Peanut Gallery: Disallusioned With The American Me Presence?

[♦ nivek ♦]

Vigile Del Fuoco 1, it seems to me that the Middle East has been unstable for millenias... way before the US was even discovered!

 

That's not exactly a true statement, but even if it were, does that justify the fact that the US is now and has been for decades the major destabilizing force?

 

 

Article below a bit "touchy-feely" however I can't argue the conclusions...

 

AFAIC, the uS "made" Saddam, the varous Admin's used him and his Country for all it was worth against Iran, aided in the battlefield deaths of 10k's worth of the youth of Iraq and Iran. Saddam using the supplies "Allied" countries supplied and sold him murdered thousands of his political opponents.

uS promised the Kurds in '91 aid to rise against Saddam and his millitary. Chickenhawks backed out, left Kurds to their deaths.

 

Worst of all at moment, uS and bushKo promised clean water and power to those whose infrastructure this un-civil was has broken.

Like what uS did for Afghanistan, nothing will be fixed, drilled, or put in place past the minimum for photo-ops.

 

uS has screwed the pooch on every.damn.thing past ousting "our Man" from power..

 

kFL

**********************

 

The Bush legacy of death

from Reason to Freedom

by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

 

"Thanks to George W. Bush children and young people in Iraq never have a 'normal' day, a day when they can feel safe and go about their lives. Every day in Iraq children, young people, women and the elderly along with good, decent, men simply trying to survive are snuffed out horribly. Their homes are invaded, going to the grocery store is fraught with fear; they live with one hour of electricity a day. That is how it is. When their loved ones are shot there are no counselors and George Bush, the man who did this to them and to us, leads no memorial service. Now, more than ever, we need to remember what is happening to a country Bush decided to invade to alleviate his feelings about his father and help out his friends who wanted to ensure that the flow of profits from the lives and blood of Americans would continue. Bush and his friends have made violence an ordinary part of our lives." (04/23/07)

 

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/the_bush_legacy_of_death.html

[Skankboy]

Let's not forget that we created Osama as well. We were the ones that trained and supplied his group with weapons to fight the commies way back when. We were also the ones that abandonded them to their fight later on.

 

Terrorists didn't come to the aid of Saddam. They came to fight Americans (ie foreign invaders). And the other ME governments are helping? Only as much as they have to keep in our good graces. Believe you me, if we didn't have the nuke and our military, they'd be telling us to go fuck ourselves. And frankly, I wouldn't blame them...

[Amanda]

<snip>

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/the_bush_legacy_of_death.html

Nivek, with all do respect... and I sincerely respect you immensely... do you really think that is an objective resource on this matter? I'm not saying it has no validity, however, the url of that site seems to indicate they have an agenda, and I would be willing to wager that an impartial report is never their goal.

 

Hey... I'm clearly out numbered here. Maybe a couple of weeks from now, keeping an open mind, I'll be driving down the road and have an epiphany. Maybe it will dawn on me and I'll finally understand what you fine folks are saying. I'll come back then and say "OMG, you guys were right!" I have made concessions in the past on here, so it could happen. Then again, maybe in a decade or so from now, I'll be driving down the road somewhere in a burka (sp?) of my favorite color. Who knows?

 

Anyway, I'll try to read more and type less and hope I can see your points.

[Amanda]

Amanda, you are confusing the Saudi government...IE...the Royal Family, with the rest of the muslims in the middle east. And speaking of those wonderful Saudi's, what nationality were the 9/11 hijackers and Osam bin Laden again?

 

Why didnt we invade Pakistan when they were developing nukes? Dont even attempt to claim it was a secret. 20 years ago when I was in school our social studies class played a national politics game where teams of students represented the governments of many nations. Pakistan was one of them and even then it was assumed that Pakistan and India were on the verge of becoming nuclear powers.

Vexentrox, I apologize, as I missed your post. I don't want you to think I excluded you, so I'll answer you since you addressed me. Then I'll just read everyones insights, and see if I can understand everyone's points better.

 

You do have some good points, as does everyone here. I don't think we invade a country just because they have nukes, or pursuing them. I would consider this though... Has just about everyone in congress and the UN pretty much deemed these countries to be of an eminent threat to the US? Are these countries run by a madman that holds the country virtually hostage, and allows unethical constituents to hide behind innocent people? Is the country in a position to be held accountable and responsible for their actions?

 

As I'm sure all of you have concluded by now... I'm no history major.

[Vigile]

Amanda, I personally find it astounding that you would suppose to teach me about US foreign policy and history in the ME. You got your education obviously from the American press. I hate to pull rank here, but I'm tired of going over the same old ground from ridiculous angles. I actually have a degree in Foreign Affairs. So yes, I'm well aware that the US has relationships with many ME countries. I also know that they have created the leadership in many of these countries and even support dictatorships. Pakistan and SA being two of the most prominent.

[Lightbearer]

And for Iran, who do you think created the political vacuum in the country that caused such a backlash that Khomeni was elected sending Iran into a reactionary tailspin towards a theocracy? If you guess the US. Bingo! Right again. It was the US who propped up the Shah, who was eventually overthrown.

 

Just blaming Islam for all the evils of the middle east is ignorant and naive. The west has been creating political instability in the region for centuries. The later half of the 20th century can be laid at the feet of the CIA.

 

They don't hate us because they hate freedom or our religion. As Vixentrox points out, they hate us for screwing up their region so horribly and for our support of Israel.

 

Thier hate is justified.

 

 

You're forgetting the reason why the Shah was propped up in the first place. The previous prime minister was in bed with the Tudeh party and nationalized the oil industry (property of British citizens by the way). True, the Shah was an arisocrat and that probally wasn't the best choice, another shining example of US pragmatism. There were moves by his camp already in motion so the CIA had someone to go along with. The US apologized for the actions later, but come on. Why was the Shah even overtorn in the first place? To establish a theocracy, which doesn't seeem to be any better then the Shah's rule.

 

I'm sure they wanted to live in peace and freedom and away from the big bad US, that's why they let their religious leaders dictate every aspect of their lives.

