Third Party & Independents: Archives

The Victors write History.

Aldous-
That’s all and well, but what are these fellow’s last names?

David,

Unless I am mistaken, the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to an individual as the result of nominations and determination by a group of 5-6 Norweigan Laureates serving as a committee for six year periods.

It is extremely difficult to know what those gentlemen take into consideration when awarding
the Peace Prize.

A review of the winners over the last 100 years or so however reveals some arguably suspect choices. http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/peace.html

I saw on the news this morning that some “experts” are predicting that a gallon of gas will cost $5.00 by the end of 2005. This in itself will cause us to change lifestyles in a way that we have never imagined.

I am one who has advocated that we seize the oil in Iraq immediately. That was before however, I learned that our refineries are already producing at maximum and it can take upwards of ten years to get a refinery up and running.

Alternate power sources are needed ASAP.

Alternate power sources are needed ASAP.

Though this is not exactly on topic, you realize that any ‘alternate’ power source is going to take longer than the 10 years for a new refinery to come online, right?

We’re in this situation because of the past 2 administrations just not giving a damn and thinking that oil would do the trick long enough. Nuclear facilities should have been built over the past 12 years as well as looking at ways to make wind and solor more efficient and cost effective. as well as building new oil refineries.

Unfortunately, both parties used this as a political football and as a result we are now paying for it at the pump. Yay for the 2 party system!

I may be threatening my liberal/leftist/pinko credentials here (smirk), but I think you may be giving people the wrong impression about the King David Hotel. It was the British military HQ at the time. I don’t think that attacking military facilities is terrorism, regardless of the nations or methods involved. (Marine barracks in Lebanon, USS Cole: pretty nasty, but not terrorism.) War is war. Admittedly, the Zionists did a lot of things that weren’t very nice, and some of it was probably terrorism.

Dave:

Excellent post.

You sound pessimistic. You should read Non-Zero, by Robert Wright. He claims that human nature has been evolving from tribes in barbaric competition to larger groups in civilized cooperation. According to him, in 1500 BC there were 600,000 autonomous political entities in the world, and in the year 2000 there were only 195.

Now, we have half the population of America complaining about a war. We’re making progress.

Woody,

When did the British declare war on the Zionists? For that matter, when did the Zionists declare war on the British? Notwithstanding the numerous civilian casualties, the bombing of the King David was a heinous act of terrorism.

David Remer,

I think what you’re struggling with is an absolute moral definition of national sovereignty. In other words, at what point does a government become criminal, thereby abrogating its legitimate right to sovereignty. Criminal governments cannot be tolerated and must be deposed, by any means necessary.

I’d say that there are three acts that would constitute governmental criminality and the loss of national sovereignty, ipso facto: the active support of international terrorism, genocide and wars of conquest or geographic expansion. On all three criteria one could make an excellent case that Baathist Iraq was a criminal government, and our depostion of Hussien was morally appropriate.

(Parenthetically, Bush’s problem was not the war, but the peace. Iraq is turning into the Yugoslavia of the Middle East as the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are becoming latter day versions of Serbs, Croats and Bosnians. But this point is off topic.)

Notwithstanding the minor technicality that it is illegal for a US government official to assassinate people, killing Saddam was not the answer. He could have been replaced by one of his wacko sons or some other dictator. (See Kennedy’s assassination of Deim in South Vietnam.) His capture and subsequent trial would have been the only way to discredit Baathism to a degree sufficient to induce societal change.

Let’s say, God forbid, that a thermonuclear devise is detonated in Times Square by a suicide bomber. You’re the President, and your advisors are telling you that al-Qaeda was responsible, and that they had purchased the weapon from Iran. They’re not 100% sure, but +90%. You’ve seen the babies in the burn wards, you’ve agonized with thousand of grieving family members, and the mob on the streets and in Congress is howling for vengence. What do you do?

Do you arrest a couple of guys you can get your hands on and call it a day? Assasinate the President of Iran? Bomb Tehran in a game of nuclear tit for tat? I don’t like any of these alternatives personally.

