Marc

I think the biggest thing the pro-war forces have going for them is the
nonsequitur that because things are bad in Iraq war is the way to make it
better. War seldom does make anything better.
Don't we have a moral obligation to try EVERYTHING else first.

I don't know how things will turn out. I don't know anything about the
future. But I take killing very seriously. I also take my responsibility
as a citizen very seriously. Before I can participate in or acquiesce to
killing I have to be utterly convinced that it is just, and that it is
necessary. If you gave me a choice of killing Saddam Hussein or not I might
agree to it. It is probably just. But that isn't the choice we have. The
choice we are considering is killing an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 people
only one of which will be Saddam. I am no more willing to kill 300,000
Iraqis to get Saddam than I would be to kill 300,000 Americans to get
Saddam. We are contemplating spending hundreds maybe thousands of American
Lives to do it.

First, one must weight the cost and suffering of war against the relief it
will bring.
Second, there is considerable evidence that things will not get better under
a US supported Iraqi Government. Don't forget the Saddam WAS the US
supported Iraqi government just a few years ago.

Look at all the other countries in the Middle East that we support. Not one
of them is a democracy. We give more money to Israel and Egypt than any
other countries in the world. They couldn't survive without us. Israel,
which claims to be a democracy, is a racist state continually perpetrating
war crimes on its own displaced population, the other is a military
dictatorship. In fact every single thing we accuse Saddam of is daily
practice for Israel. Is it likely that we will entirely abandon our
previous practices and establish a democracy in Iraq.

Human Rights Watch has documented that every single country in the middle
east including all those we support routinely practice torture. Will the
new US Established Iraqi Government refrain from it. Or will they simply
torture different people than Saddam does.

Yes, perhaps at the margins things will be better for the Iraqis who
survive. But there is not any clear evidence to believe that. Consider
Haiti. Haiti has been totally under US control for more than a century.
Today it is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. The US
supported Duvalier regime, arguably the most vicious dictatorship in the
history of the Western Hemisphere. Poppa Doc Duvalier makes Saddam look
like Mahatma Gandi. They finally have a popular elected government and the
US is trying to destabilize it.

What about the Kurds? The US supported the Turks, the Iranians, and the
Iraqis as they practiced genocide against the Kurds. Why would anyone
believe that a US controlled Iraqi government will stop persecuting the
Kurds.

All history aside, do Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rumsfeld and
their gang strike you as people who are interested in democracy and human
rights? Why would they care about democracy. They didn't get in power
democratically. Is there a single incident where they have chosen liberty,
democracy, due process or human rights over power and wealth?

There is a lot to be positive about. We may not stop the war. But never
has an international popular movement ever been so dynamic and so
influential. At the very least we have increased the cost of imperialism
several orders of magnitude. I doubt Bush would have ever consulted the
Security Council if there were not such an energetic and broad based
opposition to a unilateral attack on Iraq.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other
countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw

Marc

Hatunen

On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:24:29 -0800, "Marc" wrote:

    >I think the biggest thing the pro-war forces have going for them is the
    >nonsequitur that because things are bad in Iraq war is the way to make it
    >better. War seldom does make anything better.

Sometimes it does, though. Germany is better post-WW2 than pre-WW2.
Also, I think, Japan.

    >Don't we have a moral obligation to try EVERYTHING else first.

Like Chamberlain and Deladier?


************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Go Fig

In article ,
"Marc" wrote:

    > I think the biggest thing the pro-war forces have going for them is the
    > nonsequitur that because things are bad in Iraq war is the way to make it
    > better. War seldom does make anything better.'

Unfortunately, it is war... that history has shown that does make things
better.

jay
Tue, Mar 4, 2003
mailto:[email protected]



