it wouldn't be the clusterfuck it is now.

It's appearent the Bushy's have not thought this out very well. Fallujah should be given a 24-hour warning before an H-bomb is dropped to level the entire place.

anyway...it seems to me the Muslim's fighting this war are in it till they destroy our civilization (that's what they keep saying), so its difficult to watch the political process corrupt the military one of achieving the 'logic of war': Kill them before they kill us.

Kerry's point on taking a different approach to the war on terrorism I figure will get a lot of support around here..."bringing in the world community. Not acting unilateraly, or even arrogantly..."

Bush still has the oppurtunity to turn that perception into a leadership quality that could win him the election...but Im not sure he can pull it off.

About the only thing Bush has going for him in this election is that Kerry is such a dork.

MOAB

Some of them are fighting until the occupying force gets out of their country, and it shouldn't come as a surprise. But no, this war never seemed planned past 'ok, we shock'n'awe them, then roll some tanks in and declare the war over'. Once Saddam's government was ousted, everyone just kind of stood around looking suprised as things descended into chaos. If the whole thing had been executed with some authority, things would be better than they are now, and likely there'd be more support (internally and internationally).

But it was never going to be a case of sitting on Iraq quietly until the end of June, and I don't know how anyone could have thought it would. Hell, Afghanistan wasn't that long ago - look how well democracy took root there.

I saw historian Niall Ferguson on CSPAN In Depth last weekend and we brought up the point that seems to be so easily forgotten nowadays. It took about a decade to rebuild and re-stabalize Germany and Japan after the war. Now, 18 months into the Iraq effort, everyone's saying it's a failure and that it was doomed to fail from the start.

I just don't think the U.S.--it's civilian population and even its leaders--has the stomach for war today like the Greatest Generation did. Back then, you did what you had to do to get the job done because you knew that no matter what happened along the way, in the end, things were going to be better because you knew the cause was just. This was before moral and cultural relatvism, human rights issues and an increasingly ominpresent media took a lot of oomph out of that idea over the years, which is at the end of the day probably a good thing. But that evolution of thought has undermined war efforts from Vietnam onward, and it is perhaps no where better exemplified than when Clinton pulled troops out of Somalia after Mogadishu. Of course those who view the U.S. as an empire run amok appreciate that sort of thing, but for those who believe the U.S. should yield it's power as an empire for the greater good have had difficulty getting around that.

Originally posted by The Omega Concern
it wouldn't be the clusterfuck it is now.

It's appearent the Bushy's have not thought this out very well. Fallujah should be given a 24-hour warning before an H-bomb is dropped to level the entire place.

anyway...it seems to me the Muslim's fighting this war are in it till they destroy our civilization (that's what they keep saying), so its difficult to watch the political process corrupt the military one of achieving the 'logic of war': Kill them before they kill us.

They're in it to 'destroy our civilization'? For fuck's sake, we're the aggressor - they're fighting a defensive battle against an invading force. We were wrong to go there, and we're wrong to stay. I hope the Iraqi resistance succeeds in driving us out.

Wow, a Netphorian on record as actively endorsing the death of U.S. troops. Amazing.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
Wow, a Netphorian on record as actively endorsing the death of U.S. troops. Amazing.

Yes, thank you for obscuring (or ignoring) the line of contingency I made to connect the two aspects.

1. I wholly back the immediate withdrawl of all coalition troops from Iraq. This is what I actually want to happen.

2. If the unfortunate and altogether incorrect decision is made to stay in the country, then the Iraqis would be in the right to defend their own land.

The anti-war, pro-US mainstream liberal belief of 'I don't want the US to be there bombing Iraq, but as long as they are, they may as well kick some ass' is a hypocritical one.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
I saw historian Niall Ferguson on CSPAN In Depth last weekend and we brought up the point that seems to be so easily forgotten nowadays. It took about a decade to rebuild and re-stabalize Germany and Japan after the war. Now, 18 months into the Iraq effort, everyone's saying it's a failure and that it was doomed to fail from the start.

