I give you Jon Stewart.

[tags]9_11, politics, commentary, daily_show, jon_stewart, middle_east[/tags]

“To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money—and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being—the self-made man—the American industrialist.

“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.” – Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, page 386

This is why we have achieved superpower status and dominate the globe. It is not our people – we are drawn from the countries that are even now failing. It can only be the core basis of our culture… achieve, strive and grow. Prosperity as a reward breed excellence. You cannot get the best from men if their only reward for achievement and ability is slavery to those who have neither.

“…when we convene the National Assembly of People’s Power in the United States during a revolution here” – post on the Marxism mailing list, Jun 27, 2005

Anyone who has read my blog at all knows I am a big fan of democracy, capitalism and the right to keep what you create and earn. This philosophy is at direct odds the the form of evil that call itself “socialism” and it’s close kin “communism”. In the past I have mentioned that the current war in Iraq and the “anti-war / peace” movement have been providing rich fodder for those who care nothing for peace but are simply looking for a opportunity to overthrow the government here in the USA. Chief among these is the group that calls itself A.N.S.W.E.R.

“I’m almost too shocked to say “well, the chickens have certainly come home to roost, haven’t they?” – post on the Marxism mailing list, Sept 12, 2001

Let me be absolutely clear. I am completely in support of the freedom to protest this war, or any other action of our government. I even wholeheartedly support the right of these idiots to protest and spread their propaganda… even though they would deny the same right to those who oppose them. Hell, I support the second amendment primarily because it was intended to allow the citizenry the ability to rebel and overthrow their government if needed.

I am not one of these people who feel that to be in disagreement with the government or the president makes one a traitor or unpatriotic. However, I am also well aware that there are those in this country who wish to see our downfall… and pointing this out does not make me a thug. To some of these “revolutionaries” anyone who does any work more involved with money that digging the odd ditch or who might not be in a trade union is evil, expendable and a enemy of “the people”.

“My brother was furious with me all day Tuesday because I just couldn’t work up any sympathy for these people. I told him, these are the people who empliment the policies of imperialism formed at the World bank and IMF, which result in death and destruction daily through starvation, lack of affordable medicine, pesticide dumping. These are like the little grey bureaucrats described by Hannah Arendt as embodying the banality of evil within the Nazi regime.” – post on the Marxism mailing list, Sept 13, 2001

That’s right, if you work on Wall Street, your a Nazi. That’s clear thinking analysis there… nothing insane about it. Not. In order to figure out whether they should be upset, some of the Marxists of the world were reduced to trying to decide exactly what percentage of the people killed at the WTC were “workers” and which ones were “capitalist underlings”. In the end, at least one decided that all the evil people worked on the upper floors so it was OK to enjoy watching them jump to their deaths.

Assuming then that we (the non socialist, non Marxist, non communist bastards of the world) are evil, then what do you think is their goal? Why would these groups work so hard for the anti-war movement when, int he end, what they want to see is more body bags and more capitalist scum laying dead int he streets? The people who rejoice in their smug feeling that we are getting what we deserve don’t really want it to stop… yet they are working all out to force us to pull away from our interests in Iraq, just like they did in Viet Nam. Here is why:

“But I think it WILL be a victory if the Iraqi guerrillas come to power and drive the imperialists out, not matter what happens afterwards in terms of sanctions. And if they are guerrillas led by revolutionaries and communists (real communists, not quislings), getting the sanctions lifted may well be one of the things we need to do when we convene the National Assembly of People’s Power in the United States during a revolution here. That because such a government would be an internationalist government, which seems to be the one thing the U.S. rulers will simply not countenance (Cuba).” – post on the Marxism mailing list, Jun 27, 2005

Another quote will help to shed some light on what they hope to achieve…

“It would seem logical for the antiwar movement to be reaching out to this mass sentiment, drawing new, broader, and more powerful forces into a united struggle. It should be high time to clearly articulate this yearning for peace and to make it unmistakably visible—as was done with considerable success during the Vietnam war.” – quote in context from “Why Anti-Imperialists Should Support a Mass Movement Against the Iraq War“

Screw these people. Screw them and their dreams of our demise. For much more than 200 years we have grown and prospered… and for that long they have plotted and envied. We bring out the best, their dreams would punish the best. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is the halmark of slavery. Those who can enthralled to those who cannot. It can never prevail.