    > Don't we have a moral obligation to try EVERYTHING else first.
    >
    > I don't know how things will turn out. I don't know anything about the
    > future. But I take killing very seriously. I also take my responsibility
    > as a citizen very seriously. Before I can participate in or acquiesce to
    > killing I have to be utterly convinced that it is just, and that it is
    > necessary. If you gave me a choice of killing Saddam Hussein or not I might
    > agree to it. It is probably just. But that isn't the choice we have. The
    > choice we are considering is killing an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 people
    > only one of which will be Saddam. I am no more willing to kill 300,000
    > Iraqis to get Saddam than I would be to kill 300,000 Americans to get
    > Saddam. We are contemplating spending hundreds maybe thousands of American
    > Lives to do it.
    >
    > First, one must weight the cost and suffering of war against the relief it
    > will bring.
    > Second, there is considerable evidence that things will not get better under
    > a US supported Iraqi Government. Don't forget the Saddam WAS the US
    > supported Iraqi government just a few years ago.
    >
    > Look at all the other countries in the Middle East that we support. Not one
    > of them is a democracy. We give more money to Israel and Egypt than any
    > other countries in the world. They couldn't survive without us. Israel,
    > which claims to be a democracy, is a racist state continually perpetrating
    > war crimes on its own displaced population, the other is a military
    > dictatorship. In fact every single thing we accuse Saddam of is daily
    > practice for Israel. Is it likely that we will entirely abandon our
    > previous practices and establish a democracy in Iraq.
    >
    > Human Rights Watch has documented that every single country in the middle
    > east including all those we support routinely practice torture. Will the
    > new US Established Iraqi Government refrain from it. Or will they simply
    > torture different people than Saddam does.
    >
    > Yes, perhaps at the margins things will be better for the Iraqis who
    > survive. But there is not any clear evidence to believe that. Consider
    > Haiti. Haiti has been totally under US control for more than a century.
    > Today it is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. The US
    > supported Duvalier regime, arguably the most vicious dictatorship in the
    > history of the Western Hemisphere. Poppa Doc Duvalier makes Saddam look
    > like Mahatma Gandi. They finally have a popular elected government and the
    > US is trying to destabilize it.
    >
    > What about the Kurds? The US supported the Turks, the Iranians, and the
    > Iraqis as they practiced genocide against the Kurds. Why would anyone
    > believe that a US controlled Iraqi government will stop persecuting the
    > Kurds.
    >
    > All history aside, do Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rumsfeld and
    > their gang strike you as people who are interested in democracy and human
    > rights? Why would they care about democracy. They didn't get in power
    > democratically. Is there a single incident where they have chosen liberty,
    > democracy, due process or human rights over power and wealth?
    >
    > There is a lot to be positive about. We may not stop the war. But never
    > has an international popular movement ever been so dynamic and so
    > influential. At the very least we have increased the cost of imperialism
    > several orders of magnitude. I doubt Bush would have ever consulted the
    > Security Council if there were not such an energetic and broad based
    > opposition to a unilateral attack on Iraq.
    >
    >
    > --
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    > "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
    > "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other
    > countries because you were born in it."
    > George Bernard Shaw
    >
    > Marc
    >

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Jim Morris

"Go Fig" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article ,
    > "Marc" wrote:
    > > I think the biggest thing the pro-war forces have going for them is the
    > > nonsequitur that because things are bad in Iraq war is the way to make
it
    > > better. War seldom does make anything better.'
    > Unfortunately, it is war... that history has shown that does make things
    > better.

France was certainty better off after being liberated in WWII!

Marie Lewis

This is such a good post. Thank you.


