Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on March 14, 2003, 02:00:29 AM
-
OUR WAR (http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-031103A)
All I can I say is this is one of the most brilliantly thought out pieces of work on current geopolitics that I have ever had the privelage and delight of reading. This is one for the ages and I think perfectly illustrates both the stupendous magnitude of, and revolutinary nature of the conditions so horrifying brought to light on in our 9/11 world.
Again this is a must read artice for all of us.
-
link don't work on my end of the world (freedom country you know :D)
-
Hi straffo.
You can find the article at http://www.trendmacro.com
Look for it on the right menu, the article is titled:
Here's a sweeping and thoughful summary of the "world-historical" turning point thath the war against Iraq represents
-
thanks it work now ...
but :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: I'll need a whole day to read that article !
-
It is very extensive, but well worth reading.
-
Too long, can someone sumarize it in 4 sentences for me?
-
Yeah... that was a very interesting read. Thanks for posting it Grun. I especially liked his assesement of the situation at hand, but started to get sketched out by his remedy. All in all it's definitely a worthwhile thing to have a look at if you have the time.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Too long, can someone sumarize it in 4 sentences for me?
Dammit just read it....
-
Too long, can someone sumarize it in 4 sentences for me?
You mean for the Rush Limburgh generation?
-
Too long, can someone sumarize it in 4 sentences for me?
uhm...
Islam is living a fantasy, which the West has afforded them.
Without a sense of realism, they are extremely dangerous.
The only way to give them a dose of reality is to knock em dead, right down to punishing the folks who celebrate in the streets at the West's misery.
Wow... did it in three. But it's nuts to summarize something like this in this way... You really oughta have a look at it yourself and draw your own conclusions.
-
I'll give it a shot, but the sentences will be long.
1) There is a new world order emerging where there are new actors on the international stage; previously only nation states used diplomacy, war, trade as means to achieve their aims, these nation states were acting within a logic pattern, and it was easy to hold one nation responsible for its actions, now there are other players too (terrorist organizations).
2) The new threat comes from groups who have utterly failed to create the material and objective conditions within their own societies sufficient to permit them to construct, out of their own resources, the kind of military organization and weaponry that has constituted every previous kind of threat.
(This is an extremely interesting observation from the author. so I will break the 4 sentence rule and elaborate.
The author makes the comparrisson with a man who wishes to build his own home with his own hands. He must come to grips with the recalcitrant properties of wood and gravity: he must learn to discipline his own activities so that he is in fact able to achieve his end. He will come to see that certain things work and that others don't. He will realize that in order to have A, you must first make sure of B. He will be forced to develop a sense of the realistic.
But all of this is lost on the man who simply pays another man to build his home for him. He is free to imagine his dream house, and to indulge in every kind of fantasy. The proper nature of the material need not concern him - gravity doesn't interest him. He makes the plans out of his head and expects them to be fulfilled at his whim.
The arab nations and the terrorist organizations belong in the second category.)
3) If the existence of a nation state is guaranteed by some external authority - whether by the United Nations or the United States - then it means that one of the chief incentives to a realistic policy, both domestic and foreign, has been removed from play; To see this, think back to the old chaotic world in which the law of the jungle operated: here, if a state pursued a domestic or a foreign policy that was too grossly unrealistic, it would inevitably pay the price for doing so - it would be invaded, or annexed, or partitioned - And this meant that the price of any nation state's survival was the cultivation of a heightened sense of realism.
4) The threat facing us - and one of the greatest ever to threaten mankind - is the collision of this collective fantasy world outlined in 1-3 with the horrendous reality of weapons of mass destruction; previous threats were limited to conventional weapons, and that put a logical roof on the threat; 20 guys in a terrorist organization armed with guns can only do so much damage, 20 guys in a terrorist organization armed with nukes...
Or the cut down version.
1) 9-11 showed that the old rules of war and politics are gone forever.
2) Our enemies are not playing by the same rules of realism that we are.
3) We must change the way we fight from the old theory formed by Clausewiz for it no longer applies (due to 1-2).
4) We must prevent the spreading of wmd's at any cost.