 

I think it's ignorant and naive to blame the West for all the problems of the Middle East when that region has been having problems for hundreds of years. Iran was even close to the Nazi's in WWII, i'm sure it was totally evil and wrong of us to do something about it right at the time right?

 

If you actually look at what the terrorist leaders are saying is it "OMFG I HATE AMERICA FOR CIA BACKED COUPS" or "OMFG I HATE AMERICA BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ISLAMIC"

 

I blame Islam because the proponents of Islam openly admit to everything they are doing. I think they hate us because we are not Islamic because they say they hate us because we are not Islamic. It's that simple.

 

Overall when it comes to the Middle East, it's always our fault it seems. Apparently if the West (depends who you call the West too) had nothing to do with the Middle East, they would not have these problems and everything would be fine and peachy.

 

I find that hard to believe.

[Vigile]

The previous prime minister was in bed with the Tudeh party and nationalized the oil industry (property of British citizens by the way).

 

Yes, it's obvious that you do not respect the sovereignty of foreign nations. As for the rest of your reply, I ignored it when on scanning through I could see that you insisted on building another strawman of my position by painting it as the emotion based rantings of an uneducated teen.

[Amanda]

Amanda, I personally find it astounding that you would suppose to teach me about US foreign policy and history in the ME.

Vigile Del Fuoco 1, now how could you possibly say that? Amazing. I've never purposed to be teaching you anything, and have consistently stated that it is my opinion. And further, that it is ultimately an insignificant opinion in the scope of all things. Did you really mean to say that my opinion is not worth as much as yours? My opinion represents a certain percentage of the population, which seems to be quite the minority right now. Relax Vigile Del Fuoco 1, my opinion isn't all that influencial... yet, I think I have the right to it, as I respect your right to yours.

You got your education obviously from the American press.

No, not entirely. There are other means. And, did I say that I was married for eleven years to an Arab born in Cairo, Egypt, his father was from Iraq, his mother was from Syria... not to mention his extended family and friends? I have a good friend that was high in government concerning the education of Iran, he came here after a coup and was persecuted for religous beliefs. Needless to say, he was NOT totally Islamic. I'd say I have had other resources.

I hate to pull rank here, but I'm tired of going over the same old ground from ridiculous angles. I actually have a degree in Foreign Affairs. So yes, I'm well aware that the US has relationships with many ME countries. I also know that they have created the leadership in many of these countries and even support dictatorships. Pakistan and SA being two of the most prominent.

Your degree does afford you some additional respect in your opinion, yet I still happen to rely on what seems rational to me. With all due respect, and I do respect you, there are many people with comprable degrees that disagree with you, and each other.

 

Overall when it comes to the Middle East, it's always our fault it seems. Apparently if the West (depends who you call the West too) had nothing to do with the Middle East, they would not have these problems and everything would be fine and peachy.

 

I find that hard to believe.

Lightbearer, the only thing I'd correct in your post is that it has been going on for thousands of years instead of hundreds... way before the US was even discovered! As far as your comment above, that seems to be the rational perspective to me too.

***************

 

I saw the debate of the nominees for the democratic primaries Saturday evening (rerun). I was pretty impressed with Obama, with what answers he could give to complex questions in the time alotted to him. Although he was one of the few who never voted for the war, I was impressed that he was one of the few who didn't claim it was a total failure. He gets my respect when he can take the positive aspects of any situation, empower the US, and go from there. He also seemed to have the best plan for a successful transition out of the war into a more diplomatic stage. I haven't had much opportunity to research him yet, but so far he looks better than all of them, IMO. Of course, it's early and the republicans have their turn this week for their public debate. Yet no one sounds good to me in the republicans yet... unless Forbes decides to run... I'd be interested in hearing him. Any of you have any comments on that debate, or of Obama, in regards to the war or on terrorism?

[Vigile]

Vigile Del Fuoco 1, now how could you possibly say that? Amazing. I've never purposed to be teaching you anything, and have consistently stated that it is my opinion.

 

I probably came off a little harsh in my response. I was reacting to the idea that you were telling me such obvious facts, such as that the US has good relationships with some ME governments. You stated this as if it might be a surprise to me.

 

With all due respect, and I do respect you, there are many people with comprable degrees that disagree with you, and each other..

 

Absolutely. My degree does not make me right by any sense of the word. I just happen to think that on this issue that many with even more letters next to their names than I have, may have other agendi that forces their hand. Especially when those in question work for the current administration in some capacity, or work for organizations that support the goals of the admin. In other words, who have motivation to spin the facts.

 

I'm just some idiot whose oppinion doesn't matter. Even in that weak position, I at least know that my own motivation is just to land somewhere close to the truth. Not that knowing the truth will matter in the end, even if acheiving that lofty goal is even possible.

 

I will say that it's unfair to paint the ME as a war zone over the past few thousand years. If you are going to do that, you can argue the same about everywhere else in the world to. You do realize that Muslim nations actually beat the west to civilized society? When Europe was still in the dark ages they were developing vast libraries of knowledge, making scientific discoveries, and making the poor Europeans look like the savages.

 

I've mentioned before that it is just as bad to be era-centric as it is to be ethno-centric. Who knows, the tables might turn again in the next couple of centuries.

[Purple]

I was just curious about the whole oil thing, because if the need for oil was that bad we it would save time, money and lives if we actually allowed oil companies to drill on the oil reserves in our own country.

 

Why? Oil is a non-renewable limited resource. Sure there may be a lot of it, but there is still a limit. Why not use up everyone elses first? We've drilled the hell out of Oklahoma, and Texas. We drill Alaska, but limitedly, and there is oil in many other areas in the US, off the coast of California for one example.

 

All the water is gone, think Tank Girl, my neighbor has a full well, and they are happy to sell me their water. Oh sure I am sitting on an under ground lake on my propberty, but why go there? First buy all my neighbors water, and then when that's gone... I'll tap my well.

[Japedo]

BTW... I know the US is far from perfect, but no one here ever offered an alternative solution to the problem of them hating infidels and wanting to do away with us. I guess everyone here is happy to pull out of there and let what ever happens, happen? Do we wait till it comes here before we decide to take action? IDK... just curious as to what plans do we migrate to if we were to just raise the white flag to the terrorists and go home?