"Don’t be afraid…we have a legal permit…come and join us…don’t
be afraid to speak out…This is not like the countries back at home where
you raise your voice against the government and they take you in for
torture. No…this is one of the loopholes of this government. We have the
right to put this flag down and step on it." -
quote in context

So let me get this straight, your out there protesting what you consider
"Gestapo" tactics, claiming that the US is a police state… and to do so you
are extolling how free you are here to speak out. Get a clue you idiots.

On the bright side, it makes me proud of the US that this sort of thing is
tolerated. Eventually they will show everyone what this sort of zealotry is
really about and that will be the end of that.

More info – make sure to
watch
the video!

• Power Line- An
  Educational Video
• WorldNetDaily-
  U.S. Muslims desecrate American flag
• Jihad Watch-
  Flag-rippers part of New York jihadist group
• Michelle Malkin-
  SCREAMING ISLAMISTS IN NYC DESECRATE FLAG…MSM YAWNS

51. Re: Explain it to everyone again by soulhuntre on 3/13/04 01:38

“USA are bent on doing whatever they please whenever they want just because they want it and have the power to do it.
Just a rogue state.
A big rogue state.”

A “rogue” state as opposed to a what, “herd state”? A “conformist state”? If a rogue states is< as it seems to be, one that will act to preserve its own security and make sovereign decisions then I am happy the USA is “rogue”, and I hope we remain so.

The alternative to being a “rogue” state seems to be to remain open and vulnerable, to not have the freedom to act in our own defense and to have decisions about our security made by Germany, France and others in the UN. No thanks. I addressed this just under a year ago in a post on my web log.

“The UN is a fine arena for global politics. It is a good place to attempt diplomacy and it is a good forum for trying to reach consensus.

When push comes to shove, however, the US is a sovereign nation with a absolute responsibility to protect itself, its citizens and its interests. We should take the UN’s wishes into account – but by no means should we surrender our security, survival and defense policy to a voting body of nations that for the most part don’t really care what is good for us or each other.

This nation MUST not allow its very existence and right to defend itself exist at the sufferance of the Security Council.” – my full posting

The reality is that geopolitics is a game played for keeps. No “do-overs” and you don’t get to run home to mommy and tell her the other kids were being mean to you.  When a nation is destroyed it is gone forever, so you don’t have the luxury of playing a waiting game on national security. If ensuring that there will be a USA in the future means taking unilateral action then I say take it.

“Besides, your reasoning is exactly the same that the terrorists use”

Of course there is a similarity – because human nature is what it is, and what it always will be. I don’t consider the use of force to achieve geopolitical ends to be unethical in all circumstances – even preemptively if necessary (Iraq). The ethical difference between our actions and those of the terrorist forces arrayed against us is much more complex than some naive view of “violence bad” or “UN good, self governance bad”.  I consider our actions in Iraq  ethical because I fundamentally believe in what the USA stands for, what we are a force for on the global  stage and I believe we are acting in our own credible defense. I believe none of those things about Al Queda.

I think that fundamentally the US acting to preserve its national security against a growing threat by taking military action that avoided civilian casualties as much as possible and resulted in a state that is no longer throwing citizens into wood chippers to be a good thing. I believe the actions of a group of religious fundamentalists murdering women and children ina  deliberate attempt to cause the maximum civilian loss of life because their god tells them to hate us to be bad.

The motivation behind a violent action is a crucial component of the ethical judgment of that action. The basic precept that the only way to make your point is sometimes through violent action is ethically neutral, it is simply a reality.

“It is untrue because the basis for it is that you can scare the other side into doing what you want. This is not true. It has never been, and it will never be. You can scare the other side into using devious ways to shoot at you, that’s all.”