-
Long and reads like a college dissertation. But its very insightful in my opinon.
One sentence in particular, that I thought was key to the arguements is this:
If we are to understand the measure of the present threat that we must realize that we are not fighting a Clausewitzian war, and there are immense dangers ahead of us if we do not squarely face the implications of this fact: they are not playing by the same rules of realism that we are. And it is this that renders so much public debate so historically dated.
-
Here's the readers digest version:
Israel good, self made:
And the reason for this superiority, by a paradox typical of history, is not American aid or funding, but the fact that the state of Israel has been forced to struggle for every moment of its existence from the very day of its birth - and it is this struggle that has made them into what no assembly of nations can ever bestow - a viable state. And unless the Palestinians as a people can set aside their fantasies of pushing a vastly superior enemy into the sea, instead of seeking out a realistic modus vivendi with him, they may demand a state, and even be "recognized" as a state. But it will exist as a viable entity only by virtue of the liberal conscience - and seemingly inexhaustible forbearance - of the Israeli people.
Palestinainas and other Arabs marginal, artifical somehow different
The modern liberal world system has permitted the growth of power in the hands of those [Arab refrences in following paragraphs] who have not had to cope with reality in order to acquire this power: it has simply been given to them, out of the sense of fair play prevalent among Western liberal societies.
Look how smart I am -- I can say in 4000 words what could be expressed in 500
This gives a sense of Greek tragedy, with its dialectic of hubris and nemesis, to what has been unfolding in the Islamic world.
Lots of self-serving assumptions
Here we have the heart of our historical impasse, and the only way out of it is to cut the Gordian knot. And this is precisely what the current United States administration has elected to do, beginning with its post-9/11 declaration of the Bush doctrine which unapologetically asserts that states sponsoring terrorism are legitimate targets - the first of the basic, and vital, negations of the concept of national self-determination.
Whoa, don't know about that
This doctrine, however, can be only coherently implemented if the U.S. is prepare to negate the other basic principle of the liberal world order, the refusal to use unilateral force, except in those cases of the "straightforward, conventional unprovoked aggression." And this next logical step was taken by the present administration in its declaration of the policy of the pre-emptive strike...
But this in turn, if it is to be carried through coherently, necessitates yet a final negation of the principle of the right of national self-determination: the U.S. must be willing to discard the Clausewitzian goal of making another nation state merely fulfill its political will. It must in fact be prepared to dismantle and reconstruct the other state, if, like Iraq, its behavior poses a threat to the general international system.
What the critics of this policy fail to see is the simple and obvious fact that if any social order is to achieve stability there must be, at the heart of it, a double standard governing the use of violence and force. There must be one agent who is permitted to use force against other agents who are not permitted to use force. The implementation of the fashionable myth that all violence is equally immoral and reprehensible would inevitably result, in a typical dialectical reversal, in the Hobbesian state of universal war.
Every civilized order, precisely in so far as it is a civilized order, relies on such a double standard. The only alternative to this is the frank and candid acceptance of anarchy, the state in which all recourse to violence is equally legitimate. But what Mr. Butler and others fail to realize is that anarchy with clubs and sticks is a much preferable to anarchy with nuclear weapons.
But if this double standard is necessary to avoid inevitable historical catastrophe, it is equally necessary that this standard be imposed by an agent who has the will and the force to do so. Only the United States that can fill this role. It has the force to do so, and it alone has the ability to act alone. A double standard, by its very nature, cannot be imposed by a multi-lateral body; else it quickly ceases to be a double standard.
Make the world safe for the US, or Israel?
Our aim is simple. It is to make the Islamic fantasists respect the dictates of reality. If they wish to compete with us, if they wish even to be our enemies, we will accept that, as we accepted this situation with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But they must be made to accept the basic rules of play - rules that are accepted by the rest of mankind, from the U.S. to Communist China.