 

Hi Amanda, I think I'll use your own outstanding argument from another topic (The great gun debate) and apply it here where it's just as applicable. Just apply it to the Iraq/US occupation instead of on our own land. Bold emphasis mine. You're a wonderful person, I respect and value your opinion, I just don't think you realize your stance is a little hypocritical. You wish to have government under the peoples control here at home, defend our rights masterfully and with common sense, but don't believe the people of Iraq are capable of running their own country or selecting their own government. I'm not trying to sound crass but It is an elitist mentality. The best way to give the people of Iraq their freedom, is to give them their freedom. Let them run their own government and their own country.

 

Your outstanding Quote is below.

 

Keep government honest? I'm skeptical as to what happens when a people are left defenseless to the group of people who ascertain all the power of force in the country. How many defenseless people does it take to balance the power of thousands with all the firearm power. I think it is good for the government to have some healthy respect for its people before they get too crazy in their ideas, especially when it comes to priviledge and power. Sometimes it's good for a leader to know there are boundaries the people will never allow their leader to cross.

[Amanda]

BTW... I know the US is far from perfect, but no one here ever offered an alternative solution to the problem of them hating infidels and wanting to do away with us. I guess everyone here is happy to pull out of there and let what ever happens, happen? Do we wait till it comes here before we decide to take action? IDK... just curious as to what plans do we migrate to if we were to just raise the white flag to the terrorists and go home?

 

Hi Amanda, I think I'll use your own outstanding argument from another topic (The great gun debate) and apply it here where it's just as applicable. Just apply it to the Iraq/US occupation instead of on our own land. Bold emphasis mine. You're a wonderful person, I respect and value your opinion, I just don't think you realize your stance is a little hypocritical. You wish to have government under the peoples control here at home, defend our rights masterfully and with common sense, but don't believe the people of Iraq are capable of running their own country or selecting their own government. I'm not trying to sound crass but It is an elitist mentality. The best way to give the people of Iraq their freedom, is to give them their freedom. Let them run their own government and their own country.

 

Your outstanding Quote is below.

 

Keep government honest? I'm skeptical as to what happens when a people are left defenseless to the group of people who ascertain all the power of force in the country. How many defenseless people does it take to balance the power of thousands with all the firearm power. I think it is good for the government to have some healthy respect for its people before they get too crazy in their ideas, especially when it comes to privilege and power. Sometimes it's good for a leader to know there are boundaries the people will never allow their leader to cross.

Hi Japedo! My respect for you is of a high regard. I'm glad you pointed that out. It is a great example of the five blind men and the elephant! Everyone 'sees' things from their own perspective... and what I think is obvious, you are wonderfully diplomatic in your quest for mending the confusion you see in my view.

 

IMO, Saddam Hussein shows a clear example of what can happen if we let someone slowly but surely ascertain all the power against a defenseless society. Further, it exemplifies even more how the balance of power can erode so quickly, piece by piece... till a country is left in complete control of a madman. More importantly... notice the psychological methods this leader used to bully his way into power. A prime example of what the sense of privilege and power can do to a leader left unchecked. BTW, no neighbors, nor anyone else, come to rescue this psycho. Shockingly, even when the madman invades his neighbor and conquers them, Kuwait still doesn't even fight for their own country! Amazing. Do we want to be like that? Do we stay on our toes, bob and weave, walk into a punch, or keep the presence of equal force in forefront... to maintain respect for our boundaries?

 

As I see it... we've been concerned about Saddam Hussein for awhile. Further, it is obvious there were only terrorists to come to his rescue, as he resides in the very middle of the ME. Additionally, many of his neighbors supported us in their efforts to hand over their terrorists into our hands. If 9/11 had not happened, I don't think we would have even been in Afghanistan. The terrorists decided to attack us across our boundaries, and that's unacceptable. Now these ilk go and hide amongst innocent people? No... we don't want to hurt the innocent. However, when we went into these countries... we gave candy to these kids. Then the terrorists fought back by sending these kids to get candy from us, with bombs to explode on arriving to get their candy. Nice.

 

We never want to rule Iraq, nor be the dominating power. We want them to be able to defend themselves instead of being in the defenseless position they're in right now. Empower the people there. We just want a country that can act in a way that holds the whole country accountable for the decisions it makes, whatever they want that to be. How can anyone hold the whole country responsible for a leader that all the people of that country hate and has terrorized them into compliance?

 

It's a complicated situation over there, IMO. There's the long term fear induced submissiveness. Also, I'm wondering why that culture (Kuwait) don't defend themselves? I think if there is genocide against my race, I'd sure as hell fight back... for my family, if nothing else! Additionally, there is a civil war type movement there, which I think was intentional from Hussein... to promote the ease of harboring terrorists and protecting them from us and Israel.

 

So, Japedo, I'm curious to know what you suggest? I have posted that I've heard Obama in the Democratic Primary Debates, and in the minute time allotted to him, he had the best solution of a transition out of there... yet I'm unfamiliar with its strategically likelihood to succeed. Anyway, I still find my position on both threads congruent... instead of "hypocritical", yet feel free to point out any inconsistencies. I know I happen to be one of the blind men amongst the others with the elephant.

[♦ nivek ♦]

The War the Government Cannot Win

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

 

 

This talk was delivered at the Wisconsin Forum in Milwaukee on May 1, 2007.

 

Ludwig von Mises said that the great accomplishment of economists was to draw attention to the extreme limits on the power of government. His point was not merely that government should be limited, but that it is limited by the very structure of reality. It cannot make all people rich by its own initiative. It cannot provide universal housing, literacy, and health. It cannot raise wages across the board. It cannot ban products. Those who seek to accomplish economic ends such as these are choosing the wrong means. That is because there is something more powerful than government: namely economic law.

 

And what is economic law? It is a force that operates within the structure of all societies everywhere that governs the production and allocation of material resources and time according to strict bounds of what is possible. Some things are just not possible. It just so happens that this includes most of the demands that are made by the public and pressure groups on the government. This was the great discovery of the modern science of economics. This was not known by the ancients. It was not known by the fathers of the early church. It was the discovery of the medieval schoolmen, and the insight was gradually elaborated upon and systematized over the centuries, culminating in the classical and Austrian traditions of thought.