My preferred course of action would be to demand the abdication, arrest, trial and either exoneration or punishment of every Iranian official who might have had some modicum of responsibility, from the President on down. And if they refused to turn themselves over to me, I’d go in there and get them with everything I had. I’d ask the UN for authorization and every one of my allies for help, but with or with any authorization or assistance, I’d still go in and get the bastards. Once I had the perpetrators, I’d write a constitution that creates a secular democracy and demand its adoption by the Iranian electorate so that this reprehensible act could never happen again.

The moral problem we’ve got today about the vailidity of our deposition of Baathist Iraq is that we went to war under false pretenses. Bush and Blair cynically manipulated their respective electorates in order to fabricate a casus bellum. In short, they did the right thing for the wrong reasons, while the French and the Germans, by tolerating a depraved actions of criminal dictator, did the wrong thing for the right reasons.

The only viable solution in the future is for the G-7 to create some sort of official and enforcable mechanism that stipulates the vaild exercise of military power unequivocally. (Forget the UN, this is a job for world’s largest industrial democracies, not the Security Council.) When these criteria are met, for example when Iraq invaded Iran as it did in 1980 or Kuwait ten years later, all seven nations must act as one to depose the criminal government and install a secular democracy in its place.

I believe that the moral quandary you’re wrestling with is that you recognize that the world needs a policeman, but that it simply cannot sanction an vigilante.

Ooops

Make that “a vigilante”

(Just when I was on a roll, too.)

And it’s “Diem” not “Deim”.

Chuck,

Your idea seems like a good one, since the UN obviously doesn’t do so well at it. But why G-7, instead of G-8?

In the hypothetical scenario given in a previous post of the thermonuclear suicide bomber in Times Square, as President I would take my advisors 90% analysis as Gospel and proceed to drop my “big one” on Teheran and a few other Iranian cities as well. Before I was finished there would literally be nothing more than a BIG HOLE where Iran used to be.

I do not think that there would be an American citizen who would begrudge that action. Other than of course, the bleeding heart liberals who think that killing Iranian “innocent” citizens is horrible even after they have killed American innocent citizens.

Iranians have an interesting way of clearing mine fields. It is called the “run for the promised land”. It’s simple actually, they take all the children they can round up and send them running into the mine field so that it can be safe for others to follow.

Stephanie,

I see the enforcement of a global standard of governmental conduct as a function of secular industrial democracies, and I don’t think that Russia is quite there yet. I’m not convinced that it’s sufficiently democratic for the leaders of its government to have any direct influence upon our international actions.

The leaders of Great Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Japan and Canada acquire political power as democratically as the leaders of our government acquire it. (If you consider the results of the 2000 Presidential election, perhaps they govern even more democratically than the United States.) Hence, they have at least the same degree of moral authority as our government has to create and enforce a minimal and universal standard of legitimate governmental conduct.

You see, the UN has two fundamental flaws, one transitory and the other permanent. The first is that it was predicated upon the myopic belief that the geopolitical conditions of the world immediately following the Second World War would remain immutable. Enforcable actions could be vetoed by any of the five victorious nations of WWII: the UK, the USSR, China, France or the US. Ultimately the international primacy these five nations created for themselves did not coincide with evolving geopolitical circumstances, however.

That any one nation, regardless of the nature of its government or the extent of its political, economic or military power should have the unalterable and unilateral power to veto the expressed wishes of every other nation on Earth is as preposterous as it is ineffectual. First, the disintegration of capitalistic colonialism in the 1960s and 1970s, and then the implosion of communistic colonialism in the 1990s revealed the anachronistic nature of the Security Council quite clearly. By the dawn of the new millenium, with the possible exception of the United States, the historical colonial powers no longer rule the world. Obviously, nations such as Germany, Brazil, India, Austrialia, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Canada, Japan, Spain, Italy, South Africa, Argentina, the Republic of China (Taiwan) can and should play much larger roles in world affairs than their relative positions in the United Nations permits. The deaths of capitalistic and communistic colonialism implied the death of the geopolitical rationale upon which a permanent membership in a “Security Council” was predicated. Effective and ethically binding diplomacy cannot permit any of the world’s defunct empires to preclude the united and democratic expression of international opinion.