I just don't think the U.S.--it's civilian population and even its leaders--has the stomach for war today like the Greatest Generation did. Back then, you did what you had to do to get the job done because you knew that no matter what happened along the way, in the end, things were going to be better because you knew the cause was just. This was before moral and cultural relatvism, human rights issues and an increasingly ominpresent media took a lot of oomph out of that idea over the years, which is at the end of the day probably a good thing. But that evolution of thought has undermined war efforts from Vietnam onward, and it is perhaps no where better exemplified than when Clinton pulled troops out of Somalia after Mogadishu. Of course those who view the U.S. as an empire run amok appreciate that sort of thing, but for those who believe the U.S. should yield it's power as an empire for the greater good have had difficulty getting around that.

you watch too much tv

Originally posted by The Omega Concern
it wouldn't be the clusterfuck it is now.

It's appearent the Bushy's have not thought this out very well. Fallujah should be given a 24-hour warning before an H-bomb is dropped to level the entire place.

anyway...it seems to me the Muslim's fighting this war are in it till they destroy our civilization (that's what they keep saying), so its difficult to watch the political process corrupt the military one of achieving the 'logic of war': Kill them before they kill us.

Kerry's point on taking a different approach to the war on terrorism I figure will get a lot of support around here..."bringing in the world community. Not acting unilateraly, or even arrogantly..."

Bush still has the oppurtunity to turn that perception into a leadership quality that could win him the election...but Im not sure he can pull it off.

About the only thing Bush has going for him in this election is that Kerry is such a dork.

what the fuck are you talking about?!

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel


I hope the Iraqi resistance succeeds in driving us out.

Look, I know you're way out there on the fringe, but saying the Iraqis have the right to "defend their land" (an altogether silly statement since we're not attacking their land but rather trying to stabalize it at this point) is a long ways from saying you hope they drive us out. How exactly do you think they would "drive us out," hoss? Shoving us? Yelling at us? I think you and I both know that by saying you hope they drive us out you're indirectly endorsing bullets through their bodies.

And let's be honest: the moderate and every day Iraqis will have a much harder time "defending their land" against radical Islam and ongoing chaos than they will a coalition just waiting to leave on a peaceful note. I love how you far-left guys always speak so passionately against everything the U.S. does but then turn a blind eye to the actual alternative. If the U.S. were to leave now, what is already a mess would undoubtedly become a total disaster of which the consequences would be much worse for the U.S. and the broader Arab world. Hello Cambodia.

Well put.

Burd - 1

Squirel- 0

Originally posted by tweedyburd
I saw historian Niall Ferguson on CSPAN In Depth last weekend and we brought up the point that seems to be so easily forgotten nowadays. It took about a decade to rebuild and re-stabalize Germany and Japan after the war. Now, 18 months into the Iraq effort, everyone's saying it's a failure and that it was doomed to fail from the start.

I just don't think the U.S.--it's civilian population and even its leaders--has the stomach for war today like the Greatest Generation did. Back then, you did what you had to do to get the job done because you knew that no matter what happened along the way, in the end, things were going to be better because you knew the cause was just. This was before moral and cultural relatvism, human rights issues and an increasingly ominpresent media took a lot of oomph out of that idea over the years, which is at the end of the day probably a good thing. But that evolution of thought has undermined war efforts from Vietnam onward, and it is perhaps no where better exemplified than when Clinton pulled troops out of Somalia after Mogadishu. Of course those who view the U.S. as an empire run amok appreciate that sort of thing, but for those who believe the U.S. should yield it's power as an empire for the greater good have had difficulty getting around that.