Charon
-
wow...nice read......didn't need all that though....alot of blablabla:rolleyes:
shoulda
coulda
woulda
do you guys actually think the WORLD changed cause YOU got attacked 9/11.....do you actually think your the center of the world...what happens too you happens to everyone.....hmmm.....bullchit
just look at the Jews/Palistinian conflict.....all your answers are there:p
your tryin to set peace between the jew an muslim....yet you sell weapons to the jews.....jews ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE WMD's(under UN).....yet they do....then you ask yourself why do the muslims hate us.....2 face country you are:eek:
-
SLO, try reading it instead of just bashing it. It makes alot of sense. It also answers your "observation" on the two faced side of things.
-
SLO - be honest - you read the first two sentences of it. (either that or reading comprehension could use a little work)
-
Skimmed through pretty quick... Seems to be a common theme everyone is starting to ride on...
"911 has changed everything."
This is a true statement for the U.S. but not necessarily so for many other countries. The realization that we are vulnerable came as quite a shock to many people. The next shock coming will be the realization that we will ALWAYS be vulnerable.
-
well..READ it and it will become clear.
-
hortlund I did read.....I'm not bashing it....just putting it into perspective....
saurdaukar...don't worry...my reading comprehension is fine:D ....
I don't agree to all of his "perceptions"..... It was interesting on certain POV's...but in some he was completely off base......chit I don't feel like quotin.....
It was a good read.....in the general sense....he doesn't seem to like creativity.....we could have fun disecting it in little pieces and arguin over them....but nah!!!:p
just finished dnloadin a movie...time to watch it:D
just my 2 cents....
-
Originally posted by SLO
hortlund I did read.....I'm not bashing it....just putting it into perspective....
saurdaukar...don't worry...my reading comprehension is fine:D ....
I don't agree to all of his "perceptions"..... It was interesting on certain POV's...but in some he was completely off base......chit I don't feel like quotin.....
It was a good read.....in the general sense....he doesn't seem to like creativity.....we could have fun disecting it in little pieces and arguin over them....but nah!!!:p
just finished dnloadin a movie...time to watch it:D
just my 2 cents....
My university professor would say this type of answer is total tripe. If you have a problem with the logic and arguments of the author then give us some details.
Saying " I read it and saying it really isn't credible because he is completely off base in places" just won't do.
Enjoy your porno. :p
-
davidpt40: Too long, can someone sumarize it in 4 sentences for me?
Here it is:
1. We've just noticed that the world is unpredictable. 2. That is very scary. 3. People who are upset with us do not want to play by our rules. 4. Let's stomp on everyone with brute force before they have a chance to hurt us.
my .223 cents
miko
-
I don't give a rats bellybutton what your prof. would say....since you seem to totally lack in your own perceptions, and you lack creative thinking, ya ain't worth it.......
maybe I shoulda said "well damn that was a mighty fine essay"....just to be like eveyone in this thread......but unlike you, I'm an individual, and as an individual I like to think for myself:p
when YOU have better idea's Habu...post em....try bein creative....ya don't have to RESEARCH everything....just post what ya think.....
and the movie was 8 Miles.....
nice try at a witty response.....
but you lack creative thinking :eek:
better luck next time Moron:p
-
So SLO by that logic anyone who disagrees with you - you dont like the article while they do - is not an individual with his or her own thoughts or thinks for themselves?
Thats incredibly ignorant and arrogant.
Seems to me you are the one with no thoughts, all you said is you dislike it and that anyone who likes is a moron. You state no reasons why, no objection, no couterarguments, nothing. You present no thoughts on this article besides that you dislike it, yet you have the audacity to tell others they have no individual thoughts.
Is the article so well thought out and persuavise, that even though you are instinctivly thretened by it and fear it, that you lack either the basic mental capacity to respond on a personall level or lack sufficient education and knowlege to generate worthy counterarguments or objections. Which is it?
-
I’ve got a question, Are Conservatives FOR One World Government?
-
Grunherz...
<<<<>>>>
WTG!
-
Thats a red herring 10bears, the article does not introduce the issue at all. I should think you are sophisticated enough to distinguish his assertion about America's unique role in this world crisis and and our unique responsibilities for the near term in contrast to any suggestion of one world government.
And in fact one can see how the article might clearly argue against the validity of of a single world government - lets say in the form of the UN - as it advovates the neccesity, under the proper circumstances, of unilateral american action.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Too long, can someone sumarize it in 4 sentences for me?
