For My Anti-War Friends...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I agree.

Back on topic…

Is war just??? Not to some.
Is not going to war just? Not to some.

If all nations were democracies would there be war? Hell yes.

We might as well discuss abortion at this point.

[/quote]

Hehe… this is why I entitled the thread “for my anti-war friends…” I assumed that most, if not all, of the hawks would consider the idea of world peace to be a complete and unattainable pipe dream, no matter what.

Don’t worry Rockscar, there’s a LOT of people who think just like you. I’m just not one of them. Why are you so sure of this:

So you’re saying that war is literally impossible to avoid? Even among a world comprised entirely of free and democratic nations? Think about this for a second:

When was the last time that the State of Florida declared war on the State of Georgia?

In a way, our United States are like little nations unto themselves… they have their set of rules, their own constitutions, etc. Just expand the idea of our own USA to the rest of the world… and presto! World Peace.

I’m not saying that we need to revisit Manifest Destiny here, I just can look forward and imagine that when all nations are free, it will follow a natural course that we will also have some kind of World Organization of these different nations which will be similar in ways to the US Federal Government. And the nations will be like states, joined together by the idea of the common good for all people.

NWO anyone? hehe

202

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Perhaps my Democratic friends can help me on this.

I’m at a loss to see what exactly you are aiming for.

I’m assuming from some of your posts that you want a spanish-style immediate withdrawl.

Some have criticised the method of fighting the war. I’m always tempted to talk about hindsight being 20/20. Even if there were mistakes made, exactly what is the point of talking about how many more troops should/should not have been on the ground in 2003?

There are so few (if any) constructive criticisms being put forth, that I am guessing as to your ultimate goal.

I am aware of the partisan component to this and the heartfelt sadness of loss of American/Iraqi life. However, I’m curious as to whether there is any deeper understanding of the issue.

For the sake of argument, imagine if everyone stopped supporting the war in Iraq. Imagine if every justthefacts looney theory turned out to be right on. Imagine if your pal W. was thrown out of office. Imagine Cheney being thrown out. Imagine Hassert being thrown out. Imagine John “fuck me” kerry suddenly being President (for the sake of argument).

Imagine we pulled out of Iraq next week. I mean everyone out of Iraq. Not one U.S. soldier or civilian on the ground.

What would happen today?

Is this what you really want?

Tell me the consequences of that action?

Do you want something else altogether?

I am very interested if any of the liberals can come up with a balanced list of positives and negatives that would occur from this action.

Surprise me.

JeffR [/quote]

I think there will be negatives regardless of the withdrawal date. My argument isn’t for withdrawal but for more soldiers–I think we did it half-assed for political reasons (i.e. more support for a smaller force, less for a larger force). So long as they are there they should be there in overwhelming numbers. If additional soldiers aren’t on the table it will be more of the same till the day they are all back home, of course the other aspect is what is the objective in Iraq?

The PNAC agenda is clearly bases in Iraq. This would probably mean a smaller force and perhaps a continuing steady trickle of roadside bombs and the like. It’s also possible that the previous agenda has changed and the moment a functional Iraq happens they’ll pull everybody out–I still don’t know what the objectives are in Iraq as far as the admin goes. Do most of us think this will be our new outpost in the middle east? (the equiv of german and s.korean bases)

203

[quote]I’m not saying that we need to revisit Manifest Destiny here, I just can look forward and imagine that when all nations are free, it will follow a natural course that we will also have some kind of World Organization of these different nations which will be similar in ways to the US Federal Government. And the nations will be like states, joined together by the idea of the common good for all people.

NWO anyone? hehe[/quote]

Someone will always have a reason to fight…over stuff like water rights, natural resources, LAND and there will always be someone who wants to conquer…for whatever reason…good or bad.

204

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I’m not saying that we need to revisit Manifest Destiny here, I just can look forward and imagine that when all nations are free, it will follow a natural course that we will also have some kind of World Organization of these different nations which will be similar in ways to the US Federal Government. And the nations will be like states, joined together by the idea of the common good for all people.