In article , Marc
writes
    >I think the biggest thing the pro-war forces have going for them is the
    >nonsequitur that because things are bad in Iraq war is the way to make it
    >better. War seldom does make anything better.
    >Don't we have a moral obligation to try EVERYTHING else first.
    >I don't know how things will turn out. I don't know anything about the
    >future. But I take killing very seriously. I also take my responsibility
    >as a citizen very seriously. Before I can participate in or acquiesce to
    >killing I have to be utterly convinced that it is just, and that it is
    >necessary. If you gave me a choice of killing Saddam Hussein or not I might
    >agree to it. It is probably just. But that isn't the choice we have. The
    >choice we are considering is killing an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 people
    >only one of which will be Saddam. I am no more willing to kill 300,000
    >Iraqis to get Saddam than I would be to kill 300,000 Americans to get
    >Saddam. We are contemplating spending hundreds maybe thousands of American
    >Lives to do it.
    >First, one must weight the cost and suffering of war against the relief it
    >will bring.
    >Second, there is considerable evidence that things will not get better under
    >a US supported Iraqi Government. Don't forget the Saddam WAS the US
    >supported Iraqi government just a few years ago.
    >Look at all the other countries in the Middle East that we support. Not one
    >of them is a democracy. We give more money to Israel and Egypt than any
    >other countries in the world. They couldn't survive without us. Israel,
    >which claims to be a democracy, is a racist state continually perpetrating
    >war crimes on its own displaced population, the other is a military
    >dictatorship. In fact every single thing we accuse Saddam of is daily
    >practice for Israel. Is it likely that we will entirely abandon our
    >previous practices and establish a democracy in Iraq.
    >Human Rights Watch has documented that every single country in the middle
    >east including all those we support routinely practice torture. Will the
    >new US Established Iraqi Government refrain from it. Or will they simply
    >torture different people than Saddam does.
    >Yes, perhaps at the margins things will be better for the Iraqis who
    >survive. But there is not any clear evidence to believe that. Consider
    >Haiti. Haiti has been totally under US control for more than a century.
    >Today it is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. The US
    >supported Duvalier regime, arguably the most vicious dictatorship in the
    >history of the Western Hemisphere. Poppa Doc Duvalier makes Saddam look
    >like Mahatma Gandi. They finally have a popular elected government and the
    >US is trying to destabilize it.
    >What about the Kurds? The US supported the Turks, the Iranians, and the
    >Iraqis as they practiced genocide against the Kurds. Why would anyone
    >believe that a US controlled Iraqi government will stop persecuting the
    >Kurds.
    >All history aside, do Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rumsfeld and
    >their gang strike you as people who are interested in democracy and human
    >rights? Why would they care about democracy. They didn't get in power
    >democratically. Is there a single incident where they have chosen liberty,
    >democracy, due process or human rights over power and wealth?
    >There is a lot to be positive about. We may not stop the war. But never
    >has an international popular movement ever been so dynamic and so
    >influential. At the very least we have increased the cost of imperialism
    >several orders of magnitude. I doubt Bush would have ever consulted the
    >Security Council if there were not such an energetic and broad based
    >opposition to a unilateral attack on Iraq.
    >--
    >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    >"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
    >"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other
    >countries because you were born in it."
    > George Bernard Shaw
    >Marc

--
Marie Lewis

Marie Lewis

In article , Hatunen
writes
    >Sometimes it does, though. Germany is better post-WW2 than pre-WW2.



Maybe than *just* pre-war. But it isn't doing so well now, I think.
--
Marie Lewis

Cb

It's really not the war that makes things better. It's the "cessation of
war" and the subsequent years of peace that makes things better.

"Go Fig" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article ,
    > "Marc" wrote:
    > > I think the biggest thing the pro-war forces have going for them is the
    > > nonsequitur that because things are bad in Iraq war is the way to make
it
    > > better. War seldom does make anything better.'
    > Unfortunately, it is war... that history has shown that does make things
    > better.
    > jay
    > Tue, Mar 4, 2003
    > mailto:[email protected]
    > > Don't we have a moral obligation to try EVERYTHING else first.
    > >
    > > I don't know how things will turn out. I don't know anything about the
    > > future. But I take killing very seriously. I also take my
responsibility
    > > as a citizen very seriously. Before I can participate in or acquiesce
to
    > > killing I have to be utterly convinced that it is just, and that it is
    > > necessary. If you gave me a choice of killing Saddam Hussein or not I
might
    > > agree to it. It is probably just. But that isn't the choice we have.
The
    > > choice we are considering is killing an estimated 150,000 to 300,000
people
    > > only one of which will be Saddam. I am no more willing to kill 300,000
    > > Iraqis to get Saddam than I would be to kill 300,000 Americans to get
    > > Saddam. We are contemplating spending hundreds maybe thousands of
American
    > > Lives to do it.
    > >
    > > First, one must weight the cost and suffering of war against the relief
it
    > > will bring.
    > > Second, there is considerable evidence that things will not get better
under
    > > a US supported Iraqi Government. Don't forget the Saddam WAS the US
    > > supported Iraqi government just a few years ago.
    > >
    > > Look at all the other countries in the Middle East that we support. Not
one
    > > of them is a democracy. We give more money to Israel and Egypt than any
    > > other countries in the world. They couldn't survive without us.
Israel,
    > > which claims to be a democracy, is a racist state continually
perpetrating
    > > war crimes on its own displaced population, the other is a military
    > > dictatorship. In fact every single thing we accuse Saddam of is daily
    > > practice for Israel. Is it likely that we will entirely abandon our
    > > previous practices and establish a democracy in Iraq.
    > >
    > > Human Rights Watch has documented that every single country in the
middle
    > > east including all those we support routinely practice torture. Will
the
    > > new US Established Iraqi Government refrain from it. Or will they
simply
    > > torture different people than Saddam does.
    > >
    > > Yes, perhaps at the margins things will be better for the Iraqis who
    > > survive. But there is not any clear evidence to believe that. Consider
    > > Haiti. Haiti has been totally under US control for more than a century.
    > > Today it is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. The US
    > > supported Duvalier regime, arguably the most vicious dictatorship in the
    > > history of the Western Hemisphere. Poppa Doc Duvalier makes Saddam look
    > > like Mahatma Gandi. They finally have a popular elected government and
the
    > > US is trying to destabilize it.
    > >
    > > What about the Kurds? The US supported the Turks, the Iranians, and the
    > > Iraqis as they practiced genocide against the Kurds. Why would anyone
    > > believe that a US controlled Iraqi government will stop persecuting the
    > > Kurds.
    > >
    > > All history aside, do Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rumsfeld
and
    > > their gang strike you as people who are interested in democracy and
human
    > > rights? Why would they care about democracy. They didn't get in power
    > > democratically. Is there a single incident where they have chosen
liberty,
    > > democracy, due process or human rights over power and wealth?
    > >
    > > There is a lot to be positive about. We may not stop the war. But
never
    > > has an international popular movement ever been so dynamic and so
    > > influential. At the very least we have increased the cost of
imperialism
    > > several orders of magnitude. I doubt Bush would have ever consulted the
    > > Security Council if there were not such an energetic and broad based
    > > opposition to a unilateral attack on Iraq.
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    > > "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
    > > "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all
other
    > > countries because you were born in it."
    > > George Bernard Shaw
    > >
    > > Marc
    > >
    > >
    > --
    > Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
    > Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Marc

