The War Party's Enablers: all of us

SF Chroncile | 14 Spet. '03 | Robert Higgs

[ohioman]

We can use the old State Dept building as an insane asylum or at the least an indoor pig farm.

[hilaryrhymeswithrich]

Or as a mortuary for all those who oppose the Clinton....those bodies are beginning to really pile up!

[u-89]

In case you forgot - we badgered the Saudis into "inviting" us into their kingdom and we promised we would only stay as long as it took to liberate Kuwait. BTW, if Saddam was such a threat to the Saudis why did he not drive right on in and take the land while we were in no position to stop him? He stopped at the Kuwaiti border and let us build up our forces for six months. At no time did he strike out at our forces even when we were realitively weak and exposed. Hardly the right moves for someone who was suppose to be the "next Hitler" who would conquer the entire region.

[jonalvy44]

yawn...When we taking out Syria, N. Korea and Iran?

[MJY1288]

Do you work for Al-Jazeera?

[x]

Yes, there is public support for wars, and yes, popular culture does contribute to that support. The "war party" vs. "peace party" schema doesn't seem to contribute much, though.

Given the right set of specific circumstances, all of us would support a war. Given another set, everyone would favor peace. It's the circumstances that matter. Most people aren't in either the "war party" or the "peace party" on any permanent basis.

Vietnam contributed a lot to polarization: writing for "us" and demonizing or ridiculing "them." This war shouldn't be allowed to do that to the country. Arguments ought to be aimed not at the "hawk" or "dove" but at the wise "owl" in our natures.

[MJY1288]

And if we were (as you said in your first post) "Pursuing war for economic gain, personal advancement or spreading ideology" we would have taken the war all the way to Baghdad and took over their oil fields and forced the Iraqi people into Christianity.

Do you even realize how utterly rediculous your statements are?

[Mr. Mojo]

When we taking out Syria, N. Korea and Iran?

ASAP, hopefully. But definitely at least one of them before the election.

[MJY1288]

"At no time did he strike out at our forces even when we were realitively weak and exposed. Hardly the right moves for someone who was suppose to be the "next Hitler" who would conquer the entire region."

Howard Dean, is that you?

[u-89]

>We go to war for defense and principle

Self Defense and Principles like taking the Pacific island holdings away from Spain who did us no harm? Putting down uppity Chinese who don't like foreigners on their land? Starting a revolution in Colombian territory because they wouldn't give us a right away across Panama? Making sure the Allies won W.W.I so our banks could get their loans paid back? or securing land in Guatemala for Chiquita banana? Or principles like Johnson escalating Vietnam so he wouldn't look soft on communism for the next election or staying there when he knew it was a hopeless cause because he didn't want to go down as the first president to lose a war? BTW, did you ever notice everywhere we get involved there is rich natural resources? Like Iraq and Liberia for instance.

[u-89]

>I wish people like you would get so fed up, that you would just leave the country.

Not too keen on debate are you? How, um, er, democratic of you.

[katya8]

The journalist who wrote this article might want to read the post about PACIFISTS in this weblog!

[LS]

Whatever his "path," the fact is, he thinks the U.S. should not have fought Japan in WW II. That, sir, is indeed lunacy.

[Mr. Mojo]

did you ever notice everywhere we get involved there is rich natural resources? Like Iraq and Liberia for instance.

What's the "rich natural resource" in Kosovo? Or Grenada? Or Somalia? Or Afghanistan?

[MJY1288]

I think both the Author of this article and his fellow pacifists "u-89" need to read that weblog

[u-89]

>Given the right set of specific circumstances, all of us would support a war.

Sure, that includes me by the way. However when on examines most of the last century one can not claim very much in the way of literal self defense. Every time the politicians want to mobilize support for their cause they wave the flag and point to some enemy at our gates but funny how most of that doesn't bare scrutiny - and that's just under the light of public information. Imagine what is being withheld.

>Arguments ought to be aimed not at the "hawk" or "dove" but at the wise "owl" in our natures.

My point precisely. A wise, benevolent foreign policy would not have created a century of wars for us with only more on the horizon.

[dennisw]

He'd rather wallow in his imaginary morality................


Got that right. If I'm in the war party, he's in the yellow belly party.

[meyer]

Nothing wrong with using the military against al Qaida but drawing up a list of 6 or 8 countries to invade and rebuild is extremely foolish - not to mention trying to redefine a culture by force.

A culture of murder responds to nothing but force.

BTW the Nazis found out the hard way that they could not conquer terroism with the military. For every one they killed there was always at least one who took their place.

Ummmm - your grasp of 20th century history is a little lacking. Nazis were the terrorists (unless you have a special place in your heart for those who hate Jewish people). It is the US and its allies that conquered terrorism with the military.

[300winmag]

Wars are sometimes necessary however a wise policy is to avoid getting oneself into positions where they become more likely when there are other options. It is unwise to go out of one's way to make enemies where they need not exist. Conservative and libertarian critics of the the Iraq war do not specifically pick on this one occurrence or this one particular administration. They tend to see our foreign polices dating back to the Span Am War as unwise and motivated by reasons other than national defense. History shows how our interventions and meddling have not solve problems, rather they have been complicated. War begets more war.

If that was true, than the regime of Bill and Hitlery would have to be judged to have the most successful foreign policy in history. Every terrorist attack against America was met with more money and concessions to the attackers. Red China was allowed to buy MIRV and nuclear secrets from us. North Korea was rewarded with food, cash, and reactors. Pakistan got a nudge to help in developing their primitve nukes. Military action on our part was limited to gaining personal advantage for the klintons. Hitlery wanted intervention in the Balkans, and got it. Bill only launched cruise missiles to drown out grand jury proceedings against him.

War with Germany and Japan means we won't be fighting either country again, at least not for another few generations. Of course, that's because we learned from the mistakes of the earlier go-rounds, and helped rebuild their societies so they could turn to socialism and not spend their considerable abilities on militarism.

Militant islam brought war to America, and ten times more civilians were dead within a couple of hours in America on 9-11 than troops were killed in Iraq to date. Islam will now experience its first, and long-overdue, reformation, courtesy of the American military. Along the way, the countries we conquer will be upgraded to at least 18th-century Western levels. The world will be better for it, even though America will continue to be hated. There is no way to prevent the rest of the world from benefitting from the sacrifices we and our allies make, but benefit they will, even as they smear us.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

The sheer bellicosity of many ordinary people is as undeniable as it is shocking...

This one is tailor-made for you. :) Have any cool pics of destruction?