Bull. Deterrence absolutely does work when properly applied. Deterrence is what kept the world out of a nuclear conflict during the cold war. Deterrence would have prevented WWII. Deterrence absolutely can limit the escalation of violence. Will we be able to deter the terrorist forces who wish our downfall into taking no actions against us at all? No, I doubt it. But deterrence and the application of force absolutely can limit the scope of the damage they can do to us, and the resources they can gather to use in the operations intended to cause us harm.

Those who believe violence never “solved” anything have paid no attention to world history. Despite the source of the quote (Starship Troopers, a science fiction novel) the quote below is totally on the money…

One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says violence never solves anything.”

“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?”

They had tangled before – since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”

“You seem to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea – a practice I shall always follow. Anybody who clings to the historically untrue – and thoroughly immoral – doctrine that ‘violence never solves anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedom.” – [[wp:Starship_Troopers|Starship Troopers]], [[wp:Robert_Heinlein|Robert Heinlein]]

“geoegress, I think a lot of people realized the strategic reasons behind the invasion of Iraq. But whether you agreed with them or not, those aren’t the reasons we were given”

They were the reasons I heard at the time. The points layed out by the President at the time were, as I recall…

• That the Iraq government was a supporter of terrorists, and that terrorist activity was clearly the #1 security threat to the USA at the time.
• That the elimination of the Iraq government would dramatically lessen the resources available to terrorist forces in the region.
• That there was credible evidence that Iraq was working on the acquisition of WMD’s and that there was no conclusive evidence that they had destroyed their existing WMD’s stocks from the last war of aggression they launched.
• That Saddam was a vicious dictator who would have absolutely no qualms about using such weapons against us, or providing them to terrorists to be used against us.
• That as a result of the above, in a post 9/11 world it was clear we could no longer tolerate this threat, and that our security would be increased by the downfall of the Iraqi government.

Sounds to me like that’s all still true. Was the evidence of WMD’s weak or inaccurate now that we have invaded the country and been able to finally gather the intelligence we (and the UN) were denied while Saddam was in power? Yup. Is it possible that the WMD thread was deliberately overstated by the President at the time? Sure. If we were deliberately misled should we as a nation vote his ass out of office? Yup.

However saying that the only reason we were given was the WMD threat is not at all correct.

EVERY NATION on this planet is acting in their own best interests. All co-operation between nations is transitory and situational. Each and every nation is “rogue”… the thing that pisses so many people off is that the US has the ability to act without begging permission from nations who clearly do not have our interests as a priority (the UN).

Hell, I am not even mad at Iraq for ignoring the UN. The only reason I consider it a valid contribution to the case for invasion is because their willingness to take unilateral action made them a less easily controlled threat.

Ethically? I consider it a failing for any nation to subsume the interests of it’s citizens to the UN. Any nation that deliberately gives up is sovereignty to others lives at their sufferance. That is a fine trade for many nations, they don’t have the power to defend themselves and only by joining together can they hope to survive. But for a nation like the US that is capable of unilateral action it would be criminal for us to allow harm to come to pass to our nation and our citizens in the name of turning over our self determinacy to the vote of the UN.

32. Re: Explain it to everyone again by soulhuntre on 3/12/04 15:49

“Now, invading Iraq and capturing Saddam was supposed to stop Osama and Al Queda, how?”

Actually I don’t recall anyone ever saying it was going to put an end to terrorism for the rest of time. If you can find such a statement, I would be interested in your sources. I know I never head the President say any such thing.

However, the case for the removal of Saddam on anti-terror grounds is a strong one. The removal of Saddam from power in Iraq has a number of positive effects, all of which increase our security from a terror standpoint and some of which are worth mentioning here.

At the time of the invasion, Saddam was the “poster child” of anti-US sentiment in the Middle East. He was openly defiant of the UN and the US and that he was doing so was creating an environment where Middle Eastern dictators and anti-US forces felt invulnerable to retaliation or direct influence. This climate certainly contributed to the 9/11 attacks – the only way a state sponsored group like Al Queda would get the support and resources needed for a major attack on the US is when those powers feel secure.

By Invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein, especially by once again proving how easy it is for the US to roll over the best military in the area (among our enemies in the region) we sent a dramatic message to everyone in the Middle East that they are not in any way secure from retaliation.

Additionally the invasion of Iraq has specific other regional benefits. A US presence (we will no doubt retain the rights to a military base in the region, and the new Iraq will certainly remain an ally in some degree) dramatically increases our ability to project force, conduct covert operations and gather intelligence. Since the failure to have a strong local operative presence in the Middle East is one of the reasons we lacked good information on what was happening this is a good thing.

In short; what had been a large region that was almost unanimously anti-US and had acted almost completely without fear of retaliation or direct influence from the West is now a somewhat fragmented region with a large US presence smack dab in it, standing on the destroyed regime of one of it’s most outspoken and defiant leaders. They can no longer assume that they are safe, or that their regime will survive provoking us, and they are vividly aware that defiance of US and UN will will no longer come without price. That does slow down the flow of state resources, safety and support that governments in the region will provide.

There is now credence to the threat of US retaliation for an attack upon us, a dictator only needs to look at Iraq to see what can happen if they become the target of our ire. Appeasement never works, it never will work. When fighting an enemy that uses force as his first and only tool you eventually need to demonstrate your force to “get their attention”. By their own actions Iraq was a good candidate for a demonstration of this, and they got hammered. Fine by me.

Personally? I think it was long past time that the festering boil of terrorism that is the Middle East got a wake up call about what it means to attack the big kids on the block. If the word WMD had never been uttered I still would have supported the invasion for the above reasons alone.

15. Re: How can they sleep? by soulhuntre on 2/20/04 00:52

"Beforehand this thread gets derailed, I would like the supporters of the american President Bush invasion of Iraq to tell the rest who oppsed it what it feels like to be a willing supporter of the deaths of thousands of innocent people? To be a supporter of war crimes? For invasion of a sovereign country with none evidence of provocation? Essiantly, murder? "

That’s easy…. I believe nothing of the kind, and so my sleep is untroubled. You may well feel that my beliefs are false, but your asking a question and unless it is rhetorical then this is the answer. Where I can I linked to my weblog entries from the time… the give you more of a look into my thoughts on the topic – and why I have no problem sleeping.

What it feels like to be a willing supporter of the deaths of thousands of innocent people?

I am a willing supporter of the invasion of Iraq. It supported it knowing that there would be deaths of both US citizens and Iraqi’s… combatant and non combatant alike. Did I "support" the deaths of those innocents, no.. no more than a doctor is a supporter of deaths on the operating table. Casualties happen, it is unfortunate.

To be a supporter of war crimes?

I am not a supporter of war crimes, so that point is inapplicable to me. I do not believe the invasion was a war crime, nor have I seen evidence of war crimes committed by our soldiers. If I do see such evidence then I expect those who committed those crimes to be prosecuted.

For invasion of a sovereign country with none evidence of provocation?

I believe there was plenty of provocation. Repeated threats, repeated disregard of UN directives, evasive and conflicting treatment of UN personnel and an open and obvious hostility and hatred towards our nation and it’s people. There is no doubt that Iraq was our enemy. Whether or not it turns out that there was a working WMD in Iraq the threat was one that needed consideration and addressing. While the information was inconclusive (in my mind) the threat simply could not be ignored. (9/11 showed us that the world is not as safe a place as we thought – that threats we had previously considered inconsequential are very real. Again, you may not AGREE with me that we were provoked, but you asked how I sleep. The answer is that I believe there was provocation.

Essiantly, murder?

Because I do not consider it murder. In my opinion the US took a necessary action that is supported by a number of to me reasonable justifications. Now, I am sure this thread is really here as a rhetorical device… but I figured I’d answer anyway because maybe someone would realize that those with differing beliefs might not always be monsters with no soul or conscience.