"Hatunen" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:24:29 -0800, "Marc" wrote:
    > >I think the biggest thing the pro-war forces have going for them is the
    > >nonsequitur that because things are bad in Iraq war is the way to make it
    > >better. War seldom does make anything better.
    > Sometimes it does, though. Germany is better post-WW2 than pre-WW2.
    > Also, I think, Japan.

This is the normal reply and it has some validity.
But it is also quite reasonable to argue that if the United States had not
intervened in WWI there would have been not WWII with all of its horror and
deliberate targeting of civilian populations by both sides.
The statement I made, "War seldom does make anything better." applies equaly
to the Germans and Japanese who resorted to war. Were they better off than
if they had chosen a more peaceful path.
Perhaps we should take very seriously the example of Germany and Japan. In
this case we may be more like Imperial Japan than the United States in 1940
    > >Don't we have a moral obligation to try EVERYTHING else first.
    > Like Chamberlain and Deladier?
Of course the comparison here is dubious. Where as Germany had occupied
Czechslovakia, and Austria. Iraq is not threatening any of it's neighbors
at this time.
The appeasement analogy was a valid example when Iraq was occupying Kuwait.
But here too it is worth a closer look. Swartzkopff had told Bush that he
was sure he could convince the Iraqis to withdraw from Kuwait.
George H Bush's cabinet has stated the George Bush the elder rejected a
peaceful solution because he stated he "needed a war" to get the Saudi's to
agree to an American base in Saudi Arabia.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other
countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw

Marc

Marc

"Jim Morris" wrote in message
news[email protected] om...
    > "Go Fig" wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In article ,
    > > "Marc" wrote:
    > >
    > > > I think the biggest thing the pro-war forces have going for them is
the
    > > > nonsequitur that because things are bad in Iraq war is the way to make
    > it
    > > > better. War seldom does make anything better.'
    > >
    > > Unfortunately, it is war... that history has shown that does make things
    > > better.
    > France was certainty better off after being liberated in WWII!
As I indicated above in reply to Hatunen. The question is were they better
off after WWII than they would have been before it started. Not are they
better off after WWII than they were in the middle of it.

Also almost all historians I have read, and that's quite a few, trace the
causes of WWII directly to WWI. In fact it is more accurate to call it
World War part II. Suppose the french had not gone to war because some
Austrian Archducke was assasinated in the Balkans. What then? Nobody knows
of course. But if you asked the French would you be better off with no WWI
and WWII I think they would likely say yes.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other
countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw

Marc

Devil

On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:23:17 +0000, Marc wrote:

    > As I indicated above in reply to Hatunen. The question is were they better
    > off after WWII than they would have been before it started. Not are they
    > better off after WWII than they were in the middle of it.
    >
    > Also almost all historians I have read, and that's quite a few, trace the
    > causes of WWII directly to WWI. In fact it is more accurate to call it
    > World War part II.

