[rdb3]

You know why we have a harder time than we should have in defeating the RATS? It's because we'd rather fight each other.

Therefore, I have absolutely no use for the "ideology über alles" crowd. And I'm sure that the "ideology über alles" crowd has no need for me, either.

Therefore, let us go our separate ways in peace. There's no other solution.

[justa-hairyape]

(Nevertheless, he would not use them against a foe armed with nuclear weapons: brutal dictators are realists, and therefore devoid of suicidal tendencies.)

Earth to bonehead - Saddam has fired scuds at a nearby nation that has nuclear weapons. That nation is Israel.

Additionally, Saddam is not the entire problem within Iraq. The problem was the Baath Marxist Socialist Party which gave Saddam the ability to assume dictatorial power. That party game into power by killing its legitimate opposition within the previous goverment.

[SteamshipTime]

Excellent deconstruction of the warmongerers' position.

This line is a classic: "There is no strategic vision, no cost-benefit analysis, no consideration of risks, and no definition of victory. This is frivolity on par with the behavior of Europe's leading statesmen in July 1914."

[Valin]

Bump for a later read.

[goldstategop]

The paleo cons were the people who took the existence of the Soviet Union for granted and for all their rhetoric of opposing the expansion of Communism, seemed resigned to the fact nothing could be done to bring the Evil Empire down. Their present rhetoric on Iraq betrays their lack of appreciation for America's strengths and ability to make the world a safer place for American interests and democracy. Ronald Reagan elected to go with us sullied neo-cons and went on to win the Cold War. George W. Bush has our ear on Iraq and after our little adventure in Baghdad is over the Middle East will never be the same again. In a word its time to go and kick our enemies ass!!!

[Stentor]

This article is a gigantic ball of gas which when it finally dissipates is nothing other than a wordy expression of internationalist anti-Americanism masquerading as American Fundamentalism. Either way, it's crap.

[x]

Some are inspired by the ideology of "idealistic" globalism, constructed upon the notion of America's exceptionalism: the United States is a proposition nation, founded upon the values of equality, human rights, tolerance, etc, etc; it is therefore unique, it is the "indispensable nation," a light to the world, whether the world wants it or not. "Humanitarian bombing" was those people's trademark, the Balkans their favorite playing field, and they thrived under Bill Clinton. They saw America as the ultimate arbitrator of domestic evolutions all over the world; to them foreign policy equated social policy on a global scale, and "nation-building" abroad was the equivalent of busing and affirmative action at home.

Under President George W. Bush the "other people" in the foreign policy establishment are guided by globalism's twin brother—by the neoconservative ideology that seeks and justifies unabashed American hegemony. Both strains strikingly analogous to their doctrinaire Marxist roots, and both are deeply inimical to the traditions and values of the American Republic. Their relentless pursuit of an American Empire overseas is coupled by their deliberate domestic transformation of the United States' federal government into a Leviathan unbound by constitutional restraints.

This is an example of the kind of feverish writing that turns people off "paleoconservatism." The habit of calling everyone who disagrees with oneself "Marxist" is a sign that one doesn't have very strong arguments. As with leftists calling people fascist, the effect is to wear out the meaning of the word. When people indulge in this "everybody is a Marxist but us" it's a sign that they've stopped thinking and making distinctions in favor of just emoting.

It may be that the traditions of the Republic have been lost or are being lost. But I don't trust Chronicles to really tell me what those traditions are. Washington crushed the Whiskey rebellion. Adams fought a "Quasi-War" with France and brought the war home with the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson struck at the Barbary Pirates without a declaration of war, and strangled our own shipping with the Embargo. Madison went to war with Britain, in part because the "War Hawks" wanted Canada. Monroe cast two continents under our imperial "protection." I'm not saying that we should be ashamed of our history. And I'm not saying that nothing has changed over two centuries, or that we should fight this war. I'm just saying that "Chronicles" has a simplistic and distorted view of history and of the realities of international relations. It's emotionally satisfying, but disproven by historical experience.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Thank you for posting this article. Srdja Trifkovic is like a long drink of cool, clear water after a desperate ride across a wasteland.

The fact that this brilliant, well-reasoned, well-written, non-hysterical article is featured in a marginal American publication--- Chronicles Magazine-is damning evidence of the brutal monoculturalism of America's Ruling Elite; of the totalitarian mindset of the Last Remaining Superpower on Earth--the myth of the "far right" and the "far left" notwithstanding.

We have become what we beheld in the Cold War.

But thanks again for the refreshing drink....