Wow..sorta like having their own "on-line" photo album! Did they know the people personally and see how they were injured? Or just checking out their war trophies?

BRJ et al. -
War is Hell. No two ways about it, and there are plenty of other cliches such as that one that attest to the carnage of war. There are plenty as well that attest to its necessity -- a favorite of mine (though I loathe the author) is that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

In Iraq, it's not refreshing the tree, but planting the seed, which can be particularly gruesome b/c there are powerful factions with vested interests in quashing it before it takes root.

There are a few on this board who, for reasons I confess I do not understand, believe that war is never justifiable, under any circumstances. Whether it's because the horrors of war are too much to bear or an extreme pacifist ideology is of no importance to me. The briefest history lesson disproves it. Conflict is not some barbaric notion that we're going to outgrow as a species -- and we shouldn't, because we have very valuable things to protect, tangible and intangible. Almost all of what we enjoy today in the US is the dividend of bloodshed for a cause -- I believe it's a very noble cause. But, given the US' position, success, size and cultural hegemony, it's easy to take what we've got for granted. It's human nature to do so, but such laxity is toxic. There really are "bad guys" out there that will kill you or me or anybody who is not a fundamentalist muslim. We did not pick this fight, but we've got to win it -- now or later, at likely much greater cost. They set the stakes: our extermination.

I think it's safe to say that those that believe the war is just and necessary do so not because it's "fun" to drive tanks through walls and shoot foreigners. Similiarly, we are disturbed by the actual human consequences of battle, but know these things have to be endured to get to the end we're committed to. We're living in very Oprafied, therapeutic times wherein commitment, sacrifice and triumph have been perverted into convenience, blame and relativism -- a thing is only OK if it *feels* good, and if it *feels* good then it's OK.

War is bad, it feels bad, and we're reminded of the cost in flesh and lives (which reminders, though they feel bad, are a good and important thing). I take no small degree of pride in our absolutely unprecedented efforts not to kill innocents, nor to destroy wantonly. However, people get hurt and things get broken in combat. There is a vast moral chasm between intentionally inflicting misery on a grand scale and deliberate discretion in destruction; we're on the right side of that chasm. I feel remorse at the deaths of innocents, but not guilt, and I will not be shamed into ending our efforts.

This war (on terror in general and Iraq in particular) is a long-term undertaking, during which we've got to accept that we are "at war" in the gravest sense of that term. This war is one of those rare things that must be done, must be endured, absolutely must be won, even though our will is tested by graphic reminders of the brutality of war.

It is in the will that the United States is vulnerable, and our enemies know this and exploit it at every opportunity. Do not succumb to the self-gratifying guilt of their temptation; grit your teeth as we all are, steel yourself to get through this (the only way out is through) and we can balance the scales when we're done.

Right now, whether we "should've" gone into Iraq is a topic for the tweed jacket pointy heads in faculty lounges who have so successfully solved every other problem in the world from the moral heights of the ivory towers. The perhaps unpalatable fact is, we're there, the die has been cast. Stand with your countrymen and for the ideals that our ancestors, brothers and fathers have nurtured with their blood.

JP

I know the truth about WAR, all I know is that this is the least valid one in my book.

You're still hung up on the "should've" part. That's history. Now is what matters, and either

(1) you believe that b/c we "shouldn't" have gone in that we should lose or renege on our commitments and essentially discard the sacrifices we and our allies have made and abandon Iraqis to their fate; or

(2) you commit yourself to our success -- not blindly, certainly, but don't be distracted by the collateral ancillaries of war to the point it corrodes your resolve, or you use it to corrode others'. Hell, we've got a few al-Jazeera cub reporters on this board already.


Way OT -- does anyone remember that show "Combat Missions" wherein former SWAT/special forces broke up into teams and competed in physical and tactical games? One of the SEALs on that program was Scott Helveston, who I think was the youngest SEAL ever, and a real bite in the ass on the show. Anyway, Scott was one of the four security consultants killed in that ambush last week. Apologies if this has been posted here before, I don't read every thread.

JP

...you poor, poor man. I do hope you are able to get at least some sleep at night what with your deep seated fears about monsters in the closet. Many of us have been lucky enough to have been born without such irrational fear, or have out grown it. The lucky amongst us also understand that war is sometimes necessary but we make damn sure we identify the real enemy before we whip out the ordnance.

Make no mistake, Iraq was not tangibly the enemy until we made them so. Nor is what's happening in Iraq a war, it is an invasion. And the invasion of that sovereign nation and the killing of 10,000 or so of it's people will undoubtedly lead to more violence and hatred against Americans. Whether that violence comes directly from the hands of the Iraqis that have lost family or friends at the hands of the "coalition" or arises out of broadened sympathy for the "plight of Muslims" as exacerbated by the invasion of Iraq.