Summary="The arab world as we know it is Fugged up"
-
GIVE 'EM A HOMELAND!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
4) We must prevent the spreading of wmd's at any cost.
Will US disarm WMD as well ?
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
Will US disarm WMD as well ?
Will Russia? Will France? Will the rest of the world?
Certain countries are not allowed, at all, in any way, shape or form allowed to have WMDs.
Iraq is one of them. So stop that BS "The US has WMDs too!"... we are allowed to have them.
-SW
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
I’ve got a question, Are Conservatives FOR One World Government?
I'm conservative and I'm not:)
-
Yep, you sure know how to use em. Infact you are the only ones (besides Iraq) that used them, so sure: we trust you guys.
Crabofix
-
Slo.....
Can I ask a couple of quick questions for my own clarification?
Are you a natural born Canadian?
Are you of French descent?
What's with the US Seals slogan in your sig?
Thanks!
-
Yep, you sure know how to use em. Infact you are the only ones (besides Iraq) that used them, so sure: we trust you guys.
Hmmm, also Germany, France and Britain. Oh! But you didn't know mustard gas, or nerve gas, counts as a WMD, didya?
Lets ignore the fact that an invasion of Japan (the only way the war with Japan would of ended) would of cost Japan and America many more million lives than the two nuclear bombs cost the Japanese.
So, yes, we do know how to use them. Thank you for your trust.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
Will US disarm WMD as well ?
Fat chance. There may be a few libs in the US that think the world would a safer place if we did but the wiser among us realize we can't trust anyone to look after our interests but us.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yep, you sure know how to use em. Infact you are the only ones (besides Iraq) that used them, so sure: we trust you guys.
Hmmm, also Germany, France and Britain. Oh! But you didn't know mustard gas, or nerve gas, counts as a WMD, didya?
So, yes, we do know how to use them. Thank you for your trust.
-SW
Use of gas was´nt banned during ww I. It was kinda a new invention. The word WMD was a unknown thing.
(Still: some gas was used by the Germans, during WW II, in a antitank round, But I think it was teargas. It had no effect.)
crabofix
-
Uhm, yeah okay. That has nothing to do with what you initially put forth.
Also, lets not forget nuclear weapons themselves were new in WWII. Lets not forget the use of them was neither banned, or investigated. WWII saw the first use of nuclear weapons, much the same way WWI saw the first use of mustard gas in trench warfare.
WMDs is a new term- it actually didn't come 'bout till the 60s, so using your argument that gas wasn't banned, neither were nuclear weapons, and they were not WMDs either. They were just big bombs.
Tear gas does indeed have an effect, but nevertheless, the Germans did indeed use mustard gas in WWII. And it did indeed have an effect.
I did like how you immediately jumped to apology mode for what the Germans did though, shows your true colors.
Sieg heil!
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Uhm, yeah okay. That has nothing to do with what you initially put forth.
Tear gas does indeed have an effect, but nevertheless, the Germans did indeed use mustard gas in WWII. And it did indeed have an effect.
I did like how you immediately jumped to apology mode for what the Germans did though, shows your true colors.
Sieg heil!
-SW
Mustard gas? In battle? or are you refearing to the gaschambers?
I think that was another substance.
But, I will edit (besides, germany and Iraq).
Crabofix
-
Yes, in battle.
However, like I said, France and Britain also used Mustard Gas in WWI.
It doesn't matter whether or not it was new. As I said, nuclear weapons were new in WWII. They weren't tested in battle. The usage of them was not banned either.
The "WMD" classification didn't come about until the '60s, and nuclear weapon bans didn't pass until well after WWII.
So edit all you want, your argument is as faulty as a Ford Pinto.
-SW
-
And use on nuclear weapons wasnt banned in WW2...
If you guys seriously dont recognize the difference between a serious nation state like the USA or Russia possesing nuclear weapons and a country like Iraq having them, then there is nothing else to be said by anyone on the issue.