The permanent and more problematic principle upon which the United Nations was founded was that it assumed that nationhood confers sovereignty, ipso facto. Obviously, tyrants can and do seize power, thereby creating rogue nations. (They can even do so quasi-democratically, as in the cases of fascistic Germany and Italy.) Because governments can be illegitimate, their actions and objectives, both foreign and domestic, can be illegitmate, as well. Hence, illegitimate, oppressive or aggressive governments, such as the former Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, should not and cannot be permitted to affect the international conduct of legitimate, democratic and peaceful nations.

Obviously, the world requires a centralized forum wherein every nation on Earth can gather to discuss issues of mutual interest, regardless of the philosophical foundations of any particular nation’s social, economic or political institutions. Nevertheless, because the international actions of a secular democracy cannot be inhibited by the opinions of an illegitimate autocracy or dogmatic theocracy, the actions of the Security Council become little more than the amoral expression of geopolitical power and the General Assembly is reduced to a propaganda vehicle for nations seeking to burnish the moral rectitude of their policies and actions.

This is why the UN has to be complimented and ultimately replaced by an legally binding international organization, and it should begin with the industrial democracies of the G-7. This organization can then expand to include every nation on Earth that is governed by a free and fair secular democracy that guarantees individual and minority rights - a Global Democratic Confederation if you will.

We started with the League of Nations and transitioned to the United Nations. Third time’s the charm.

Again with the “an legally binding”. Sorry.

steve smith,

The unnecessary use of a nuclear devise could only be the work of deranged psychopaths. I hope that you’re not including yourself among them.

Although the attack might be nuclear, a morally appropriate response would almost certainly have to be conventional. By their very nature, nuclear weapons inflict massive death and pervasive destruction. The civilian suffering and collateral damage they wreak makes their use against effluvial terrorists, either in government or outside it, extremely problematic. One does not poison a garden to kill a weed.

In order to respond to a surreptitious nuclear attack, any nation victimized in such a manner would have to prove to an impartial international organization, such as the Security Council, that the terrorists responsible for the attack were acting as a national surrogate. In so much as this allegation would precipitate a hearing that would become tantamount to a capital trial for the very existence of the people of the accused nation, only a unanimous verdict could provide sufficient moral authority for a nuclear response.

Unless they are employed tactically against enemy troops in active combat, nuclear weapons are strategic in nature. They are intended to destroy the capacity of a belligerent nation to wage war by obliterating its civilian and industrial infrastructure as much as its military efficacy. Therfore, their use would constitute a war crime of the highest order absent the unanimous affirmation of the Security Council, and this consent could only be granted if the attacked nation was confronted by either the immediate prospect of military conquest or by the credible threat of continued nuclear attacks.

In the words of Supreme Court Justice and UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg,

“Law not served by power is an illusion; but power not ruled by law is a menace which our nuclear age cannot afford.”

I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t want to rely on the capricious actions of the Security Council for the national defense of the United States.

Chuck,

Thank you. I’ve known for a while that the UN was ineffectual and essentially a mistake, but I never did know why. Seeing the power China has, paired with your take on it, plus this article (for example) and it’s easy to see how counting them as “one of the good guys” means the good guys don’t have much moral ground to stand on.

If our world can effectively go in the direction of World Wide Government, it will have to be democracies that lead the way, seeing that a democracy of nations is the only thing that’s going to get so many sovereign nations to be willing and able to unite.

Chuck,

I don’t intend this to be as snide as it sounds, but has the Security Council ever been effective? Has anyone ever stopped what they were doing, just because the Security Council said so?

For example, a few years ago my neighbors were having a loud party. There were a lot of people there. The music was loud of enough to be heard clearly from inside my house (from across the street). It was late. Somebody called in the disturbance and the cops showed up. I happened to be on my porch at the time, and I watched while the cops talked to my neighbors. The whole atmosphere changed while the cops stood there and talked to them. The music was turned down. The people quieted. The party was contained in a matter of minutes. Nobody got arrested. There wasn’t even a fine. All the police had to do was warn them to control themselves, and everything was fine. There wasn’t a problem for the rest of the night. For this (and other reasons) I consider the police in my area to be effective, because while they are capable of using force and do so when necessary, they don’t always have to use force. Their word is sometimes enough.

Has this ever happened with the Security Council?

Stephanie,

Thank you for you kind words.

Keep an eye peeled. In a couple of days I’ll try to give you an idea of what I think a “Global Democratic Confederaion” should look like.