And somehow conservatives seem suprised that anger continues to grow amongst Muslims (and others) and actually use the simple humanity of their reaction as further evidence of their unreasonablity. Write off their hatred as being the fodder of brain-washing by evil leaders and religious zealots?

Take a leap my learned friend.

Thank you for your concern about my sleeping habits, Purry. If you don't believe that there are people out there that will kill you or me for not being a Muslim or for simply being a Jew, please call Daniel Pearl's widow and explain that to her. Your self-satisfied complacency endangers not only yourself, and you can afford such an attitude in relative comfort and safety because others are diligent. And evidently you *still* haven't gotten the point that I have to give a ***** about your opinion in the first place in order for your snide barbs to sting. I can't imagine, given their general quality and manner of expression, where you would have developed an expectation that your opinions would matter to strangers, but loosen your grip on that fantasy.

Simply because you disagree with the identification of the enemy does not mean that it wasn't identified. The fact that this enemy does not march in formation or wear an easily-identified uniform makes this a tougher effort, to be sure. But the enemies are those who threaten the establishment of a democracy in Iraq as well as those that would visit harm upon the US and its allies.

I have no idea what "tangibly the enemy" is supposed to mean. I suspect you think it means something, but it reads like more hollow makeweight.

I've made no mistake re: the Iraq situation. An "invasion" is defined as the "entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer." Though the Ba'athists were conquered and the Hussein regime defeated, this was not an act of conquest. We are not annexing Iraq nor installing a colonial governor in perpetuity -- we're in the throes of an unprecedented creation of democracy of, by and for the Iraqi people. There are those that wish theocracy, tyranny and subjugation upon the Iraqis; to them it would seem like an "invasion." I say: F*ck Them.

The "plight" of Muslims was never worse than under Hussein -- responsible for killing more of them than any other single person in history. Hundreds of thousands (at least) of his own "Muslim brethren", Iranians, Palestinians and Kuwaitis were slaughtered directly by Hussein and his regime; and this doesn't count the innumerable whose deaths he funded. Strange, I don't recall a lot of keening for their plight until there was an anti-US angle to it. Hmmmm...

You speak of this "plight" as though Muslims are a homogenous, modular bloc. They're not, and there are amongst Muslims a variety of opinions, educational levels and sentiment. This is the seventh time the US has intervened to liberate or assist Muslims -- and they can count. This is more about Arabs and Islamofascists than "Muslims" anyway, in the sense that many Muslims outside the Middle East are not universally suffering this "plight" and aren't enraged at the US other than in the it's vogue to hate the big guy way.

If the "root cause" goose chase takes you down one path or another, I don't care. At the end of the day, Hussein was a threat to the region, to his own people and to the West -- especially the US. Was he less of a threat than HE LED US TO BELIEVE and at any time could've clarified -- yeah, probably. His mistake. If some more people are going to hate the US after we remove the tyrant, I'll -- still -- sleep just fine; better, actually with him gone. I suspect many Iraqis sleep better w/o the fear of being capriciously imprisoned, raped, mutilated or murdered by their government. We know that the Afghanis do.

I don't "write off" Arab hatred, and I don't particularly care where it comes from. However, if you've read what's written and heard what's spoken, you cannot help but come to the conclusion that the US is the red herring for blame abroad. (Check out MEMRI on a regular basis for a while and it's flagrant -- or, don't and just continue to claim that the people aren't forcefed anti-US/West bile). Do our actions further incense this envy and wrath -- to some, sure. But it's not about being liked -- some of us have grown out of that.

JP

LMAO. on both counts

I'll take that one little slice out of your rambling and (very) entertaining treatise and contrast it with:

Which is an exerpt from your much less entertaining reaction to an Iraqi's first hand, street level observations about US military action.

At least you are consistent in your disdain for dissenting opinion, particularily when it arises from the very people that are the subject of the debate.

Keep living in your dream world about what makes people, including (especially) terrorists tick. Heaven knows your approach has been completely successful in eliminating terrorist threat and/or angst vs the US to date.

We'll just keeping stamping on everyone till we squash all the terrorists - yeah that's the ticket.

Right now, whether we "should've" gone into Iraq is a topic for the tweed jacket pointy heads in faculty lounges who have so successfully solved every other problem in the world from the moral heights of the ivory towers. The perhaps unpalatable fact is, we're there, the die has been cast. Stand with your countrymen and for the ideals that our ancestors, brothers and fathers have nurtured with their blood.

But the war was a pretty crap idea, right? And you won't be supporting those who started it in the future?

The guys in tweed are just trying to make sense of the guys in $2,500 Brooks Brothers suits and snakeskin boots who started this mess.

