to the aftermath of the Marshall Plan can see this trivially.
Do I sound like a right winger? Okay, now flip.
What the rightwing never, ever does is ask itself the sci fi question. What will humanity/Earth be like in the future? DO you honestly expect to see a loose 'international' system of sovereign states, with America striding about as the sole superpower, indefinitely deciding for itself what's to be done for everybody's own good? How about a billion years from now?
No? Well then how about a million?
A thousand? How about a hundred?
The idea is absurd even 50 or 40 years from now. At the rate China is growing, we should be ready for trouble in 15.
There WILL be some kind of federated world government, before many of us pass away, or else. Technological trends indicate that a world without law, real law, protecting individuals and exposing madmen to scrutiny, will destroy itself.
But which law? What kind of government? Hey, I keynoted the Libertarian National Convention last year. I want something that's guaranteed to be loose and individual-centered! I want checks & balances and dispersal of power to localities. I want protection from tyranny by any elite-minority OR majority. These are deeply American values. In other words, I want America to be the leading voice in deliberating what form this future world govt will take.
That leadership will NOT happen if we piss in the faces of every ally and stomp on their feelings and make them feel the full weight of our macho-cowboy arrogance! The so-satisfying caveman sensation where we yell :'Fuck YOU France! We don't need you frogs!" is one of the most idiotic proofs of right wing imbecility I have ever seen.
ANd make no mistake, we need the French. Their secret service has vastly better contacts in 1/3 of the nations of the globe than we have. After 9/11 they were devastatingly effective helpers. I am NO fan of French diplomacy. Versailles was their mess, leading to Hitler. After living there several years I realized that they can be intentionally irritating simply out of an inner ennui and a deep need to provoke the mighty. But this time they rightfully feel stomped upon. Even though their policy was wrong and deserved to be defeated, we did not have to be so bloody rude about it!
Let me ask you something. Whose fault is it if a company or platoon or alliance falls apart? The whiney, carping underlings? Or the leader who failed to keep it all together?
Right now the Western Alliance that saved civilization lies in shambles around our feet. Paris is actively talking with Berlin, Moscow, Beijing and Singapore (plus 40 others) about forming a new counterweight to bring us down a peg.
We did not need for it to come to this!
Ever hear of "the buck stops here"? All blame -- ALL of it -- must go to our leaders who let the Western Alliance dissolve, acting like schoolyard bullies instead of sages in the tradition of George Marshall.
>>>>Why did no one question the foolishness of sending a mere CORPS (4 divisions) to do a job far more complex than Schwarzkopff had to do with an entire army?
I think it was questioned. War is no longer just about winning the lethal conflict; it�s also about having a winning situation after the killing is over. The preparations for deployment of many additional troops have been in the works from the beginning. Where these troops were to go was left somewhat open ended. We have to be careful of leaving ourselves open to a more serious attack if and when we are over committed to one particular region.
Baloney. We needed one thing. Basra. We needed to go in there with sudden, overwhelming force and free the people quickly, so they would be seen worldwide cheering us in the streets. Then gently capture a few regular army divisions, cull out the bad officers and send those divisions marching to Baghdad.
That would have sufficed. Taking away Saddam's victims and his oil wells - north and south. Charging to Baghdad was the stupidest imaginable plan. If it works (and I now hope it does) it will be thanks to toweringly skillful US Arrmy & Marine noncoms, saving the generals' hash
>>>>Why has there been NO substantial Congressional hearing about September 11, 2001? Nor any move to reveal what V.P. Cheney and C. Rice knew in a briefing about Al Quaeda plans a whole month before? No effort at all.:
This is the first I have heard of this. Do you have references? I would like to know more about this shocking news.
Gawd, where have you been? Condi Rice said, yes, there were reports of plans to hijack planes, but who ever imagined they would use them to hit buildings?
Actually I had imagined. So had a hundred others.
Cheney squelched every investigation on patriotism grounds. Just TODAY (see the papers!), a small commission was finally appointed. After 19 months. And appointed by guess who?
Can you smell the whitewash?
>>>>I hope and pray that the incredible competence, courage and skill shown by our noncoms and mid-ranked officers will get us out of this mess. :
;) Isn�t that always the case?
No.
>>>> The crux: we have offended every ally and thrown away the Western Alliance that served us all for 60 years, all in order to charge into a situation that could have been handled more cleverly by far.:
Respectfully I disagree. If they claim to be an ally, join us in signing 1441, then work directly against the enforcement of 1441, they were not really allies to begin with.
What titanic rot! Only the very stupidest leader gives a command to followers that he does not expect to be obeyed. By presenting others with an arrogant "accept-this-or-go-to-hell", we absolutely guaranteed that proud people would choose hell over our machismo.
It takes something like this to find out who your real friends are. I think we have known for years that France was not really the ally they have claimed to be.
More rot! A leader learns HOW to get the best from people, despite their quirks. Your words above are those of a teenager... like those leading us right now.
I am glad that we finally have an administration that we can be proud of. Individuals in the administration have made mistakes in the past, and are not currently infallible, but I sense that we finally have a government that will stand behind it�s word, and stand up for what is right in the world.
Proud... of a leadership class whose actions can be pre-guessed with 100% certainty on one basis alone. "Will the action being considered benefit the 2,000 top golf buddies... including 100 Saudi Princes, or won't it benefit them?"
Go ahead, try it out. Look back over the last 3 years. These people are the administration with the least 'mandate' of any ever elected, yet they act as if the country is their property, to dole out to friends. Their top priority is to rob a trillion dollars from our grandchildren and give it to 2,000 families.
Just as there may be a trade off between privacy and freedom,
If you believe there is such a tradeoff, you are part of the problem. See: http://www.futurist.com/portal/future_trends/david_brin_empowerment.ht m
Anyone who says there is such a tradeoff does not deserve to have any say in policy. It is proof of total ignorance.
there may also be a tradeoff between a shift to warring with words instead of violence, and freedoms of speech. In fact one could argue that these are intertwined.
I haven't a clue what this means.
db _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