Spare me your romantic hard-on for the past and your belief that liberal sectors of society are to blame for the corruption of American wartime fortitude. You hit the nail on the head when you said that the WWII generation "did what they had to do to get the job done because they knew that no matter what happened along the way, in the end, things were going to be better because they knew the cause was just." To me, that is crux--the reason why this war is so different than our military efforts in WWII. Don't I believe that introducing democracy to a formerly totalitarian land is good cause? Well, yeah, I do. But when our president gives a justification for war that proves to be bunk, when news reports give me no indication that our country has concrete goals in Iraq beyond the grand, obnoxiously abstract "installation of freedom" goal, and when elements of our military do some very undemocratic things to POWs with leashes and electric wires, I begin to doubt the justice of our cause. I begin to wonder if it's freedom and democracy being seeded in Iraq, or something else.

Moral relativism hasn't diminished our war efforts, because moral relativism posits that in a world with many competing, often contradictory, moral belief systems, any action can be construed as being moral and nothing is immoral. The Americans and Europeans who are decrying the war efforts certainly don't fall under that laissez-faire morality; on the contrary, they're quite clear that many of the Bush administration's policies are wrong.

As for human rights issues: If we want to point fingers at other nations' leaders for being inhumane despots, we should go to special lengths to make sure we don't start resembling them. Sounds pretty fucking straightforward to me.

And as for the media, my complaint isn’t that they’re omnipresent but that they aren’t present enough. I’ve seen a handful of types of stories about the Iraq war in the mainstream media: death toll stories; individual battle stories; scandal stories ala the recent abuse; legislature stories; and stories that follow up a Bush announcement. Fill me in if I’m missing any. But where are the stories about the military’s concrete plans between now and June 30? Does the media even think to ask? Or how ‘bout an expository overview on who exactly the enemy is in Iraq? We’ve got Shi’ite and Sunni uprisers (and now apparently some Al-Qaeda?), but how strong are their forces and where are they by region? I would love to get a clear sense of who it is exactly we have to beat, and how much is required, in order to instill stability; the fact that there are no prominent stories about it, however, leads me to believe that the authorities might not even know. Is that inevitable assumption supposed to make me feel confident about the war? And where is the voice of the Iraqi people in all this? I know they’re given some airtime, but not nearly enough. Isn’t this war in their name? If anything, the media isn’t guilty of doing too much but of not doing enough.

I’m not saying we should pull out. If we pull out, we’d only allow radical Islamic groups to take sovereignty and, with our sterling behavior firmly imprinted in the memories of the Iraqi people, allow another generation of terrorists to bloom. If we stay in, more Americans and Iraqi civilians will die and, by current projections, the Bush administration and military officials will continue their crusade of mind-numbing ineptitude. But let’s not bullshit ourselves about the cause of this mess. “Moral relativism,” human rights issues, and the media may have made us more self-aware, may have imbued grayness into formerly simplified notions of morality, but that only means we have to work even harder to not be a bunch of raving dickheads.

But when our president gives a justification for war that proves to be bunk...

The inertia of Anti-Americanism within the U.N. and world at large (particularly the RDB's spread among the judicial and media systems in America), combined with a rather toothless President that gave the o.k. to have the U.N. give one last inspection, gave Saddam all the time he needed to get rid of Bush's main reason for going to war: WMD's.

Bush lack of intellect definately played into his inability to articulate the complexity of this war on terror. Maybe's he's in too deep with the Saudi's to go there...but whatever, its a clusterfuck regardless. The Army is stretched too thin thanks to the utopians in the administration prior to this one and Bush bought Rummy's sales pitch about not needing more boots on the ground for regime change.

holy Macnamara, Batman.

Originally posted by pastor


Spare me your romantic hard-on for the past and your belief that liberal sectors of society are to blame for the corruption of American wartime fortitude.

I'll spare you when you give me a better reason to believe otherwise.

"Moral relativism hasn't diminished our war efforts, because moral relativism posits that in a world with many competing, often contradictory, moral belief systems, any action can be construed as being moral and nothing is immoral."

Yes, but an intellectually bankrupt worldview, nonetheless. It is the effects of moral relativism that have cast a dishonest and flawed sense of overall right and wrong, both practically and logically. Not in any absolute sense, but in a comparative sense. Anyone who cannot see that civilized societies like ours are morally "better" than backwards dictatorships have no place in honest debate.