Sure you can make that point. Looking at the bigger picture.

    > Suppose the french had not gone to war because some
    > Austrian Archducke was assasinated in the Balkans. What then? Nobody knows
    > of course. But if you asked the French would you be better off with no WWI
    > and WWII I think they would likely say yes.


But then consistency would also be in favor of looking at the big picture
for the roots of WWI rather than just the immediate events.

Raise of nationalisms and the ensuing arms race, I suppose.

Hatunen

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:31:02 -0800, "Marc" wrote:

    >"Hatunen" wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:24:29 -0800, "Marc" wrote:
    >> >I think the biggest thing the pro-war forces have going for them is the
    >> >nonsequitur that because things are bad in Iraq war is the way to make it
    >> >better. War seldom does make anything better.
    >> Sometimes it does, though. Germany is better post-WW2 than pre-WW2.
    >> Also, I think, Japan.
    >This is the normal reply and it has some validity.
    >But it is also quite reasonable to argue that if the United States had not
    >intervened in WWI there would have been not WWII with all of its horror and
    >deliberate targeting of civilian populations by both sides.

Ah the "what-if" game about a war that should have never happened in
the first place.

    >The statement I made, "War seldom does make anything better." applies equaly
    >to the Germans and Japanese who resorted to war. Were they better off than
    >if they had chosen a more peaceful path.

Who knows? They are demonstrably better off after the war. And for
neither did a peaceful path seem in the offing.

    >Perhaps we should take very seriously the example of Germany and Japan. In
    >this case we may be more like Imperial Japan than the United States in 1940

Eh?

    >> >Don't we have a moral obligation to try EVERYTHING else first.
    >> Like Chamberlain and Deladier?

    >Of course the comparison here is dubious. Where as Germany had occupied
    >Czechslovakia, and Austria. Iraq is not threatening any of it's neighbors
    >at this time.

For various values of "threateningits neighbors". Iraq has already
once occupied its neighbor to the south.

    >The appeasement analogy was a valid example when Iraq was occupying Kuwait.

No, it's not. The occupation of the Sudetenland and then rump
Czecholslovakia occured *after* the appeasment. Hitler wasn't
occupying anyone before.

    >But here too it is worth a closer look. Swartzkopff had told Bush that he
    >was sure he could convince the Iraqis to withdraw from Kuwait.
    >George H Bush's cabinet has stated the George Bush the elder rejected a
    >peaceful solution because he stated he "needed a war" to get the Saudi's to
    >agree to an American base in Saudi Arabia.

Cite?


************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:23:17 -0800, "Marc" wrote:

    >"Jim Morris" wrote in message
    >news[email protected] om...
    >> "Go Fig" wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >> > In article ,
    >> > "Marc" wrote:
    >> >
    >> > > I think the biggest thing the pro-war forces have going for them is
    >the
    >> > > nonsequitur that because things are bad in Iraq war is the way to make
    >> it
    >> > > better. War seldom does make anything better.'
    >> >
    >> > Unfortunately, it is war... that history has shown that does make things
    >> > better.
    >> France was certainty better off after being liberated in WWII!
    >As I indicated above in reply to Hatunen. The question is were they better
    >off after WWII than they would have been before it started. Not are they
    >better off after WWII than they were in the middle of it.
    >Also almost all historians I have read, and that's quite a few, trace the
    >causes of WWII directly to WWI.

For the European theater; I don't think the same can be said for the
Pacific theater.

    >In fact it is more accurate to call it World War part II.

Agreed.

    >Suppose the french had not gone to war because some
    >Austrian Archducke was assasinated in the Balkans.

They didn't. They went to war because countries they had mutual aid
treaties with went to war in the Balkans. It was the Austirans who
went to war because *their* archdujke was assassinated.

    >What then? Nobody knows
    >of course. But if you asked the French would you be better off with no WWI
    >and WWII I think they would likely say yes.

Myself, I didn't claim the French were better off, but I think someone
did. But if you want to play "what-if", consider that without the wars
the old enmity between Germany and France would have lingered. Even
before WW1 France wanted revenge against Germany, along with its
German-appropriated provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, as a result of
the losses of 1971. Because of the two wars neither Germany nor France
wants revenge or war at all.