NWO anyone? hehe

Someone will always have a reason to fight…over stuff like water rights, natural resources, LAND and there will always be someone who wants to conquer…for whatever reason…good or bad.
[/quote]

War is a power issue not a democratic issue.

Anyone that believes otherwise is fooling themselves and/or is easily brainwashed by their poitical party leaders.

205

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Headhunter, I went back and read the thread and the requirements and process. I will sign up this evening.[/quote]

That is truly outstanding, Elk! Thanks for taking the time to look at the thread and signing up! Very much appreciated.

206

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Headhunter, I went back and read the thread and the requirements and process. I will sign up this evening.

That is truly outstanding, Elk! Thanks for taking the time to look at the thread and signing up! Very much appreciated.
[/quote]

Well, Headhunter, your attack on my conscience was successful. (LOL) Really everyone knows I am vehemently opposed to this war and the reasons given for it, but my beef lies with the politicians who orchestrated it, not the troops fighting it.

They are in a horrid place they may never come back from and I feel for them. I think it is a positive thing to do!

207

League of Nations?
United Nations?

Your hawkish friends don’t like outside powers or leagues or what-have-you having any say in how the US or any of it’s internal organizations conduct themselves.

They’d probably go to war to avoid it. Bummer.

208

lumpy,

Thanks for this post. Easily the most balanced post you’ve written in a while (maybe ever).

You wrote:

“I think there will be negatives regardless of the withdrawal date. My argument isn’t for withdrawal but for more soldiers–I think we did it half-assed for political reasons (i.e. more support for a smaller force, less for a larger force). So long as they are there they should be there in overwhelming numbers.”

I’m sorry but this seems like more “hindsight is 20/20” thinking.

Let’s be completely frank here, if there were twice the numbers of troops, don’t you think it increases the risk (as your party contends) of being labeled as occupiers? Isn’t this what you and your friends have been crying about for quite a while? In that case, aren’t more targets going to equal more casualties? Are you trully going to sit there and tell me that if the Adminstration instituted the draft, and added FIVE times more troops, that you wouldn’t be the FIRST to post daily death counts?

I contend that the Administration has been grappling with the balance between the numbers of troops for maxiumum effectiveness and the number that trully inflames the majority of the population. The public relations aspect of this is easily as important as actual ground operations.

If you are talking about an “overwhelming war” to what degree are you ready to go? I hear your party moaning about “lack of AC.” Do you seriously expect us to believe you have the stomach to fight out a total war?

This is what I think would happen given your scenario: First, there would be an increase in Anti-American sentiment fueled by the scumbags like zarqawi (any excuse to attack is ok with him), Second, more American targets/more non-combat accidents, Third, the dems would raise a stink to holy heaven about “It took this long for the Administration to admit error!!!” “It’s costing … a day now!!!” “It’s another vietnam, see how they are escalting it. W. doesn’t really ever want to leave!!!”

You wrote:

“If additional soldiers aren’t on the table it will be more of the same till the day they are all back home, of course the other aspect is what is the objective in Iraq?”

We’ve been over this in exhaustive detail (see speeches from 2002 that I posted).

“The PNAC agenda is clearly bases in Iraq. This would probably mean a smaller force and perhaps a continuing steady trickle of roadside bombs and the like. It’s also possible that the previous agenda has changed and the moment a functional Iraq happens they’ll pull everybody out–I still don’t know what the objectives are in Iraq as far as the admin goes. Do most of us think this will be our new outpost in the middle east? (the equiv of german and s.korean bases)”

I think an ongoing American presence, albeit smaller, would be a smart move strategically. Pull up a map of the region. Overflights into iran, monitoring syria, ability to respond to aggression from others quickly.

Think on it. Not to mention our presence being a deterrance (aka Korea).