Moral relativism is why we're even having this debate right now in this country about "are we any better than them?," as if rogue elements in our military somehow represent the general ideals and broader principles of the type of society we represent and the relative peace and long-term prosperity we aim to bring to the Middle East with our military, for their sake and ours.

I'm not putting my head in the sand. I realize the damage these pictures have caused. But I also realize, even though it is true we may not have seen the pictures had they not been leaked, they can and will cause even worse and unnecessary damage without proper context. Some people are, for various reasons, caught up in removing this context, as if the fact that we're investigating these abuses and placing the instigators into court martials is somehow indistinguishable between Saddam shrugging his shoulders at even worse abuse. This is why moral relativism has no place in this debate.

"And as for the media, my complaint isn’t that they’re omnipresent but that they aren’t present enough."

I was originally referring to the differences in today's media and the media of the WWII generation. I wasn't trying to make a point that today's media is too pervasive.

"But where are the stories about the military’s concrete plans between now and June 30? Does the media even think to ask?"

One answer is that they just don't know, and that everyone is sort of hanging on for dear life until July 1. Another question is, have you not been paying attention to Brahimi and the debate about whether he's even the right guy to put together a transitional government?

"Or how ‘bout an expository overview on who exactly the enemy is in Iraq? We’ve got Shi’ite and Sunni uprisers (and now apparently some Al-Qaeda?), but how strong are their forces and where are they by region? "

Najaf, Sadr City, Karbala--all places where Sadr's militia are holed up. I have seen several news reports that number his militia near the 10,000 mark. Have you just not been paying attention?

"“Moral relativism,” human rights issues, and the media may have made us more self-aware, may have imbued grayness into formerly simplified notions of morality, but that only means we have to work even harder to not be a bunch of raving dickheads."

Strangely enough, you seem to ammend the first statement you made by conceeding those elements have affected America's "wartime fortitude," if only to phrase it in a slightly different way. If you read what I originally said, I made the comment that those elements aren't necessarily a bad thing. I just think America's modern domestic issues of politcal correctness, left-over Vietnam syndrome and relativist confusion have stripped America's sense of resolve, as demonstrated in the country's reaction, not even two years later, that maybe we should leave Iraq or give up. You seem to think the acts depicted in these pictures are a new development in America's wars. How are we to know that even worse acts didn't happen in earlier wars, before the Geneva Conventions, before widespread knowledge of human rights issues--the wars you believe are significantly different, morally speaking, in how they are carried out. That was one of my points about the media, and technology. If I'm not mistaken, the pictures were taken with digital cams and were leaked by computer. Can't say I see that happening in post-war Japan.

As far as the reasons for the war being "bunk," first, if you're going to make that argument, I suggest you also ask George "It's a slam dunk case" Tenet, John "Saddam's weapons are a threat and something must be done" Kerry and several other U.S. and European leaders why they basically agreed with the same case the administration layed out for war. Remember, the debate wasn't about the intelligence, but rather how the administration should deal with the intelligence. Second, if you're going to say the reasons for this war are bunk, then you should also say the same about our entrance into WWII. There is a lot of evidence that FDR new about Pearl Harbor beforehand, and furthermore we did not retaliate directly against the country who attacked us. Of course, I'm not trying to say attacking Iraq is the the equivlant of diving into the war in Europe following Pearl Harbor, but nonetheless it seems to be something overlooked nowadays when we're constantly berated with breathless arguments like "But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!"

The point is you shouldn't try and separate too drastically the moral issues of our intentions between this war and any other, regardless of whether you view America's wars as imperialist exercises or ends-justify-the-means moral crusades. I think you can safely argue that the handling of the occupation was botched because of unreasonable expectations, and maybe even apathy, within this Pentagon. However, this is a failure of personel and responsibililty, not an overriding moral colapse.