 

The power of government to do what we desire is strictly limited. Those who do not understand this point do not understand economics. And the economic teaching has a broader implication that concerns the organization of society itself. Government is not free to make and unmake society as it sees fit. It is not a tool we can use to fulfill our private dreams. Society is too complicated, too far reaching, too much a reflection of the free volition of individual actors, for government to be able to accomplish its ends. Most often, what government attempts to do – whether abolish poverty, end liquor consumption, or make all citizens literate and healthy – ends up backfiring and generating the exact opposite.

 

With this background, I would like to discuss the broad topic of the war on terror. Terrorism is not something that any of us likes. We would all like to see a world without violence and bloodshed. This hardly distinguishes our generation from any that preceded. What is unique about our moment is that we live under a regime that has come to believe that the government itself can produce this result for us if we only give the government enough power, money, and managerial discretion to accomplish this goal.

 

We associate this view with the political right. This might be something of a misnomer since the right was very much against the wars of the 1990s. It was the right that made the case against nation building, and it was Bush who earned the support of the American middle class by promising a humble foreign policy. It was the conviction back then that Clinton's wars had been waged at the expense of the life and liberty of Americans here and abroad, and had failed to accomplish their ends.

 

A similar critique of left-wing wars was offered by the right in the interwar period. It was clear that World War I had diminished American liberty, regimented the economy, inflated the money, slaughtered many people, and failed to accomplish its goal of bringing about self-determination for all peoples of the world. The right applied its political logic of the need for freedom at home to issues of foreign policy. Small government and non-intervention applied to domestic as well as foreign affairs, for reasons both practical and moral. The left, in contrast, saw war as yet another application of the principle that government can accomplish great things for us, and they saw how war provides the great pretext for expanding the power of the state to do these things.

 

But these days, the political roles have changed. The left is the major voice criticizing the war on terror, while the right, much to my dismay, has enlisted in ways I could not have imagined back in the 1990s. The right has led the call for war abroad, and called for speech controls, domestic spying, and more power to the president to arrest, jail, and even convict people in military courts without the slightest concern for human rights and liberties. Countless times I've had to explain to people who otherwise are suspicious of government that it is not a good thing to give the US government the power to overthrow any government in the world or torture people abroad or pass out trillions in reconstruction aid.

 

When the left makes a case for total government management at home and yet nonintervention abroad, while the right argues for free markets at home and a global war on terror abroad, there is some sort of political schizophrenia alive in the land. People who have doubted the power of government to do much at home seem to take leave of their senses when it comes to war abroad. And it is hardly a surprise that they have been proven wrong.

 

Four years ago, Bill O'Reilly said: "I will bet you the best dinner in the gas-light district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week." Tony Snow said: "The three week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptic's complaints." Morton Kondrake said: "All the naysayers have been humiliated so far…the final word on this is, hooray." Fred Barnes said: "The war was the hard part…and it gets easier."

 

Well, it hasn't gotten easier. Bush says that we should stay in Iraq as long as necessary. A poll that came out today says that only 23 percent of soldiers in Iraq agree with him. Seventy-two percent say that the US should leave completely within a year. Nearly a third say that all troops should leave immediately. When the troops themselves are willing to tell pollsters this sort of thing, a war is completely doomed.

 

War supporters at home are starting to see the light. Let me read to you a note I received this morning.

 

Dear Lew,

 

Some years ago, I wrote to you as a supporter of the Bush war on terrorism. You reminded me, in a response which now escapes me, that the war was in essence a mistake. I remember being disappointed at the time with your response, what with 9/11 and alI. I joined the throng of Conservative lemmings who were following our leader over the edge of the cliff in large measure because I had voted for him in the previous election and I was willing to believe his pronouncements regarding the need for war. I suppose you could say that I trusted him to tell us the truth, as naive as that may sound for a person who is supposed to be a Conservative.

 

I now must admit to you that I was wrong and you were right. Without going into too much detail, I have come to see that UN mandates, lack of conclusive proof of WMD's and generally poor intelligence about the Iraqi regime as well as the specious arguments of Saddam's Al Qaida connections were all more or less used to cover our invasion of that country and at the price of so many fine soldiers and marines. And what did we get in exchange for our blood and treasure? I wonder.

 

A couple of years ago I found one of my grandfather's books, Three Soldiers by John Dos Passos. Within the cover I found where he had inscribed the phrase "To Hell with all wars." Papa had served in the Army during the Great War and was an eyewitness to its horrors. My grandfather taught me much about the world and gave me my conservative viewpoint. That discovery combined with my observations of the current scene caused me to re-evaluate my acceptance of this conflict. Not that I have become, as it were, a pacifist; but I have re-examined the history of our republic and have come to the conclusion that we should fight only in national self-defense and certainly not without a real congressional declaration as spelled out in our Constitution. It is very difficult to die for a lie, knowing it to be such.

 

Such notes no longer surprise me. The feeling is widespread. The lie noted in this letter concerns the supposition about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But that is not the most egregious lie. The worst lie is the big one: that government can accomplish wonderful things if we give it enough power, money, and discretion. No matter how many times we hear it, or in what context, it is always and everywhere a lie. A leader who says this is the equivalent of the snake in the garden who promises that glorious knowledge comes with just one bite of fruit. And yet we as a people keep being lured into accepting it.

 

The debates about the war on terror have typically involved great detail about the validity of intelligence reports, investigations of terror networks, discussion of the reliability of this or that foreign regime, and the like. But none of this is really necessary if you want to make a sound judgment about whether to support the war in question. What we really need is more general knowledge about the nature of government and its limits. If we understand how it will lose the small wars against things such as cigarettes and liquor, we can more clearly understand how it loses the large wars.

 

The attempt to ban liquor led to a vast increase in liquor distribution and consumption through black-market means. The campaign to wage a war on poverty resulted in more poverty. The war on literacy has created generations of illiterates. The wars on cigarettes and drugs have been spectacularly unsuccessful, and for proof you need look no further than prison, an environment that government fully controls and which is predictably swimming in cigarettes and drugs of all sorts.