There is a thread happening at Ms. magazine discussing recent events in [[wp:Iraq]]. Specifically, there is much … well, gloating is one word… that it looks like there are no large [[wp:WMD]] plants to be found. The usual rhetoric started cropping up about the war – they were against it of course. Somehow extreme feminism, anti-capitalism, environmentalism and so on are all tied together.

Anyway, I have posted my thoughts on this before, but I re-wrote some of it to put up there. I doubt they will like it much. Obviously there is some intimately tied feminist<->anti-war  agenda that I will run afoul of, but I’ll put my two cents in here anyway.

ed. note: the MeFi thread on this topic was pretty long and had a few decent posts.

Posted by Soulhuntre 0n 05.15.2003 @ 20:01

As one of those who supported the war I am ambivalent about the lack of WMD findings. It isn’t really an issue for me… and it never was. War is a undertaking that always needs to be considered carefully and only decided upon when the reasons are overwhelming .. but there are often multiple reasons for every way. This one is no different.

In no particular order:

• Saddam and his government were supporters of the terrorists and extremists who seek to do the US harm. Without this support, the threat of terrorism is somewhat reduced.
• In absence of compelling geopolitical reasons to support a dictator; taking one out of action when possible is a good thing in and of itself.
• The WMD program in Iraq was a credible possibility and a credible threat. This threat could no be ignored.
• After 8 or more years of broken treaties and continue hostilities after the first Gulf war, it was clear that Iraq would not hesitate to employ a WMD once militarily significant quantities were available.
• Driving a wedge into block of anti-US religious fundamentalist states in the region is a very, very good thing. As danger from that area increases in the wake of 9/11 (and it has increased) something needed to be done to begin to break up the growing power block in the middle east. As Iraq was widely believed in the area to be the “top contender” to confront the US and a model others emulated in their own dictatorships – the swift and easy manner in which it was dispatched will give pause to others.
• Increasing our access to strategically important resources (i.e. oil) in that region is a good thing.
• Securing an additional long term base of operations in the region is a good thing.

Basically, the next real danger for the US lies in the Middle East. With Europe impotent and the USSR a memory we have only China, North Korea and the Middle East as serious threats to continued US survival as a major power. The invasion of Iraq is an important first step in reducing the Middle Eastern threat.

As China is too strong militarily for direct invasion, I expect that we will destroy that threat as we did the USSR. Simply make it too expensive for them to exist as our enemy. The US creates wealth and innovation at a rate that systems liek China and the USSR (not to mention N. Korea) simply cannot match. In the end we will win a stalemate against any such regime.

In short, the Iraq war was about much more than the WMD threat – but that credible threat did indeed dictate the timing. That the labs and factories were moved is no shock… a good biochemical weapons lab fits in 4-5 18 wheeler vehicles and could have gone to Syria weeks before the war. If they never existed at all – so much the better.

I’m probably what most here will consider a hawk. I LIKE living in the sole remaining global superpower. I think the most important thing a nation has to do is survive… and to do that it needs to act to eliminate credible threats when it can do so.

This war was basically a win-win. Casualties were extremely light, the objectives were achieved and a LOT less people (including women) will be tortured, raped and killed in the next year because of it. I am missing how that is a bad thing.

• Isn’t less torture in the world inherently a good thing?
• Isn’t less rape in the world inherently a good thing?
• Isn’t less murdered children in the world inherently a good thing?
• Isn’t less EVIL in the world inherently a good thing?

I don’t support much of the panic since 9/11. I HATE the Patriot acts (I & II) and I detest the loss of domestic freedoms in the name of security. I am appalled at much of what is happening to the court system and immigration systems in the wake of the attacks. I think bad people are trying to use our fear to remove our rights and increase their own power. I do NOT agree with everything that the Republican party, and especially this president, has to say.

All that being true, I think this war resulted in dramatically good things..

No one with any familiarity with the issues involved in WMD development should be really surprised they weren’t found, or think that means they were never there. Hell, the whole POINT of cutting short the inspection process was that it is trivially easy to hide this stuff… that not finding it isn’t proof it wasn’t there. The only way to be sure was to remove the political organ that would use it.