I for one feel that you are only using this example of the USA having nuclear weapons, so why shouldn't Iraq, as a cheap distraction from the problem of Iraq trying madly to get them and you having no real opinion or thought of how to realitically prevent that country and its genocidal leader from obtaining them. I say "realistically" because even a child knows that 12 years of on/off inspections have been an utter failure. Yet you still insist on further, endless inspections saying that war or the threat of war is not an option, while completly ignoring the reason the inspectors are back in iraq in the first place - the realistic threat of "unilatteral" US force.
Also I have yet to see one argument on how Saddam Hussein would be prevented from restarting his WMD programs at some later date if he managed to fool the inspectors and the UN in dropping sanctions. More inspections? More UN babbling and more UN deadlines? New sanctions? I dont think the world would be up for that again. With his oil income restored and a grudge to settle with the world for the 1991 war and the sanctions why wouldnt he resume his WMD program? Why wouldn't he resume his fantasy? And please dont insult my intelligence by saying that saddam would be happy to just get his oil income back and grow his wealth instead of risking the pursuit of WMD again. We allready understand his preference in this matter. The past 12 years have afforded him countless opportunities to choose between the lifing of sanctions and resumption of oil revenues and his quest for WMD - again even a child knows how he chose.
And we know he is willing to risk, even risk directly challenging the USA as in the Kuwait attack and planned Saudi Arabia invasion.
And that is why we have to get rid of him, and get rid of him now.
-
Never the less, US is the only nation that ever used the nuclear bomb. But as I said: Sure I trust you to have it.
crabofix
-
Yet, you ignore the premise for it's use. And you ignore that we went through a several decade long nuclear stand off with Russia without either side setting one off.
I will repeat myself, your argument is as faulty as a Ford Pinto.
-SW
-
So what? Does French use of poison gas in WW1 mean that Brazil has the right to gas Paris next week?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And that is why we have to get rid of him, and get rid of him now.
I agree. (Its a good thing if its sanctioned by UN though)
But why did you wait 12 years to be doin this?
crabofix
-
The real question is: Why did the UN play with their dick's for 12 years, and not do anything about it?
And we did do things about it, but 12 years is enough. Now we are going to do something about it, and you are questioning why we didn't act?
Sweet jebus, the idiocy in those type of statements stun me with dumbfoundedness.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yet, you ignore the premise for it's use. And you ignore that we went through a several decade long nuclear stand off with Russia without either side setting one off.
I will repeat myself, your argument is as faulty as a Ford Pinto.
-SW
Really? PHUUI, wow, we where sure lucky, where´nt we?
I mean, just think if, one would have been setting off.
Crabofix
-
That's all you can do now?
That's not even an argument, I guess you ran out of clever "but the US has it too" statements.
Phewie, that's one helluva argument I have widdled you down to!
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The real question is: Why did the UN play with their dick's for 12 years, and not do anything about it?
And we did do things about it, but 12 years is enough. Now we are going to do something about it, and you are questioning why we didn't act?
Sweet jebus, the idiocy in those type of statements stun me with dumbfoundedness.
-SW
No, you should ask your self why you didnt act. You would have been in Bagdad before anyone could say "Rump-stick".
I have a theory: Maybe Germany and France was´nt the only ones that provided Iraq with "WMD´S"?
Crabofix
-
do you guys actually think the WORLD changed cause YOU got attacked 9/11.....do you actually think your the center of the world...what happens too you happens to everyone.....hmmm.....bullchit
yes the world changed on 9/11, or at least America's attitude changed. We DO think we are the center of the world. If the U.S.A. withdrew all of it's financial aid, and the bulk of our trade from the world, and focused on being self sufficent, it would rock the world. It wouldn't END the world, but things would be pretty messed up. I for one have much more of a "with us or against us" opinion towards the war on terror. They started it, we will finish it. Help us or get out of our way. When we are finished there will be one less threat in the world. Do NOT work against us. That is why you see French bashing right now in the U.S. We perceive the French trying their best to screw us over at the U.N. It MAY have some severe consequences down the road to the French. Again, the U.S. pulling out of trade with the French won't destroy their country, but it doesn't help to piss off the worlds largest global trading partner.
My 2 cents on the article.