 

There are some things that a state just cannot do, no matter how much power it accumulates or employs. I'm sorry to tell this to the American left, but the war on warm weather is not going to be any more successful than any other of these wars. And I'm sorry to tell this to the American right, but there is no way that the American government can kill every person on the planet who resents US imperialism. The attempt to do so will generate more, not less, terrorism.

 

We are now more than half a decade into this war on terror. The State Department now says, based on its own data, that the results of the war are "mixed." In government parlance, the admission of mixed results means, in regular language, total failure. The number of terror-related incidents increased 28.5 percent from 11,153 in 2005 to 14,338 in 2006. The number of people killed in terror-related incidents went from 14,618 in 2005 to 20,498 last year. Most occurred in Iraq but the number in Afghanistan also nearly doubled from 491 to 749. The number of children killed in bombings has increased 80 percent to 700 killed kids and 1,100 wounded.

 

Let us compare to the year 2001, when the war on terror really got going. Including the New York and Washington attacks, there were a total of 531 attacks, with a total dead of 3,572 dead and 2,283 wounded. The number of attacks went down slightly in 2002, a fact which the government trumpeted as proof that the war was working. But this link between cause and effect was quickly deleted. By the next year, the problem began to grow steadily worse, with 208 attacks and 625 people dead and 3,646 wounded. In 2004, the number of incidents shot through the roof to 3,259 and it suddenly became far more difficult to obtain the data. The old reports that had made it crystal clear became totally reformatted and replete with propaganda instead of facts. The number tripled the next year, but the data on this was nearly impossible to find.

 

Gone was the rhetoric from 2002 about the great success. It was replaced with frenzied attacks on ever-increasing numbers of terror groups. Instead of 10 or 20, there were hundreds and hundreds of them taking the lives of ever more people. Incredibly, the State Department decided to not make public the 2005 figures since attacks rose yet again. Officials had to be hauled before a Congressional committee before they would give any specifics.

 

Now they can't get away with hiding the numbers but you still have to look very hard to find them. The bottom line is that since the war on terror began, the incidents that qualify as terrorism have increased by an incredible 26 times. For every one incident in 2001, there are now 26 incidents. For every person killed by terrorism in 2002, 23 people were killed in 2006. Meanwhile, the polls reflect the perception that the world is more, not less, dangerous since the war on terror began. Indeed, among those polled, 81% now believe that the world is becoming more dangerous.

 

Are we going to call this a job well done? It depends on what you call a good job. It fits precisely with what we might expect government to do: its wars always and everywhere make the problem worse, and not better.

 

Now let us consider spending. According to Portfolio.com, the combined cost of the Iraq war (Operation Iraqi Freedom, in Pentagon jargon) and its companions, Operation Enduring Freedom, in Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terror, could easily top $600 billion this year. But the overall cost is even higher, exceeding perhaps $2 trillion. The annual congressional appropriations for the wars – averaging $127 billion – are bigger than the global markets for soap, heroin, or gambling. And the spending is growing. Monthly spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan averaged $6.8 billion in 2006. That figure is now closer to $8 billion a month.

 

Portfolio adds: "At that rate of burn, General Electric’s value would be wiped out in three and a half years, Bill Gates’ personal fortune would evaporate in just seven months, and the troubled Ford Motor Co. would cease to exist in a matter of weeks. If you think of the wars as a giant impulse buy using an unlimited credit card, then paying it off would require coming up with enough cash to match the G.D.P. of three Irelands or about 11 Kuwaits or the Netherlands – but only if you throw in Sri Lanka."

 

Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Colin Powell warned President Bush that if you break it, you buy it. At last count, we’ve bought the equivalent of 10 Iraqs with your tax dollars. But instead of buying 10, the money has gone to completely destroying one country.

 

But surely this money is going to more than just war. What about the effort to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure? Well, if you know anything about government building projects, you know there is not a record of success. Pick any Section-8 housing project anywhere in the country and you will find a long record of mismanagement, misallocation, and waste. So it is in Iraq. These reconstruction projects that war supporters have heralded have amounted to little or nothing.

 

At the Baghdad airport, for example, your tax dollars paid for $11.8 million in new electrical generators. But $8.6 million worth of them are no longer functioning. The problems with generators in Baghdad are legendary: low oil, broken fuel lines, missing batteries, and the like. The water purification system for the city is no longer working. At the maternity hospital in Erbil, an incinerator for medical waste was padlocked and officials can't find the key. So syringes, bandages, and drug vials are clogging the sewage system and contaminating the water.

 

Now, how did we get all this information? A federal oversight agency went to inspect a sample of eight projects that US officials in Iraq had declared to be a success. Of these eight successes, seven of them were not actually functioning at all due to plumbing and electrical failure, poor maintenance, looting, and just general neglect. Keep in mind that these are the projects that the US government declared successes! The failures must be abysmal beyond belief.

 

So too with myriad state programs, among which is the Global War on Terror. There is no standard by which it can be considered a success. But as we know, data only get you so far. If you ask the people who the establishment considers to be experts in terrorism, they are united in one belief: we aren't spending enough money on the effort. Every agency needs more power and money, they say. The reason for the failure is a lack of resources. If we would just fork over more, all will be well.

 

It is precisely this rationale that led socialism in Russia to last 70 years and drive the entire country into the ground. Those of us who watched this calamity from a distance were astonished that a failure could last so long. Can't the government look around and see what a disaster they have created? Can't they see that while their people were lining up blocks for a scrap of bread and dying at the age of 60, ours were shopping in massive department stores and living to 70 and 75? Why isn't it obvious what a failure socialism has been?

 

Well, one thing is clear in the social sciences: nothing is obvious to the experts. The reason has to do with their perception of cause and effect. The supporters of socialism always believed that more money and better management would take care of the problem. Every failure was caused by something outside of the system that a perfection of the management system would correct.

 

So it is with the war on terror. All the experts counsel more spending and power. It never occurs to them that the war itself is the problem. All problems are blamed on some other factor: sectarianism, outside interference, a demagogic new leader, poor management, or what have you. The excuses can be manufactured without end.

 

And then there is the overwhelming factor that the war on terror can only be considered a failure from the point of view of the stated aims. It is not a failure for those who directly benefit from the increased funding and power. And it is an indisputable fact that the government has benefited massively from the war on terror.