Stephanie,

The United Nations is intended to keep the peace, not create it. Your friendly neighborhood cop has the power to arrest; your friendly neighborhood UN soldier usually doesn’t.

The Security Council deploys UN troops very judiciously and their mandates usually preclude direct military intervention.

The only major excpetion to this role that I can think of was the Korean War. If you’ll recall, Truman didn’t even bother going to Congress. He simply went to the Security Council for his authorization because he believed that only the UN could permit the use of military power. (That was why he had to fire MacArthur. Invading China or using nuclear weapons [both of which he advocated] violated the mandate of the Security Council.) Well, you can kiss that quaint diplomatic theory goodbye.

That’s the problem with the veto power of the Security Council. The USSR could invade Hungary or the US could wage war on North Vietnam without violating UN resolutions beacuse they could veto those resolutions. Which is why every other nation on Earth ignores them if they believe that they contravene their own narrow national interests. Do you think Resolution 242 would have ever been adopted if Israel had veto power in the Security Council?

So the short answer to your question is no. Think back to the quotre from Goldberg: “Law not served by power is an illusion.” As illusive as the power of the United Nations.

Chuck,

You cannot possibly be serious. You claim that a response with nuclear weapons would be the work of a psychopath. You then state :

“Although the attack might be nuclear, a morally appropriate response would almost certainly have to be conventional. By their very nature, nuclear weapons inflict massive death and pervasive destruction. The civilian suffering and collateral damage they wreak makes their use against effluvial terrorists, either in government or outside it, extremely problematic. One does not poison a garden to kill a weed.”

What makes our response any less devastating than the original attack. These people just exploded a nuclear bomb in Times Square. The last I looked we have civilians in Times Square not military personnel.

Your response IMO is so bleeding heart liberal and uncaring of American lives the response itself is reprehensible. You have tunnel vision on following some unfulfilling protocol. You want to ask the Iranian officials responsible to abdicate and turn themselves in for purposes of being tried for their actions.

You said….

“And if they refused to turn themselves over to me, I’d go in there and get them with everything I had. I’d ask the UN for authorization and every one of my allies for help, but with or with any authorization or assistance, I’d still go in and get the bastards.”

Pray tell, what does this mean? How would you get the bastards? What means is “get them with everything I had”?

Quite honestly, your original question/comment and your response to my comments is nothing more than “bait and switch”.

Chuck,

“In a couple of days I’ll try to give you an idea of what I think a “Global Democratic Confederaion” should look like.”

I look forward to it.

Chuck,

“Think back to the quotre from Goldberg: “Law not served by power is an illusion.”“

That’s the kind of thing my husband has been saying, but he’s not been able to explain why the UN has no power. The difficulty I’ve had is I’ve read lots of stuff about what the UN could do, but they never actually seem to do anything of the sort. Now I know why, and that makes it easier to fight for this ineffectual organization to be dissolved. At least our participation in it.

steve smith,

What Chuck proposed (except for the scenario instigating the actions he described) is very much like what Bush did in Afghanistan. How is bombing them with nukes better?

Stephanie,

Please reread Chuck’s original post and mine and his responses subsequent to that.

Your comment makes no sense whatsoever to the argument. Answering questions with questions is typical for you guys but answering them seems to be mind boggling.

He and I are talking about WMD in Times Square and in Iran. Chuck in fact initiated the nuclear terrorist/suicide bomber in Times Square.

Steve,

Chuck’s response on how he’d deal with Iran if they attacked us with WMD in Times Square is very similiar to what Bush did to Afghanistan after the people there participated in attacking us. My question is, how is bombing them with nukes better than going in with soldiers?

BTW, what “you guys” are you associating me with?

steve smith,

Detonating a thermonuclear device in Times Square could only be the act of a psychopath. Detonating one in Tehran as a response would be its moral equivalent. If the US did so, we’d be no better than the terroists. The people of Iran didn’t commit this reprehensible hypothetical act, its leaders did; and the responsible parties, the leaders of its government, should be punished for doing so, not its people. Anything more would be an act of lunacy and morally indefensible.

Unless we’re attacked with nuclear weapons by a belligerent government directly, a unilateral nuclear response by our government must be ethically impermissible.