Now, I’m bummed about the potential loss of history too…but I don’t think it makes us bad guys that a consequence of getting rid of a murdering [[wp:Saddam|thug]] might be some looting.

posted by soulhuntre at 2:48 AM PST on April 13

You can’t please everyone – and this is a good example of it.

Troops make very bad policemen. Let’s just pretend that we decided to stop the looting… and some starving Iraqi rushes the door too the museum to steal a vase. What exactly shall you have us do?

Scenario 1: The soldier ignores him – gets bad press from the left for being lazy or stupid

Scenario 2: The soldier goes to physically restrain him, the guy has a suicide vest on and kills a few marines and damages the museum. The left gets all bitched that the marines were there – obviously making the museum a target.

Scenario 3: The soldier physically restrains the man – and there is a billion images on posters at anti war rallies of a Marine “thug” beating up some poor starving Iraqi who only wanted to sell something to get food.

Scenario 4: The marine tries to restrain the man, but the man brings friends… the Marine is left powerless because he cannot physically stop them, and the left gets a field day about how ineffective the marines are.

Scenario 5: The marine tries to restraint he man, but the man brings friends… the marine has no option but to shoot the rushing crowd of looters. The left has some serious field day good times with the cries of “Murder!” and “War Crime!”

It’s a serious no win… the only thing you can assure yourself of is that a lot of people will go way out of their way to blame the US for anything bad and yearn wistfully for the good old days of Saddam when the girls got raped but the f*&#ing pottery was safe.

Don’t misunderstand, a lot of well meaning folks of good conscience opposed the war… but a lot of others misused it for other agendas or opposed it for reasons that had nothing to do with the situation.

Some links:

• My own continually updated entry about the [[Metafilter]] thread and my posts on the topic.
• A great post over on Reoriented titled “The Greatest Lie”
• A fantastic post on The Volokh Conspiracy about how some liberal media outlets are spinning the whole thing.

This is going to be a pretty fast entry, I am going to bed and I don’t have the time to get too deeply into my thoughts here at the moment.

We’re [[wp:2003_Iraq_war|kicking ass in Iraq]] and there is literal dancing in the streets about it. Obviously questions remain int he minds of many as to whether this war was necessary or correct; but I think we can lay to rest the belief that the Iraqi population is not happy to be free of the dictatorship of [[wp:Saddam_Hussein|Saddam]]. Nothing has been seen like this since the fall of the [[wp:Berlin_Wall|Berlin Wall]].

Heavy fighting is still ahead of us, but things would have to go very badly for us to ‘lose’ this one. The only thing we really have to worry about now is someone who hates us enough popping a [[wp:nuke]] or other [[wp:Weapon_of_mass_destruction|WMD]] as last gesture of defiance. The mix of soldiers and foreign fanatics who have made their way into Iraq to fight will simply not be able to stop us. They are going to try though, it sure looks like they are planning to dig in and make isolated last stands wherever they can.

At this point, the real danger is from the surrounding nations political concerns and fears as the world tries to accomodate a new balance of power in the [[wp:Middle_East|Middle East]]. This will be shifting a lot as the other dictators adjust to the reality that they are vulnerable.

Anyway, they is a huge thread over at Metafilter about all this, and I put up a few posts… they are below but you should also go see them in context. I have formatted them here a bit and fixed the spelling. The ‘net is pretty heavy with discussion of all this, some stark, some cautious and some apprehensive… in the end though it seems obviously good that the guy is gone.

While I was working on these, I made some changes to the [[wp:Saddam_Hussein|Saddam]] entry at [[wp:Wikipedia]]. Needless to say his entry is in rapid flux. Before my changes it looked like this, my changes brought about this version and were incorporated into this… almost certainly further change is happening so keep an eye on those versions

ed. note: updated on 04.10.2003 16:12:21

posted by soulhuntre at 2:54 PM PST on April 9

“Could any amount of liberation and jubilation compensate for those casualties?”

Yes, of course it can.

Liberty is an incredibly valuable thing. A free nation, a free people is something that is worth an enormous amount of bloodshed if necessary.