 

It is essential that we look at this war in light of history. At the end of World War II, the government and its elites were quite desperate for a massive global cause to keeping spending high and the government in control. Communism was picked, and so our former allies in the war became our sworn enemies.

 

Ten years ago, with communism gone, the American warmongers had little to do, other than intervene in small skirmishes. Finally they hit on a great idea: demonize Islamic radicalism. Here is a nation without borders that is terrifying to the American people, just like communism. Despite all the appearance of sadness and anger after 9-11, the elites also understood that it meant the continuation of the old war apparatus. And for that, they were not entirely regretful.

 

At last there was a pretext for war preparedness and war itself that rivaled the old communist threat. So off we went into this structure. There has been no shortage of rhetoric. No expense is spared on arms escalation. There is no lack of will. The effort has the support of plenty of smart people. It is backed by threats of massive bloodshed.

 

What is missing in the war on terror is the essential means to cause the war to yield beneficial results. Of all the billions of potential terrorists out there, and the infinite possibilities of how, when, and where they will strike, there is no way the state can possibly stop them, even if it had the incentive to do so.

 

Behind terrorism is political grievance. This is not speculation. This is the word of the terrorists themselves, from Timothy McVeigh to Osama Bin Laden to innumerable suicide bombers. They are not acting randomly. They have goals. The goal is, first, get the US government and its troops out. And if history teaches us anything it is that no country wants to be ruled by a foreign power, whether that foreign occupation takes the form of colonialism or outright military dictatorship. People would rather run a country badly than have it run well from the outside. No one should understand this better than the American people, whose country was born in a revolt against foreign rule.

 

The second goal of the terrorists is to gain access to the levers of power. In many cases, the US created these, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq. We insist that there must be a single governing power. Then we are surprised when groups appear that are determined to control it. It would have been much better for everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan to have left them without states at all.

 

The longer we continue in the failures of our war on terror, the more problems that we generate. The pool of actual terrorists (like the poor in the War on Poverty) is limited and can be known, and they are the ones the state focuses on. But the pool of potential terrorists (and potential poor people) is unlimited, and unleashed by the very means the state employs in its war.

 

Hence, not only does the state not accomplish its stated goals, it recruits more people into the armies of the enemy, and ends up completely swamped by a problem that grows ever worse until the state throws in the towel. In the meantime, the target population is able to make a mockery of the state through sheer defiance.

 

The means of conducting war has all the features and failings of every form of central planning. There is an overutilization of resources, and, when the results are the very opposite of the promise, they overutilize some more resources. They do not account for the possibility of error, even though error is more common than anything.

 

Rather than admit error, the war planners shift the blame. The war planners do not account for basic traits of human nature, such as the will to resist. They assume that the world is theirs for the making and never confront the fact that there are forces beyond their control. The people who planned the war on Iraq dismissed suggestions that perhaps not everyone in Iraq is going to be overjoyed at the prospect of gaining freedom through bombing, destruction, and martial law administered by a US military dictatorship or a puppet regime.

 

But can't the state just kill more, employ ever more violence, perhaps even terrify the enemy into passivity? It cannot work. Even prisons experience rioting. The theorist who first saw the collapse of the ideology of the nation-state, Israeli historian Martin van Creveld, was asked about this in an interview for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. He was refreshingly blunt: "The Americans in Vietnam tried it. They killed between two-and-a-half and three million Vietnamese. I don’t see that it helped them much."

 

Without admitting defeat, the Americans finally pulled out of Vietnam, which today has a thriving stock market. To a notable extent, the war on poverty has ended its most aggressive phases and poverty is declining. What does this experience tell us about the War on Terror? The right approach to this program, as to all government programs, is to end it immediately.

 

But wouldn't that mean surrender? It would mean that the state surrenders its role but not that everyone else does. Had the airlines been in charge of their own security, 9-11 would not have happened. Bin Laden would have a hard time gaining recruits. Muslim fundamentalism would be dealt a serious blow, for no longer would US policy seem specifically designed to feed the madness of its lunatic fringe.

 

In all the talk of war on Iraq, I've yet to hear anyone recently claim that taking out Saddam or bringing about a regime change made the world a more peaceful, happier place. No one really believes that. The 1990 war on Iraq gave rise to al-Qaeda, led to the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, and emboldened an entire generation of Muslims to devote their lives to fighting America. The new war in Iraq has done the same. And where did these fanatics come from in the first place? They were subsidized in the 1980s by US policy. We believed that they were good guys because they were fighting communism. Some of the same groups that we are now bombing in Afghanistan and Iraq we were wining and dining in the 1980s in the pursuit of the Cold War.

 

Thus has one bad intervention led to another, precisely in the way that Mises spelled out in his 1929 book Critique of Interventionism. He explained that interventionism is not a stable policy. It creates imbalances that cry out for correction, either by abandoning the policy or pursuing it further to the point of collapse. For this reason, the War on Terror is impossible, not in the sense that it cannot cause immense amounts of bloodshed and destruction and loss of liberty, but in the sense that it cannot finally achieve what it is supposed to achieve, and will only end in creating more of the same conditions that led to its declaration in the first place.

 

In other words, it is a typical government program, costly and unworkable, like socialism, like the War on Poverty, like every other attempt by the government to shape reality according to its own designs.

 

 

Now let us look at the flipside of the impossibility thesis. If government wars are impossible, what is possible? The answer was provided by the old liberal school: freedom. Society contains within itself the capacity to self-organize. There is nothing that government can do to produce a better result.

 

This is true in domestic and foreign policy.

 

"The idea of liberalism starts with the freedom of the individual," Mises wrote. "It rejects all rule of some persons over others; it knows no master peoples and no subject peoples, just as within the nation itself it distinguishes between no masters and no serfs."

 

The war on Iraq has enjoyed some measure of public support based on the desire for revenge. Even though Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, people wanted someone to suffer. What we tend to forget is that this is an old motive for war, and it can lead to calamity.