Looks like the U.S. should work hard at removing the Islamic source of money (i.e. oil) and force the Arab countries to join the world "reality" Force their societies to focus on things like "education" and producing goods and services, and thus changing their culture.
Not bad idea.
OR we could bomb 'em into glass.
tough choice
p.s... this regieme change thing has been going on for a while. The U.S.S.R and the U.S.A. did alot of it over the years. We are just being more open about it with Iraq.
+Lute
III/JG26 9ST +WM81 (AOL Widow Makers)
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
That's all you can do now?
That's not even an argument, I guess you ran out of clever "but the US has it too" statements.
Phewie, that's one helluva argument I have widdled you down to!
-SW
Now exactly what do you want me to say? I say I trust you to have nukes.
Cold war up my butt. "we nuke the whole world rather then to see it become communistic"-shit.
But I must be stupid, "Glow in the dark" might become handy from time to time.
Crabofix
-
Originally posted by crabofix
No, you should ask your self why you didnt act. You would have been in Bagdad before anyone could say "Rump-stick".
I have a theory: Maybe Germany and France was´nt the only ones that provided Iraq with "WMD´S"?
Crabofix
Ah... horseshit. The UN should of acted long ago, it was the military pressure of the US throughout these 12 years that kept the inspectors in Iraq and kept them inspecting.
12 years of keeping our military there just so the UN can keep it's inspectors in there.
We're tired of this roadkill, and now is the time to end it. This WAS the UN's ballpark, they've consistently struck out.
Nice theory by the way, I have a theory too: Germany, France and Russia are opposed to a war with Iraq because they have been secretely funding Saddam and his military for the past 12 years.
We shall soon find out who's theory is correct.
-SW
-
Originally posted by crabofix
I say I trust you to have nukes.
I highly doubt you meant that sentence in a way other than sarcastic.
Cold war up my butt. "we nuke the whole world rather then to see it become communistic"-shit.
That's so full of BS. But it definitely falls in line with the rest of the tired arguments you have put forth.
-SW
-
I for one have much more of a "with us or against us" opinion towards the war on terror.
Yeah, that's always a good approach. I just wish we had taken that attitude when members of the IRA were getting US visas to get funds from US citizens. Black or white doesn't work, especially not in the world of international politics.
France is covering national interest, $60 billion worth to be exact. The US would do EXACTLY the same given the same size economy. $60 billion is alot of money to France.
force the Arab countries to join the world "reality" Force their societies to focus on things like "education" and producing goods and services, and thus changing their culture.
Yes, that's exactly what we need, more goods and services. Damn those lazy Arabs! Where is their corporate awareness?
Seriously, while more education would be good, you have to be more specific. Jordan is very liberal particularly when it comes to what women can do. But advocating 'changing their culture' implies riding roughshod over traditions and beliefs - and that is exactly what is at the heart of this problem.
OR we could bomb 'em into glass.
How very civilized and enlightened. How very tough. Total bollocks also.
this regieme change thing has been going on for a while. The U.S.S.R and the U.S.A. did alot of it over the years. We are just being more open about it with Iraq.
Hardly something to be proud of. It's entirely because we messed up in the Mid East and then repeatedly backed out set of bad guys against their set of bad guys that this mess has come to fruition.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Nice theory by the way, I have a theory too: Germany, France and Russia are opposed to a war with Iraq because they have been secretely funding Saddam and his military for the past 12 years.
We shall soon find out who's theory is correct.
-SW
I belive that your theory might be very accurate.
But dont tell me that the Invading Us forces Where halted because a UN security council yelled out:
"FOr the love of GAAAWD, stop, spare the poor bastard!"
I f thats true, then you guys are plain stupid, and I have to reconcider trusting you playing around with nukes.
Crabofix
-
So now you are questioning why we didn't keep on rolling through Baghdad and crush Saddam and the remnants of his military?
Geez, where would we be today. Oh, that's right. Here, arguing about why the great satan Bosh Sr. took over Iraq from an evil dictator.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
So now you are questioning why we didn't keep on rolling through Baghdad and crush Saddam and the remnants of his military?