Secondly, I'm confused as to the ideals. My ideals don't entail wreckless nation building, force-feeding democracy, and nationalizing oil reserves. So, if you don't mind, I'll sit this one down.

Purry -
This approach might not work, I grant you. However, what we know doesn't work is the soft-sell, appeasement, elephant-in-the living room approach we had for 20 years. It's not just a Clinton failure, but also Carter (who was in a position to stop it ab initio) Reagan and Bush I.
The State Department drove our policy for too long, trying to make people at *best* apathetic to us be our friends. It didn't work, and the results of trying to be liked and turning a blind eye to metastasizing threats got us a whole lot of killed. My opinion is that many of those that would hurt us look at our appeasement/rationalist/sophisticated efforts to get along with contempt, and it emboldens them. What I believe such animals understand are heads on pikes -- or, to use OBL's metaphor, the Strong Horse.

Yeah, "Blah" wasn't one of my rhetorical masterstrokes. But I'd read other on-the-ground accounts and I'm just tired of the issue. If you check enough of them out, you can cherry-pick the p/o/v you want to hear.

Cam -
I don't think the war was a bad idea. I know you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this, and I'll spare you the litany I've heard myself repeat too many times about why this war is a good thing, and in many ways virtually a necessary thing. I'll also just mention that the issue of who "started" what is not something I'll stipulate w/o debate.

There are elements of the prosecution of the war itself that I think are pretty "crap" but, really, what the Hell do I know about it?

A lot of the collateral or "ripple" effects have only begun and I suspect w/o knowing that the admin and its gurus thought this out 4 or 5 chess moves post-Iraq. I'm one of the few here willing to give them that much credit, I know, but these are not dumb people -- and there are things we can't and shouldn't know, at least at this point.

EDIT -- dd snuck in while I was typing the above
dd -
Again, there is a real question as to who started it -- and that question is really a question of who could've avoided it, the Last Clear Chance doctrine. We followed through on promises that nobody expected us to keep, and that had been made over the course of a decade.

Reckless? I don't know -- it's certainly not the smoothest psy-op campaign ever, but this is a crazy area of the world and it's way too easy to focus on what's not perfect than how much progress has been made -- Hell our media does it.

Force-feeding; well, that may be partially true, but once they're handed the controls they can go where they want to go (more or less at first). Democracy is not unknown to many Iraqis, but putting it into practice there will take a stern hand for a while.

As for oil reserves, I think it's pretty clear we have no intention of stealing oil -- it's the Iraqis' and will remain so. Through the transitional phase of trying to build infrastructure and get wellheads going again, well, there may be unorthodoxy. At the end of the day, what is Iraq's will remain Iraq's.

Liberty, self-determination, elected representation and the rule of law passed thereby -- these are the ideals, and they don't exist in pure form anywhere; not even here.

Bear in mind it took more than 4 years to get Germany back on its feet, and six (if memory serves) to pull Japan from feudal imperium to a constitutional democracy. This will take time and blood, but it will be worth it.

We won't fail because we can't.

JP

We should agree to disagree on whether it was a good idea - I was only twisting your words anyway ;)

A lot of the collateral or "ripple" effects have only begun and I suspect w/o knowing that the admin and its gurus thought this out 4 or 5 chess moves post-Iraq. I'm one of the few here willing to give them that much credit, I know, but these are not dumb people -- and there are things we can't and shouldn't know, at least at this point.

I really wish I could give them that credit too, and maybe I look through such a slanted view of the world that I'm missing it, but in the great big chess game that is US diplomacy I see more "oh **** I lost my rook" and less "ah hah, I trapped your knight".

Basically, your Administration (and especially Bush and Cheney) never fail to impress upon me that they are gung-ho and maverick.

Hmm, the interviews with Pearl's widow and coworkers I have read have indicated that they believe that he was kidnapped and murdered for investigating the connections between the pakistani secret police and al-qaeda.

Thanks once again for taking yet another complex and nefarious subject and trying to turn it into some sort of cartoonish validation for your simplistic views and irrational fears. :rolleyes:

CamB -
Not Goose and Maverick?
Well, compared to the Interregnum, they would certainly seem that way.

350 -
I'd read similar things, but I think it was hyperbolic rhetoric -- chatter for the masses. Not uncommon from these folk. A friend saw the video and said the murderers revelled in his being a Jew, making no mention of spying or some other "justification." He was a reporter and could've been investigating just about anything, none of which would justify his murder.

If you think that there aren't people out there that wish to do you and me and other non-Muslims harm, you don't read what they say. Yeah, some of my views are simple, but I eschew sophistication for sophistication's sake; complicated does not mean profound, much less correct. As for irrational, I'm certainly not going to cede to you the authority to be an arbiter on that front.

JP