In all sincerity, thanks for your post. I hope you will forgive me when I highlight what I think are shortcomings in your plan and potentially cleverly laid traps for the Administration.

JeffR

209

More US soldiers may equal more US casualties. It is getting near time for the Iraqis to step up and take care of their own security.

The time for more soldiers on the ground was during the invasion although I do not know if they were available.

210

[quote]JeffR wrote:
zeppelin795 wrote:

“What is truly pathetic is how our government lied to Tilghman’s parents. They used his death to help stir the jingoistic pot that many on this forum wallow in. Truly tasteless.”

First of all, at least have the decency to spell the hero’s name right.

Second, how long was it before we suspected it was friendly fire? Less than a week sound about right?

Third, imagine you are the military. Think you’d be in a hurry to disclose this sort of tragedy?

The only problem I have is if the parents weren’t given the details as soon as they were known (or at least reasonably suspected).

zep, I know YOU hide shortcomings in your own life.

I’d have to defer to Hedo or Ranger on this one. I don’t know how long it takes for friendly fire information to climb the chain of command.

JeffR
[/quote]

Ahhh…no try a month before the Pentagon said he was killed by friendly fire that was brought about by enemy fire. And then a month later the story changed to just friendly fire not brought about by enemy fire. Now that story is being ammended. Remember they first said it was enemy fire.

Both parents are absolutely disgusted by “the lies and deception of their sons death”. In fact Tillman’s father said the investigation is a lie!

211

[quote]vroom wrote:
“The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants.”

For those who are blind patriotic cheerleaders, that would be known as a precedent…

The point of having an “open” government is to keep it from having the ability to find ways to manipulate public opinion to it’s own ends.

If and when that occurs, you no longer have any reasonable “will of the people” being reflected… and you really don’t have a democracy in anything but name.

So, pray it never happened.[/quote]

It already has happened. The amount of propaganda spewed forth by the government and corporations is so overwhelming that most people in this country have no idea what is really going on here or anywhere else for that matter.

212

People keep using that word (Democracy) but it does not mean what they think it means. “We have given you a republic, if you can keep it,” said Ben Franklin, emerging from the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Democracy allows citizens to vote on every issue (in ancient Athens, where democracy was born, that meant only freeborn males born in Athens), frequently leads to what Thomas Jefferson called the “tyranny of the majority” and ultimately mob rule.

A republic on the other hand involves representatives elected by the people, who can be removed from office at the people’s discretion and involves protections for minority groups and individuals. I don’t want to live in a country where because i’m different in some way (queer, black, female, disabled, poor, Arab, whatever) I can get screwed to the wall by the majority. And I’m pretty sure Iraqi Sunni’s feel the same way about it, which is a large part of why they are resisting the Shi’a dominated government. Plus can we really ram our idea of what freedom and “democracy” is down other people’s throats and really expect them to get on board? “A man convinced against his will, is a man unconvinced still.” Don’t know who said that but it makes sense to me.

And it’s pretty clear now that Dubya went to war because he wanted to go to war, no matter what other people said or what the evidence was regarding WMD’s and the Iraq/al-Quaeda connection.

213

Remember everyone that there are people that make huge fortunes off of war, and they aren’t eager to brag about it. Bankers, for instance, have made enormous amounts of money financing the governments’ wars, and they don’t have to tell anyone because their firms are partnerships.

It should be no surprise that bankers will buy up newspapers and tv stations and radio stations and staff them with intellectual whores that come up with reasons to go to war, because of the interest they will receive on the government debt that will be incurred. It may be surprising to alot of you that the Federal Reserve is NOT owned by the US government.

It and its member banks are all privately owned, and the interest paid to them on the money they create out of thin air goes to SOMEBODY. President Kennedy issued a “united states dollar” backed by the government in 1963 and we all know what happened to him. Wake up people, the “government” we all see is not running things, they don’t even print their own money!

214

On what guerriere wrote:

I’ve heard about the “tyranny of the majority” but what about the tyranny of the minority?