Geez, where would we be today. Oh, that's right. Here, arguing about why the great satan Bosh Sr. took over Iraq from an evil dictator.
-SW
Do you really think that I have something against USA, just because I question some of your actions?
Now, Mr Ford Pinto, are we done? Or are you gonna answer me why you didnt cruch Iraq when you had the bat swinging?
Crabofix
-
The UN did not allow the oalition armies to depose hussein in 1991.
Many in the world thought that hussien would fall internaly after the defeat, we were wrong.
Many feared, wrongly, that removing hussein would reduce stablity.
The UN has added legitimacy to hussain by giving him all this time.
These are the mistakes we are now willing to correct in light of 911.
And I must disagree with the assertion that the 911 attacks were not unique and that they only changed things for america as it had not experienced terrorism before. First of all there have been a series of "terror" attack against americans both at home and abroad dating back to the early part of this century. Therey were perpetrated ba variery grops ranfging from anarchits and hippie/communists to right wing fanatics like tim mcveigh and even the KKK. And then of course the islamits with the 1993 WTC attack, in addition to the overseas targeting of americans for 20 years before. So frankly the USA is no stranger to terror.
The difference of 911 was scale and senselessness. Nobody in the world has killed that many people in one fell swoop in any single terror attack - only in wars. They openly commited an act of war on the west. This wasnt terrorism with a group of motley hijackers seeking asylum in cuba, it was mass murder - it was in it's way their best attempt at use of WMD. We were fortunate only 3000 died, the heroism of rescue workers likely saved 20,000 lives. In other words the 911 attackers were planning on taking 20,000 lives. That is not terror, that is war. And it accomplished nothing, it was simply an orgy of hatred and murged to the fanatics. It was their fantasy of destrying the west realized in a comparetively minor human catasrophe compared to what they hoped for and what they were or are preparing for tommorow.
That my friends is why 911 is diffrent, different not just for amreica but for the civilized world.
-
You question our actions, without even having half the story- or even a remote amount of truth to the questions.
Such as "You used nuclear weapons." Yes, we did use them. To prevent millions of lost American lives in a war WE did not start, and WE were brought into by the nation we used the nuclear weapons against. A nation that was not going to surrender unless they were almost wiped from the face of the earth.
That in itself makes your statement "You used nuclear weapons." in response to Iraq having WMDs (in which they used nerve gas just for the sake of killing off Kurds) as ludicrous as saying that the Holocaust never happened.
"Mr Ford Pinto", ah that was a nice one. Sucked donkey balls, but nonetheless atleast you tried.
Why didn't we crush Iraq when we had the chance? Because it wasn't necessary. It was presumed Saddam was contained. He has been contained, but he has vehemently defied the UN in both allowing inspectors in and in destroying his WMDs.
It's been proven time and again, he won't cooperate and has no intention of doing so.
He screwed himself into this situation.
And I'm spent, I am going out to get loaded. You have fun equating Iraq's use and ownership of WMDs to the US's use of nuclear bombs and ownership of them.
-SW
-
Ok AKSWUlf, Have a nice time.
Crabofix
-
"The average age of the Infantryman is 19 years. He is a short haired, tight-muscled kid who, under normal circumstances is considered by society as half man, half boy. Not yet dry behind the ears, not old enough to buy a beer, but old enough to die for his country. He never really cared much for work and he would rather wax his own car than wash his father's; but he has never collected unemployment either.
He's a recent High School graduate; he was probably an average student, pursued some form of sport activities, drives a ten year old jalopy, and has a steady girlfriend that either broke up with him when he left, or swears to be waiting when he returns from half a world away.
He listens to rock and roll or hip hop or rap or jazz or swing and 155mm Howitzers. He is 10 or 15 pounds lighter now than when he was at home because he is working or fighting from before dawn to well after dusk.
He has trouble spelling, thus letter writing is a pain for him, but he can field strip a rifle in 30 seconds and reassemble it in less-in the dark.
He can recite to you the nomenclature of a machine gun or grenade launcher and use either one effectively if he must. He digs foxholes and latrines and can apply first aid like a professional. He can march until he is told to stop or stop until he is told to march. He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation, but he is not without spirit or individual dignity.