 

World War I had ended with many resentments stewing and the old longing for empire had not entirely gone away. Germany in particular was ripe for bamboozlement by a leader who could tap into the resentment concerning lost territories. The leader would convince the people that the urge for justice can only be satisfied by re-creating an empire, and only the strongest possible leader could manage to accomplish this against all odds.

 

Mises wrote with an impassioned desire to stop the course of events. "It would be the most terrible misfortune for Germany and for all humanity if the idea of revenge should dominate the German policy of the future," he wrote. "To become free of the fetters that have been forced upon German development by the peace of Versailles, to free our fellow nationals from servitude and need, that alone should be the goal of the new German policy. To retaliate for wrong suffered, to take revenge and to punish, does satisfy lower instincts, but in politics the avenger harms himself no less than the enemy. What would he gain from quenching his thirst for revenge at the cost of his own welfare?"

 

Americans have a deep-rooted attachment to the ideal of liberty, which is a glorious thing. But it is also why American leaders have always justified foreign wars in the name of liberating the oppressed people of the world. The mistake is thinking that freedom can be achieved by means of force. The Cold War originated with the idea that the US should do whatever was necessary to roll back the very Soviet client states that the US worked to establish at the end of World War II. Then the US pursued a series of wars in far-flung places that cost lives and liberty and did nothing to stop the spread of communism.

 

The more implausible the imperial war, the more a variety of rationales becomes necessary. Iraq has been justified on grounds of security, safety, religion, vengeance, and economics, each rationale carefully tailored to appeal to a certain demographic group. All that is necessary is that the state convinces a slight majority, however temporarily.

 

What must a person forget in order to believe in the unity of interest between US foreign policy and the American people? They must forget that the US was born in revolt against not only the British Empire but also the very idea of empire itself. They must forget that the only way the US Constitution was adopted was the promise that it would not act imperialistically at home or abroad. They must forget the warnings of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and many presidents of the 19th century. They must forget about the history of failure of our own imperial wars in the 20th century, in which guerilla armies have consistently beat back our regular troops.

 

To believe in the war on terror is to adopt a posture that forgets everything that is truly American: our history, our belief in human rights, our hatred of despotism, our opposition to international meddling.

 

The US has no business attempting to run a war that involves the entire world and the whole human race, and certainly we can't be surprised when those we rule call us the evil empire. Americans are all rebels in our hearts. Anyone who longs for freedom must be. Empire is contrary to the American ethos. The American people have made exceptions in this century. But there is no threat on the world scene to our families and property greater than that posed by the U.S. government itself.

 

I'm often asked what an average person can do to stop the madness and further liberty. The first and most important step is intellectual. We all need to begin to say no to the state on an intellectual level. When you are asked what you would like the government to do for you, we need to be prepared to reply: nothing. We should not ask it to save our children, nor provide security, nor vanquish all evil, nor give us anything at all.

 

We should not ask government to win a war on terror, end poverty, make everyone healthy and literate, provide for us when we are old, or anything else. Nothing the government does takes place without a greater cost than benefit to society.

 

Knowing this, we can still be good citizens. We can be good parents, teachers, workers, entrepreneurs, church members, students, and contributors to society in a million different ways. This is far more important to the future of liberty than anything else we do. We must regain our confidence in our capacity for self-governance. I believe this is happening already. The government's wars will continue to fail, and I do not think that we should regret this. Even if the public sector cannot and will not prepare for a future of liberty, we can. Let us look for and work toward the triumph of liberty unencumbered by leviathan and its wars.

 

May 3, 2007

 

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty.

 

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

 

Lew Rockwell Archives

 

 

 

 

 

Links referenced within this article

 

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/mailto...kwell@gmail.com

DIGG THIS

http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=htt...l&title=The War the Government Cannot Win&topic=political_opinion

Critique of Interventionism

http://www.mises.org/store/Critique-of-Int...5C1.aspx?AFID=1

send him mail

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/mailto...kwell@gmail.com

Ludwig von Mises Institute

http://www.mises.org

LewRockwell.com

http://www.lewrockwell.com

Speaking of Liberty

http://www.mises.org/store/Speaking-of-Lib...x?AFID=1?AFID=1

Lew Rockwell Archives

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/rockwell-arch.html

 

 

 

 

Find this article at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/war-govt-nowin.html

[Amanda]

Additionally Japedo, I know this should probably be in the other thread you mentioned, however, to endorse what I think is a congruent position on both threads is the following from here concerning the VT incident:

 

But Moore’s article turned unintentionally comic when she quoted an Iraqi praising the gun-control policies of....Saddam Hussein. "But America has terrorism and they are exporting it to us. We did not have this violence in the Saddam era because the law was so tough on guns."

 

When the balance of power is completely taken from the people and a madman takes over, the only violence that is going to happen is the violence of a corruptible leader. No one has the right of their own stance, and are subject entirely to one man's decisions. So, how can we hold them accountable? If the COUNTRY makes these decisions, that's a different story. Then unilateral repercussions from the rest of the world will be more ethically imposed, and more effective to change their minds. Our presence in Iraq is to make that happen, NOT to have the power of them ourself! This statement just goes to show the brainwashing that still lingers in that country, IMO.

[Jubilant]

IMO, Saddam Hussein shows a clear example of what can happen if we let someone slowly but surely ascertain all the power against a defenseless society.

 

And yet millions of innocent Africans have died via genocide in the past decade or so and our American government has not intervened. Seems to me our government only helps those in countries that will benefit the US. What about the North Koreans? I don't see us rushing to help those poor souls either...but then again, it seems that poor countries have little importance to the US because we can't make money off of them.

 

I mean you absolutely no disrespect, Amanda, you know that I think you're wonderful. But you're saying that our country needs to defend the defenseless, when indeed it doesn't....not only that but we, as others have stated, cannot be the world police.

 

Vigile you and Japedo have summed up nicely my views on this entire issue.

[Jubilant]

I am for it because they are trying to liberate the Iraqi people

 

 

I appreciate the fact that Hussein was taken care of but I doubt that that was their first priority.