I'm not trying to paint it as black and white as this post may sound. But I do agree with the original poster's contention that America just doesn't know how to fight wars like it used to, and I believe the reasons are the ones I've given, which again, are not necessarily bad--it just means we need to find a different, more effective way to cope. Patton would've laughed himself silly if one of his officers suggested they negotiate with the enemy (as we did in Falujja) instead of telling them they had 24 hours to get out before leveling the place.

In closing, I'm glad to see someone other than DeviousJ offering quality dissent posts on this board. You should post more, Pastor.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
There is a lot of evidence that FDR new about Pearl Harbor beforehand, and furthermore we did not retaliate directly against the country who attacked us. Of course, I'm not trying to say attacking Iraq is the the equivlant of diving into the war in Europe following Pearl Harbor, but nonetheless it seems to be something overlooked nowadays when we're constantly berated with breathless arguments like "But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!"

There's a great deal of evidence that FDR wanted us to mount some offensive against Hitler, in particular, well before we did; a war-weary public and an apathetic legislature stymied that before it could even get off the ground, though. I'm not saying your argument about America not knowing how to fight its wars anymore is bankrupt, but I do think it's worth mentioning that the time immediately preceding WWII is the period in our history during which the American public was perhaps most frightened and antipathetic toward war. Given that, you could make a pretty strong case that it was the moral necessity of the Second World War and not the Greatest Generation's resolve that fortified us, which in turn suggests that a skeptical public is now beginning to question the moral value of this war.

I'm not even sure that I believe entirely in that idea or in your idea, but it's worth throwing out there nonetheless.

Originally posted by TheEdgeboy


The inertia of Anti-Americanism within the U.N. and world at large (particularly the RDB's spread among the judicial and media systems in America), combined with a rather toothless President that gave the o.k. to have the U.N. give one last inspection, gave Saddam all the time he needed to get rid of Bush's main reason for going to war: WMD's.

Wasn't Saddam SUPPOSED to be getting rid of his WMDs? Wasn't that the entire point of the sanctions against Iraq, and the inspections conducted for the past decade? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that Saddam was scared into disposing of his weapons, so it's his fault this war was started in the name of eliminating his WMD capacity but none were actually found? I thought the official line was bad enough, but it's quite possible this is the stupidest excuse for bad intelligence I've ever heard.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
I just think America's modern domestic issues of politcal correctness, left-over Vietnam syndrome and relativist confusion have stripped America's sense of resolve, as demonstrated in the country's reaction, not even two years later, that maybe we should leave Iraq or give up. You seem to think the acts depicted in these pictures are a new development in America's wars. How are we to know that even worse acts didn't happen in earlier wars, before the Geneva Conventions, before widespread knowledge of human rights issues--the wars you believe are significantly different, morally speaking, in how they are carried out.

His point was that they were morally different in <b>why</b> they were carried out, not how, in response to your claim that public opinion of WWII was only different because of some generational attitude to war in general.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
Yes, but an intellectually bankrupt worldview, nonetheless. It is the effects of moral relativism that have cast a dishonest and flawed sense of overall right and wrong, both practically and logically. Not in any absolute sense, but in a comparative sense. Anyone who cannot see that civilized societies like ours are morally "better" than backwards dictatorships have no place in honest debate.

That's the issue at hand - making comparisons is what moral relativity is about, and this is increasingly being used to divert attention away from absolutes. "We should not be doing that, because it is morally wrong" is replaced by "hey, we're not as bad as the other guys" as a justification. And we should be trying to adhere to morals on an absolute level, not choosing reference points as we see fit.

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


There's a great deal of evidence that FDR wanted us to mount some offensive against Hitler, in particular, well before we did; a war-weary public and an apathetic legislature stymied that before it could even get off the ground, though. I'm not saying your argument about America not knowing how to fight its wars anymore is bankrupt, but I do think it's worth mentioning that the time immediately preceding WWII is the period in our history during which the American public was perhaps most frightened and antipathetic toward war.