He is self-sufficient. He has two sets of fatigues: he washes one and wears the other. He keeps his canteens full and his feet dry. He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth, but never to clean his rifle. He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes, and fix his own hurts. If you're thirsty, he'll share his water with you; if you are hungry, his food.
He'll even split his ammunition with you in the midst of battle when you run low. He has learned to use his hands like weapons and weapons like they were his hands. He can save your life - or take it, because that is his job.
He will often do twice the work of a civilian, draw half the pay and still find ironic humor in it all. He has seen more suffering and death than he should have in his short lifetime. He has stood atop mountains of dead bodies, and helped to create them. He has wept in public and in private, for friends who have fallen in combat and is unashamed. He feels every note of the National Anthem vibrate through his body while at rigid attention, while tempering the burning desire to 'square-away' those around him who haven't bothered to stand, remove their hat, or even stop talking. In an odd twist, day in and day out, far from home, he defends their right to be disrespectful.
Just as did his Father, Grandfather, and Great-grandfather, he is paying the price for our freedom. Beardless or not, he is not a boy. He is the American Fighting Man that has kept this country free for over 200 years. He has asked nothing in return, except our friendship and understanding. Remember him, always, for he has earned our respect and admiration with his blood."
-
..America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
US government wants more Influence in the world? No problem, throw all internatinal laws, spit on the face of UN and just use your militairy power like ya doin in Iraq next week Mr. Bush & Co but please don't hide behind Hegel as he is Ol Europe and you morons will never understand it. :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
..America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
America's potential war in Iraq effects Germany in no way, it's just plain redicules.
Get over it .
-
That essay represents an extremely dangerous path of mixing up Hegelian philosophy, read as Nietche, with real world politics. Applying Hegelian Master/Slave dialectics, with all the implications of Nietche's later übermench concepts, to geopolitics is a dangerous practice which implications should be all to clear to the world after the two very European world wars that so clearly fed upon these kind of notions.
Try to follow Lee Harris metaphors closely and the dangers this path leads to comes clear.
He sets up the current world situation as world-historical in Hegelian sense - a situation that defies rationality, that defies analysis " it is impossible to evaluate them adequately, because the proper concepts for even describing the new situation have yet to be constructed". He describes how "The war with Iraq will constitute one of those momentous turning points of history in which one nation under the guidance of a strong-willed, self-confident leader undertakes to alter the fundamental state of the world."
Later he assigns to the situation the metaphor of the Gordian knot: "Here we have the heart of our historical impasse, and the only way out of it is to cut the Gordian knot."
The hero, the übermench to stay with the line of philosophy that he attaches himself to with his invoking of Hegel (and clearly, but only inclined, Nietche), needs to step forward and cut the knot with the mighty swords. The web of rationality that the knot represents cannot be solved and should thus be destroyed with the power of the sword again by the übermench that transcends above the limits of rationality and breaks all rules in his solving of the problem.
The action required is a "crossing of Rubicon" - it is the Cesar throwing the dices, crossing the river to Rome and overthrowing the senate. It is again the übermench, the "strong-willed, self-confident leader" who overthrow the rational system to impose his wisdom on the world.
The image of these metaphors is that of George Bush as the übermench, as Cesar crossing the Rubicon to overthrow the liberal world order, breaking the knot of rationality with power to impose his wisdom over the world.
Hegel, Nietche and Marx are all great philosophers - but whenever someone invokes them to call for the strong leader to step forward and cut through the world-historical situation with the power of their wisdom over the complexity of rationality one must not be seduced.
It was ideas like this, of the Hegelian world-historical events that would alter the state of the world, that made young people all over Europe celebrate the start of the first world war in the streets.
It was this line of philosophy that Lenin invoked though Marx and it was on the very same foundation of metaphors, Cesar crossing the Rubicon, the übermench, the great earth shattering world-historical events, that Hitler build his propaganda, his ideology and his world view on.
He to build on the notion of crossing the Rubicon in what would constitute one of those momentous turning points of history in which one nation under the guidance of a strong-willed, self-confident leader undertakes to alter the fundamental state of the world.