SYLLABICATION: lach·ry·mose
PRONUNCIATION: 
ADJECTIVE:
1. Weeping or inclined to weep; tearful.
2. Causing or tending to cause tears.
Posted on 08/21/2002 4:27:27 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
Deploying Marines for gays, feminism and peacekeeping
On a break from lachrymose accounts of Palestinian women weeping for their children, the New York Times has been trying to induce hysteria over the shocking Bush policy of deploying American troops in order to protect American interests. Such self-interested behavior is considered boorish in Manhattan salons.
The only just wars, liberals believe, are those in which the United States has no stake. Liberals warm to the idea of American mothers weeping for their sons, but only if their deaths will not make America any safer.
Thus the Times and various McTimes across the nation have touted the idea that invading Iraq "only" to produce a regime change is unjustifiable, contrary to international law, and a grievous affront to the peace-loving Europeans.
As the left's new pet, Henry No-Longer-a-War-Criminal Kissinger, put it: "Regime change as a goal for military intervention challenges the international system established by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. ... And the notion of justified pre-emption runs counter to modern international law, which sanctions the use of force in self-defense only against actual, not potential, threats."
The idea that America would be transgressing the laws of man and God by invading Iraq (unless and until Saddam nukes Manhattan) is absurd.
Does no one remember Clinton's misadventure in the Balkans? Liberals loved that war because Slobodan Milosevic posed no conceivable threat to the United States. To the contrary, as President Clinton put it: "This is America at its best. We seek no territorial gain; we seek no political advantage."
Deposing Milosevic, Clinton explained, vindicated no national interest, but was urgent because it was akin to stopping a "hate crime." Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said our purpose in the Balkans was "ending ethnic strife" and creating "multiethnic societies."
One searches in vain for some description of an American interest in the Balkans.
Instead, Milosevic was denounced – by Clinton, Albright, Tony Blair and the whole croaking chorus – for "genocide." Clinton's defense secretary, William Cohen, estimated that 100,000 Albanian men "may have been murdered."
Liberal enthusiasts for our "humanitarian" war in the Balkans, it turned out, were over-hasty in their use of the word "genocide" in connection with Milosevic. In the end, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found fewer than 3,000 bodies, most of them men of military age.
Commentators were soon rushing in to explain that these "new details" did not change the fact that Milosevic had engaged in ethnic cleansing and the forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
That doesn't make Milosevic a hero, but he's a piker compared to Saddam, who has gassed tens of thousands of his own people and killed almost a million enemy troops in the war with Iran. Liberals oppose a war with Iraq, despite Saddam's far more impressive credentials as a mass murderer, because acting against Saddam is in the self-interest of the United States.
The left's theory of a just war is that: (1) military force must never be deployed in America's self-interest; and (2) we must first receive approval from the Europeans, especially the Germans. (Good thing we didn't have that rule in 1941!)
By liberal logic, preventing Saddam Hussein from nuking Manhattan is not sufficient justification for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq because the United States has a special self-interest in not being nuked and therefore can't be trusted.
Similarly, Israel has less claim to act against Yasser Arafat than NATO did against Milosevic because actual Israelis are getting killed by the terror forces they are battling – so they are self-interested. The Times was warmly enthusiastic about Clinton's humanitarian effort in Kosovo, but is indignant about Israeli self-defense in Gaza.
Moreover, if forced deportation (aka "ethnic cleansing") is grounds for a war crimes trial of Milosevic, what is Arafat doing when he demands that all Israeli settlements be removed from the disputed territories of the West Bank? Milosevic gets a trial at the Hague for forced deportations. Arafat stages terrorist attacks to compel the forced deportation of Israelis, and he's a martyr if Israel messes up his office furniture in Ramallah.
The point – which is always the same point – is that we must not protect ourselves but should just let liberals run the world. Liberals believe they are best qualified in war and peace and forced busing because they aren't going to suffer the consequences. Thus, they can act freely for "humanity." If it turns sour, like their adventure in Vietnam, they can always drop it and pin the blame on others.
How do you know that's not how it is going to work ?
We must invade mexico, enact a regime change and introduce them to a "honestly" elected country. We can send demoncraps down there to show the dead how to vote.
SYLLABICATION: lach·ry·mose
PRONUNCIATION:
ADJECTIVE:
1. Weeping or inclined to weep; tearful.
2. Causing or tending to cause tears.
It might. In which case, pre-emption by the
US against a country that does not threaten
us will have been avoided. Once you make
pre-emption a tactic to be used whenever
one country sees the other developing means
of attack, you set the stage for war by
what-if. There are too many what-ifs out there
that never come to fruition to be going to
war over them.
I'm sure that most of us have experienced the neighborhood bully growing up. Some brave soul eventually had to put him in his place and knock him on his rear. It's much the same here only with grownups.
Things don't work that way. The country strong enough to preempt can do it and probably will do it. That is US. Any other country has to face the fight with the preempted country and the likelihood of incurring US's disfavor It is like civilians carrying guns. Doesn't mean folks are just going to randomly blast each other because of mutual deterrence and because wrongful killing gets the Big Guys mad at you, i.e. the State with its police and jails. In this world the US is the State and police. We can preempt or just go squash somebody just because it makes US feel good, as in Kosovo, and it will not lead China to preempt anyone it would not have hit anyway because Chinese calculation is based entirely on what will US do. US is the Big Dog in the neighborhood. We do not set examples for others. Others do or not do based on how we might react, not on how they see US behave.
Of course we do. If it's good enough
for us, it's good enough for India to
hit Pakistan or any other hot spot you
would like to bring up.
I always kept my keyboard shut because it wasn't in my best interest to educate the unwashed masses and I used to work defense projects. Still an independent with no party affiliation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.