Excellent point, and something I completely forgot about. I think the difference lies in how the public reacted at that time to the war, once it started and in its aftermath, in comparison to current domestic issues of resolve. You're right in saying the American public was probably even more isolationist before WWII, but once the war started I think the overall domestic atmosphere leaned more toward "let's finish the job" than it is today. Vietnam echoes probably have more to do with that particular erosion than anything else.

Of course there are huge differences between Iraq and WWII, but the moral imperative behind the wars is really not all that different. Saddam was a fascist tyrant who was a geographical threat to the region and who yearned to restore the Arab Caliphate nation of yore, much in the same way Hitler wanted to establish the master white Aryan race. In that regard, Baath socialism had remarkable similarities to Italian facism and German nationalism. And even now with the WMD collapse, Hitler, in comparison, was no direct threat to the U.S. in the early 1940s, nor did he directly attack the U.S. as a precept to war. Of course you might say the difference is the American people were not told Hitler was a threat at the time, but you'd also have to concede that was before WMD was a real concern, much less an acronym.

Originally posted by DeviousJ




That's the issue at hand - making comparisons is what moral relativity is about, and this is increasingly being used to divert attention away from absolutes. "We should not be doing that, because it is morally wrong" is replaced by "hey, we're not as bad as the other guys" as a justification. And we should be trying to adhere to morals on an absolute level, not choosing reference points as we see fit.

Yes, but I think we can both agree that, in terms of modern nation states, an absolute pristine morality is nearly impossible. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive toward it, but my point was that clear-thinking individuals should be able to distinguish morally between a group who wishes to impose a government based on a backward, oppresive version of Islamism and a group who, (yes, with flaws) is attempting to establish a more culturally democratic institution which respects things like womens' rights, etc.

Originally posted by tweedyburd


Yes, but I think we can both agree that, in terms of modern nation states, an absolute pristine morality is nearly impossible. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive toward it, but my point was that clear-thinking individuals should be able to distinguish morally between a group who wishes to impose a government based on a backward, oppresive version of Islamism and a group who, (yes, with flaws) is attempting to establish a more culturally democratic institution which respects things like womens' rights, etc.

But the argument is that this isn't necessarily the case - that not all the policies implemented throughout this campaign have been morally right. The lack of post-war planning implies that the stability of the country and a smooth transition to a democratic state were not high on the list of priorities here. You're right to say that one system can be considered better than another, but you're wrong to suggest that people should automatically support a half-assed, second best solution simply because it has more positives than the status quo - and that's the difference between this and WWII, and people's attitudes towards it.

And the Baath party was secular, unless you're talking about some other government

Originally posted by DeviousJ


You're right to say that one system can be considered better than another, but you're wrong to suggest that people should automatically support a half-assed, second best solution simply because it has more positives than the status quo

I'm saying sensible people should support the alternative when it's the only forseeable alternative we have at the moment. To not support the obviously better alternative is to give that much more intellectual and phychological energy to the status quo. I never said the alternative we currently have should be endorsed or considered as the absolute moral case, nor should we not strive toward that. But John Kerry's postwar plan would not have been an absolute moral case either, but it would have obviously been better than the moral status quo that previously existed.



Originally posted by DeviousJ

And the Baath party was secular, unless you're talking about some other government

I never said it was not secular. I was just pointing out the nationalist tendencies of Baath socialism have a lot in common with the nationalist tendencies of past totatitarian regimes--they're just different leaves of the same tree. Moreover, although radical Islamism and Baath socialism may not share the same religious fantacism, their ultimate goals are/were identical--the restoration of the Caliphate. It is the goal for Islamism because it would re-establish the rule of Islamic law from the Ottoman days, and it was the goal of the Baath because the caliphate system recognizes that Arabs are the superior people. That's why Baath socialism has a lot in common with Nazi nationalism--they both strived to have their people recognized as the superior race.