By “going after them with everything I have” I meant employing the full force of our conventional military power. The US military is powerful enough to conquer any nation, and perhaps every nation on Earth. The US, and the allies upon which we could rely for military assistance, would have to eliminate Iran’s military forces, which would enable us to bring the leaders of its government leaders to the bar of justice. They, not their people, should be the ones to pay for their horrific crime.

Hypothetically, what would you suggest India do if a terrorist detonated an atom bomb in Dehli, and the Indians thought that the source of that bomb was Pakistan? Should they be permitted to vaporize Islamabad? What if Seoul was the target and they believed that the bomb came from North Korea? Should we bomb Pyongyang? What if London was the target and some deranged sociopath in the US who sympathized with the “troubles” in Northern Ireland sold a nuclear weapon to an insane terrorist? Should they bomb Washington? What if Moscow was the target and the Chechnyan terrorists got it from the Israelis? Should they be permitted to destroy Tel Aviv? Should the Israelis be permitted to retaliate?

No nation has the right to use nuclear weapons against any other nation unless it is confronted by the prospect of its imminent conquest or the realistic possiblity of continued nuclear attacks.

The point of having nuclear weapons is never having to use them. Anthing less invites Armeggedon.

Chuck Hanrahan,

Your opinion is that detonating a nuclear device in Times Square can only be the work of a psychopath. I disagree, it could be the work of a loyal supporter of the Iran government acting solely on instructions from them.

This bomb would kill and/or devastate families of Americans possibly for generations. Yet we, in defense or in response to this heinous act by your opinion should only go after certain Iranian government officials.

The dead, maimed and eternally affected American families are entitled to immediate comparable response.

If the point of having nuclear weapons is never having to use them, why are we so focused on seeing to it that no other nations have them.

If we are powerful enough to conquer anybody what is holding us back in Iraq.

To summarize your apparent opinion; it is OK for someone or some foreign entity to blast our people to kingdom come but, in retaliation we should only be able to try and get their leaders and bring them to justice.

In terms of the other countries bombing each other, I say let them have at it. There will be fewer of them for us to have to deal with directly.

steve smith,

Yes, I contend that the unprovoked detonation of a nuclear device in a population center would have to be the work of a madman, regardless of whether that person was a public offical or private citizen.

Let’s say, just for the sake of the argument, that you’re the President and you’re certain that the detonation was an act of offical state policy on the part of the government of Iran. Then, and only then, might a nuclear response be appropriate. As I said on 8/21, however, you wouldn’t be morally justified to simply push the button and attack unilaterally. You’d have to go through the UN.

Think of it this way: you’re condemning tens or hundreds of thousands of people to a horrible death and thousands more to unspeakable suffering. Don’t they deserve a trail? If guilt has to be established before twelve impartial men and women before we execute one person, don’t the thousands you propose to kill deserve at least a hearing? What gives you the right to be judge, jury and executioner?

What if you’re wrong? What if the bomb was stolen? What if it was sold by some low-level bureaucrat who thought he or she could make a quick buck? What if it was a frame up? The Chinese or Russians or Israelis were trying to get you to take out the Iranians. There’s a wide gap between certitude and rectitude. Notwithstanding the likelihood of endangering the lives of every American by eliciting vicious reprisals from Moslems both at home and abroad (not to mention the surviving Iranians), do you want to risk being remembered as the most prolific mass murderer since Adolph Hitler?

So yes, a nuclear response would be appropropriate if, and only if, you could prove to the Security Council that the Iraninan government had used a sucide bomber as a low-tech weapon delivery system (sort of like a missle with legs). Under those circumstances, a nuclear response would be proportional.

I’m just saying that if I thought that they were responsible, I wouldn’t want to wait around until that happened. I’d want to go in there and get them ASAP.

Steve fails to recognize the collapse of our economy that would occur if we unilaterally committed another Hiroshima or Nagasaki today. The world would refuse to buy American. Given the tentative balance of our economy already and our huge national debt, some folks refuse to see beyong their own passion for revenge and total willingness to become a terrorist themselves and the consequences that would bring to the land they profess to love and the people they would profess to protect.

If I am a law enforcement officer and I see a murder or rape or other heinous crime being committed and the perpetrator starts to run away I whisper “stop, police” and shoot him 3-4 times.