Freedom is good. Democracy is good. Not living under a government that will torture and murder you for speaking up is good.

Those good things will cost lives in the future, just like they have in the past. That sucks, and it is unfortunate… but it is worth it.

And it is certainly worth it to liberate an entire nation from a man who killed 100′s of thousands at the cost of less than 2,000 civilian casualties.

This is the most successful, least bloody national liberation in history as far as I can tell. The national infrastructure in Iraq is mostly intact, their industry is preserved and we killed very, very few of their citizens.

You don’t think the war was a good Idea? Fine. But it is amazing how many people simply are so prideful or set in their dissent that they won’t admit the obvious…

A Iraq free from Saddam control is better off.

posted by soulhuntre at 1:02 AM PST on April 10

“None of the reasons used to justify this war have panned out, and your side has a lot of explaining to do if they do not come out soon. Pointing to happy faces is not going to cut it, and the end does not justify the means.”

In fact every single reason >I< supported this war have panned out. My reasons do not depend, for instance, on the actual presence of WMDs in Iraq… the issue was never absolute surety that they existed; the issue was the fact that the risk was too big to take given the best information we had at the time.

If there aren’t any there then we STILL did the right thing – the possibility and threat had to be neutralized and the inspections were clearly useless in this regard.

“Why should we feel good about this? And why should we use this “victory” as an excuse to stroke our superiority complex?”

I’ll tell you why >I< feel good about it – because I am damn happy that we have overwhelming military force when we need it. That superiority did some really good things like keeping the number of US and Iraqi casualties to a minimum and keeping a potentially regionally inflammatory conflict contained.

• Our superiority allowed us to achieve our objective with an absolutely minimal loss of life on both sides while preserving the vast majority of the national infrastructure of Iraq.

• Our superiority allowed us to keep the conflict from being a “war” in any meaningful way. If there had been a large engagement with a significant chance of stopping the US the risk of Iran and others coming to the “aid” of Iraq would have been much higher… as it is the fact that it was so clearly a lost cause prevented that.

• Our superiority prevented the vaunted Saddam forces from being much of a factor at all (so far). Not only had they lost so far – but they have lost so badly and with such a complete lack of resistance that the entire basis for pro Saddam sentiment in the Middle East is eroding. The man who exhorted others to die in his name, who promised them the victory of Gods chosen over a corrupt force has failed to make any significant contribution.

This goes a long way to making people stop and THINK in the Middle East about the promises of such me.

“US goes to UN asking for support, US then says to hell with UN we’ll fight battle anyway, disregarding UN as inspections are underway. Tell me that isn’t a superiority complex. Tell me that the word “unilateral,” defined as “performed or undertaken by one side” or “emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject” isn’t even remotely arrogant within the great complexities of international relations.”

Arrogance is not a bad thing all the time. The reality is simple, the UN was a completely ineffectual tool for this job – they were paralysed by politics that had little to do with the merits of invading Iraq. The US eventually had to take action to accomplish its goals.

I, for one, am glad that we have not so completely given over our national will to the UN and that at need we are still capable of acting in our own interests without needing to beg France and Russia for permission.

“The proof will be and can only be in the peace that will hopefully follow. Now the US has a chance to prove that Iraq had WMD, that Iraq was a growing threat. They now have a chance to prove that the US believes in an Iraqi democracy, even if that democracy chooses a path the US doesn’t want. Now is a chance to prove that we didn’t just fight a war to take control of oil and other resources to enrich the Bush cabal. Now is a chance to bring stability to the region by working in partnership with other governments.”

I agree. The tone of the next phase of international relations will be set in the next year or less. The US has taken upon ourselves a heavy moral burden with this action – and we will need to go well out of our way to show that we are up to the task.

We need to rise to the level of what the US can be and should be – this is an opportunity to be the country we see ourselves as – we can chose to be liberators or conquerors right here and now.

I hope that we will rise to the challenge and continue to be liberators.

“I don’t understand how the fall of Baghdad equals proof of anti-war demonstrators being wrong, ignorant, unpatriotic or pro-Saddam.”