In fact, one can argue that Europe is now at peace within itself,
after frequent wars dating back to the Romans, precisely because of
the horrors of WW, parts 1 and 2. It's an ill wind, etc.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 17:41:36 GMT, [email protected] (Hatunen) wrote:


    >Myself, I didn't claim the French were better off, but I think someone
    >did. But if you want to play "what-if", consider that without the wars
    >the old enmity between Germany and France would have lingered. Even
    >before WW1 France wanted revenge against Germany, along with its
    >German-appropriated provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, as a result of
    >the losses of 1971.

1871, damnit, 1871

    >Because of the two wars neither Germany nor France
    >wants revenge or war at all.
    >In fact, one can argue that Europe is now at peace within itself,
    >after frequent wars dating back to the Romans, precisely because of
    >the horrors of WW, parts 1 and 2. It's an ill wind, etc.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Marc

"Hatunen" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:31:02 -0800, "Marc" wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >"Hatunen" wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]...
    > >> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:24:29 -0800, "Marc" wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >I think the biggest thing the pro-war forces have going for them is
the
    > >> >nonsequitur that because things are bad in Iraq war is the way to make
it
    > >> >better. War seldom does make anything better.
    > >>
    > >> Sometimes it does, though. Germany is better post-WW2 than pre-WW2.
    > >> Also, I think, Japan.
    > >
    > >This is the normal reply and it has some validity.
    > >But it is also quite reasonable to argue that if the United States had
not
    > >intervened in WWI there would have been not WWII with all of its horror
and
    > >deliberate targeting of civilian populations by both sides.
    > Ah the "what-if" game about a war that should have never happened in
    > the first place.
    > >The statement I made, "War seldom does make anything better." applies
equaly
    > >to the Germans and Japanese who resorted to war. Were they better off
than
    > >if they had chosen a more peaceful path.
    > Who knows? They are demonstrably better off after the war. And for
    > neither did a peaceful path seem in the offing.
    > >Perhaps we should take very seriously the example of Germany and Japan.
In
    > >this case we may be more like Imperial Japan than the United States in
1940
    > Eh?
    > >> >Don't we have a moral obligation to try EVERYTHING else first.
    > >>
    > >> Like Chamberlain and Deladier?
    > >Of course the comparison here is dubious. Where as Germany had occupied
    > >Czechslovakia, and Austria. Iraq is not threatening any of it's
neighbors
    > >at this time.
    > For various values of "threateningits neighbors". Iraq has already
    > once occupied its neighbor to the south.
    > >The appeasement analogy was a valid example when Iraq was occupying
Kuwait.
    > No, it's not. The occupation of the Sudetenland and then rump
    > Czecholslovakia occured *after* the appeasment. Hitler wasn't
    > occupying anyone before.
    > >But here too it is worth a closer look. Swartzkopff had told Bush that
he
    > >was sure he could convince the Iraqis to withdraw from Kuwait.
    > >George H Bush's cabinet has stated the George Bush the elder rejected a
    > >peaceful solution because he stated he "needed a war" to get the Saudi's
to
    > >agree to an American base in Saudi Arabia.
    > Cite?
I will try to track that down for you. It has been a couple of years since
I ran across it.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other
countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw

Marc

Marc

"devil" wrote in message
news[email protected]...
    > On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:23:17 +0000, Marc wrote:

    > But then consistency would also be in favor of looking at the big picture
    > for the roots of WWI rather than just the immediate events.
    > Raise of nationalisms and the ensuing arms race, I suppose.
Most of the authors I have read attribute it to competition in collonialism.
Not unlike today.
Marx, in one of the most brilliant sections of Das Capital, predicted it
about 30 years before the fact and said it was inevitable. He attributed
the inevitabillity of a "General" war to the Capitalistic tendency toward
over capacity of Capital, which drove the need for colonialism, which would
lead inevitably to conflict between the colonial powers.

Interesting that in a paper published by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and
Rumsfeld in 1991 they stated that although the "unresolved issues with the
Iraqi regime provided an excuse, the need for war with Iraq, "transcended
any specific regime".
They specificaly said that the purpose would be to increase the influence of
the US in the region and reduce the influence of France, Germany and Russia.
They also said that we could expect resistance from these allies and that
the reply would be that we would do it anyway and their interests would be
better served if they supported us.

That of course is exactly what is happening and fits perfectly with the
astute predictions of Marx.

Not that it matters, but I am not a Marxist. No person who is interested in
politics and history can consider themselves educated if they have not read
Das Capital.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other
countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw

Marc