When a country pulls a sneak attack (the most despicable action possible) on Pearl Harbor, I as person in charge lock up all the Japaneese people living in my country (for their own safety) and when the time is right I crank up the Enola Gay and send a message at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If someone explodes a nuclear device in Times Square (or anywhere else in my country) I retaliate with enough force so that the resulting devastation persuades them to think twice before testing my patience any further.

I immediately deport the 13 million illegal aliens living in my country at this moment.

I stop wasting my time trying to set up democratic forms of government in Middle East countries that are incapable of seperating religion from government and, where torture is part of their culture. (ie mutilating womens sexual organs, sending children into minefields to clear them, promising people a glorious after life for blowing themselves up, legal revenge killings, etc. These things just scratch the surface.

Do you think I am going to be concerned with protocol, world opinion, and proper legal representation for people/countries that endager my life and my country.

I think steve makes a good point (although I don’t think it is the point he was aiming for…) Terrorism in the heart of human nature. I would hope for more intelligent approaches to conflict and disagreement, but when people see revenge as justified based solely on national borders… when the use of Atomic Weapons appear justified… when we can take issue with the violence done in the name of other religions, but be blind to our own religion’s violence…

David,

The economic issue does get in the way a bit. How about in conjunction with my proposal all the US Corporations have to move back home and begin paying taxes and creating jobs, would that help.

Because of own generosity and often mis-placed compassion the rest of the world is holding us prisoner or, at least at bay. Being the world’s doctor, policeman, butcher, baker and candlestick maker is costing us far more money than realistic.

We cannot continue to be the doormat never exacting “an eye for an eye” or, passionate revenge if you think it better fits.

Fantastic article, David. Very well said.
I cannot participate in addressing some of the responses in this thread because my outrage would surely lead to a warning from the manager…

Thanks, Adrienne.

It does however, only take a word or two to change a critique of a writer into a critique of their message. Instead of “You are a lair”, saying, “what you wrote misleads” or, “your comment appears to lie about …” is all that is required.

Once you get the hang of it, it becomes second nature.

David,

“It does however, only take a word or two to change a critique of a writer into a critique of their message. Instead of “You are a lair”, saying, “what you wrote misleads” or, “your comment appears to lie about …” is all that is required.

Once you get the hang of it, it becomes second nature.”

I’m sorry, David, but if you’re just changing the words and not the intent, then you’re missing the whole point of the exercise.

I’m sorry, David, but if you’re just changing the words and not the intent, then you’re missing the whole point of the exercise.

That’s quite funny. What you’ve written that is, not you personally…

Nice article David. Chuck’s contribution was also good.

Stephanie,

WatchBlog management has no control over people’s intent, and wouldn’t presume to divine it. Management does however, have control over the policy as stated. Critique the Message, Not the Messenger, is a policy that can be objectively evaluated as being complied with or not. No crystal balls needed as to intent. Just the words as written. The statement, “You are stupid” is a violation of the policy for all to see. The statement “what you wrote makes no sense and is illogical” is not a violation of the policy by the same objective criteria of the policy.

Failure to understand the difference is why some folks no longer post here.

David,

I understand the difference. I’m sorry that you did not understand what I was saying, but you’ve proved that before.

Like I said, there is no accounting for what goes on in people’s minds, only what they write, and sometimes even that is deceptive. Aldous, is a perfect example. :-)

Steve Smith:

I stop wasting my time trying to set up democratic forms of government in Middle East countries that are incapable of seperating religion from government and, where torture is part of their culture. (ie mutilating womens sexual organs, sending children into minefields to clear them, promising people a glorious after life for blowing themselves up, legal revenge killings, etc. These things just scratch the surface.

Legal revenge killings. Hmmmm……and what you advocate (sending a nuke back at them because they nuked us) differs from that exactly how?

I am a conservative. But you sometimes scare the crap out of me, Steve.

David:

Interesting article. Nukes are never the answer. Never. In my travels, I have seen the devastation still evident in Japan. The effect of that milisecond lasts eternally.

Chi Chi,

Legal revenge killings that I refer to is where a husband or relative of the husband can legally kill the individual or, possibly even a relative of the individual who may have had contact with his wife.