Because it DOES prove many of them wrong. I listen to a fair amount of NPR and the silliness they have been spouting in the anti-war movement has been proven completely false.

• They told us this would be a long drawn out war – another Viet Nam with the whole population rising up to throws us out. No such thing happened.

• They told us that this war would bring the entire Middle East into a conflagration that would bring us to the risk of world war. No such thing happened.

• The told us this invasion would so fan the flames of Muslim hatred for the US that we would be engulfed by terrorist attacks as we were the subject of a multi-nations Jihad. No such thing yet.

• Similarly, the promised hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead never really materialized either.

Basically – a lot of people in the anti-war movement painted the direst pictures they could – and they were wrong. Flat out, dead wrong.

“So they send a few tanks to an undefended part of Baghdad and the CIA pays a couple of hundred Iraqi malcontents to jump up and down, ritualistically drape a US flag over and then pull down a statue.”

You must be joking. You know, they can still read your mind through common tin foil these days. Try 2 ply.

“I don’t think anybody realistically thought that billions of dollars of US ordanance/a quarter of a million coalition troops would have that much trouble with Iraqi forces sporting somewhat crusty munitions and bad organisation.”

Actually yes, many vocal people in the anti-war movement thought exactly that. They really predicted that the nation of Iraq would rise up – to a man, woman and child – to toss out the US satanic demons and defend their popular and benevolent leader.

“I like the ones stating that there are only select images of celebrations. These are the same folks who thow up one shot of a bandaged civilian and blast the effort.”

Now you know, if it’s anti US then its real, true and genuine. If it’s PRO US then the media staged it as tools of the Illuminati. What I find REALLY amusing is how many people who will claim that the US media is not to be trusted or believed still quote it so often when they need supporting information

posted by soulhuntre at 01:08 PM PST on April 10

if instability in iraq turns into ethnic violence, even if it is, like, months from now, it will be directly linkable to this war.

Hmmm… if the idea is that the only alternative to ethnic violence in that region is a brutal and repressive dictatorship that existed only because it was willing to torture, maim and rape its own citizens then I think you are sadly mistaken.

Why is the US attacking and killing foreign journalists?

That’s easy – we aren’t. A number of reporters were killed because they were in a WAR ZONE. A place they knew in advance was dangerous and a place they were told in advance they might well not be safe.

do you really believe that from now on everything will be rainbows and singing?

No, I don’t. I think there will be more violence – and a lot of pretty horrible people will try and use the perceived power vacuum as a good way to settle old scores.

If we keep a goodly amount of force in place, and ignore the rally this weekend yelling for us to “bring our troops home” (and thus guarantee a bloodbath of ethnic violence) we can show those who would do so that it would be a bad, bad idea.

posted by soulhuntre at 3:31 AM PST on April 10

So you do feel the ends justify the means.

The ends of any action should be sufficient to justify taking that action – that is simply common sense no? In this case, I believe then ends (liberation, reducing the threat and removing a enemy of the US) were justified.

The war is justified because you were afraid that weapons that so far do not appear to exist could not be proven to exist.

The war was justified because Saddam posed a real and credible threat to US security. If he had no weapons in reality then so much the better in my mind because he didn’t have them available to use on us. That’s life.

In my opinion we simply could not let the risk and danger remain, the information as good enough that intervention was ethical.

I train cops some of the time when I am not posting here on [[Metafilter]], and the ethical questions come up all the time – how far do you have to let things go before you act. In this case, a gun was pulled and intention declared – the fact that there may not be any bullets in it was not something we could have known, and thus the response was justified.

I imagine if these weapons were turning up everywhere, you would be crowing that you and yours were right all along, but since they are not you have to hide behind the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Hide behind? I don’t think so. One of the several reasons for action was liberation. The liberation is proceeding nicely. that’s not HIDING, that’s simple reality.

Bush gambled here with our soldiers lives, and our money. If he was wrong about the weapons, he should pay.

Pay for acting in a way to reduce a credible and immediate risk to the US? I don’t think so.

Think multi-dimensionally.