Also, I think there are situations where disfigurement of a wife is permissible for various transgressions. What about the sexual organ mutilations.

IMO we are not talking about rational acts by rational people. Some may see it differently by I do not think that agressive warfare (a nuclear device if necessary) is unwarranted in order to put an end to the conflict.

I am not saying to destroy all the countries in the Middle East. We did not destroy all of the Japaneese territories to stop that conflict.

Steve Smith:

IMO we are not talking about rational acts by rational people. Some may see it differently by I do not think that agressive warfare (a nuclear device if necessary) is unwarranted in order to put an end to the conflict.

Sorry, Steve, but this just sounds too cavalier for me. Assuming that there truly are quite a number of Iraqis who support our cause, dropping a nuke on any given area will guarantee the deaths of even some who support us. I have seen your posts in the past with regard to collateral damage. It just is not making logical sense to me.

I am not saying to destroy all the countries in the Middle East. We did not destroy all of the Japaneese territories to stop that conflict.

And thank God for that. But I hardly think it could be classified as precision bombing either. No matter how limited the strike, not only innocents, but supporters will be killed. I am simply not following the logic.

Chi Chi,

I would say we are at an impasse.

This war is not going to end by negotiation or, IMO by the establishment of a democratic form of government in Iraq. I do not see a way to have a democracy within a country where way of life is very much, if not totally dictated by religious beliefs. To make matters worse, there are 5 or 6 different religions that have to be accommodated.

I understand that you would never realize it from some of my posts but, I value life very highly. In doing so however, it is often necessary to risk (not seek out and destroy) innocent lives of the few to save the many.

When I express my views I don’t disguise them with elequent dialogue, words and phrases that aften require thesaurus and/or dictionary reference and, I don’t insert little characters that you can click on and go to page 107 of the minutes from the UN session of August 1981 and, most of all I don’t soft soap my opinion.

Rather than say in answer to a question “I have not yet reached a definitive conclusion”, I say “How the hell would I know”.

Thanks Chi Chi, I agree entirely with you on this.

The lady who wrote this letter is Pam Foster who lives in Atlanta, GA. It was written to a family member serving in Iraq.

“Are we fighting a war on terror or aren’t we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on 9/11/2001?

Were people from all, over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation’s capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn’t they?

And I’m supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was “desecrated” when an overworked American soldier kicked it and got it wet? Well, I don’t.
I don’t care at all.

I’ll start caring when Osama Bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all the innocent people on 9/11.

I’ll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

I’ll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg’s head while Berg screamed through his gurgling, slashed throat.

I’ll care when the cowardly so called “insurgents” in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I’ll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I’ll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Bill of Rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave Marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I DON’T CARE.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don’t care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don’t care.

When I hear that a prisoner , who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed “special” food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being “mishandled” you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don’t care.

And OH, by the way, I’ve noticed that sometimes it’s spelled “Koran” and other times “Quran”. Well, Jimmy! Crack Corn and – you guessed it—-I DON’T CARE.

It is apparent that many, possibly the majority of my posts express opinions and beliefs that are more radical and/or extreme than those of the average camper. As such I will be refraining from posting on a regular basis.

—-
I’ll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
—-
Oh yea! I think the quickest way to turn this into a shitstorm is to make it all about religion.

NO! ; “Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on 9/11/2001?”

Where did you dig up this crackpot?

The more I read from people of this mindset - the more I think Maple Thorpe was right… all organized religions eventually lead us all straight to hell.

tony,

“Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on 9/11/2001?”

Yes. A lot of the complaints about how prisoners are being treated are about prisoners from Afghanistan.

These are not Islamic people. Islam refers to a religion… they are mostly Middle Eastern people. It would be very similar to saying that Iraq was invaded by Christian people. It seems to be very wise to limit religious assumptions…

tony,

Touche! However, if they want their Korans and complain if they are damaged (not that I agree that any of the abuse should occur, THAT isn’t my point, because I DO care that these abuses have occured), then they are also Muslims.

Steve Smith, no, don’t stop sharing your ideas and perspectives. Some of them may not be mainstream for this column, but, there can be no debate nor education that comes from debate without opposing views aired and critiqued.

Please, your voice has been an important one, it does represent how some or many other Americans view things, and therefore belongs here with as much purpose as any other views.