 

 

Least I remind everyone that Hussein wouldn't have been their without the US in the first place, same as the next tin pot dictator, who may come from this. The war is complete BS and lies. It is not the United states responsibility to take care of the world or place governments into power around the globe that will give us a free pass and line our pockets, which is what is happening. Please don't use the emotional excuse if you don't support the war you don't support the troops. That is yet more BS Propaganda. I support our troops coming home serving the United States people, not the Middle east or Corporate America. The last thing this war is about is "liberation".

 

You are so right!

 

I'm sorry that I didn't read through this thread earlier...off I go to finish the other 4-5 pages.

[Piprus]

Kevin's addtions to this thread, I think puts us back into perspective on this mess.

We were led down the primrose path by an administration that had an agenda that was not in the best interest of the people of the US, whom that administration is sworn to serve. Although I, among others, never, from day 1, or 2, or 30, or anything beyond, ever supported the war in Iraq, the folly of it had to become apparent to the majority before any definitive action against the Dubya could be undertaken. That, after 3000 plus Americans had been killed. Now that that has happened, we face the classic Poker question....Now that you are a loser in a losing game of Poker, how best to deal with your loss? Do you fold, or do you keep playing and hope your luck will turn? Fold and you live with what you have lost. Keep playing, and you risk losing even more. I vote to fold and cut the losses.

 

Down with Dubya.

[Amanda]

IMO, Saddam Hussein shows a clear example of what can happen if we let someone slowly but surely ascertain all the power against a defenseless society.

 

And yet millions of innocent Africans have died via genocide in the past decade or so and our American government has not intervened. Seems to me our government only helps those in countries that will benefit the US. What about the North Koreans? I don't see us rushing to help those poor souls either...but then again, it seems that poor countries have little importance to the US because we can't make money off of them.

Jubilant, IMO, one has nothing to do with the other. Africa isn't known to breed terrorists that support or participate in attacks on us. (BTW, they have lots of oil.) My heart goes out to Haiti too.

 

And how do you think we are making money off of them?

I mean you absolutely no disrespect, Amanda, you know that I think you're wonderful. But you're saying that our country needs to defend the defenseless, when indeed it doesn't....not only that but we, as others have stated, cannot be the world police.

We don't need to defend the defenseless society, hence we're not in Africa?

 

We're not in Iraq to defend anyone but ourselves. We're there so that the activity that comes out of that country is aligned with the people of that country. If someone came into your house, held you and your family hostage at gunpoint and started shooting at your neighbors, would it be fair that we decide all of you in that house are responsible for his actions? Now, if we know that your family invited that guy into your house, you're willingly providing him food, comfort, and support; can we hold your family responsible for his actions then? IMO, there's a BIG difference.

 

Aligning the people is not easily done. IMO, Saddam encouraged different factions fighting against each other within his country. He didn't care so much about the people, as he had other agendas. If these people were fighting amongst themselves, this made it more difficult for them to fight against him. They target each other instead of the government, was an effective tactic for him. Now, we just want them to come together as a real country, instead of a hotbed for a madman to use it to do unacceptable deeds and then hide behind these innocent people.

 

I've mentioned why the US supported Hussein at one time, and stand by their decision. The United Nations had awarded Saddam honors for his impressive work in education and health in Iraq, in his early years coming up into power. He seemed to be a positive influence, until he took presidency of that country by default. Once president, he mustered up about 70 people and executed them, accusing them of not being loyal. I suppose he was concerned of a coup, which is how the regime he followed up the ranks had gotten their control of the country.

[Vigile]

the folly of it had to become apparent to the majority before any definitive action against the Dubya could be undertaken.

 

The problem is, the press had the ability to highlight the folly from the begining. And they did to a certain degree. Articles were printed not only in foreign press, but in many of our own. One glaring example is the Op that Brent Scowcroft printed in the NYT (or was it WP?) making the case that a war with Iraq would have EXACTLY these results.

 

The American people and the press hold equal blame. The press because they didn't hammer on the stories the way they do Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, et al, and the American people because their attention spans are so puny that if the press doesn't treat a story with 24/7 media coverage the way they did Anna Nichole's death, they think it's not important and their views are then free to be quickly swayed by the White House press release instead of what should have obvioulsy been a more objective and reasonable caution from Bush's own father via Scowcroft.

 

So yeah, I lay the blame partially at the feet of the American masses.

[Vigile]

We're not in Iraq to defend anyone but ourselves.

 

And yet, and YET as many times as I have pointed out that this is a falicious statement, you have yet to show how we are there defending ourselves. Your terrorist argument has already been shown to be bunk even if you choose not to see it.

[Vigile]

I've mentioned why the US supported Hussein at one time, and stand by their decision.

 

Then I'm sorry. Others here may have respect for you, but you have lost any last level of respect from me I may or may not have had.

 

You may as well have said that you stand by Mussellini's decision to stand by Hitler. The US armed this monster, they gave him illegal weapons, and he used them to kill not only hundreds of thousands of Iranis, but myriads of his own people as well. All with the US government's blessing and you stand by this?

 

Anything to protect your own ass and your quiet little life in Florida, huh madam?

 

Doesn't matter how many have to die or how many lives are ruined so that your car has gas.

[Jubilant]

We're not in Iraq to defend anyone but ourselves.

 

Thats not true and you've already been given ample *proof* otherwise, not to mention that our government financed Saddam in the first place, as well as gave him weapons.

 

We're there so that the activity that comes out of that country is aligned with the people of that country. If someone came into your house, held you and your family hostage at gunpoint and started shooting at your neighbors, would it be fair that we decide all of you in that house are responsible for his actions? Now, if we know that your family invited that guy into your house, you're willingly providing him food, comfort, and support; can we hold your family responsible for his actions then? IMO, there's a BIG difference.

 

According to your stance on this whole issue, you'd think it justifiable to kill every person in my neighborhood for my actions because they may be a threat to you.

 

They target each other instead of the government, was an effective tactic for him. Now, we just want them to come together as a real country,

 

Whose definition of a country though? Our definition of a country? Would it be okay then for Iraq to model after, oh say, North Korea? Columbia? China? Cuba? I HIGHLY DOUBT it. What about if Iraqi's lean towards socialist structure? Would that work for you? For America? Do they have the freedom to choose how they want to run their country, or will America dictate the proper way to run the country of Iraq?

 

 

instead of a hotbed for a madman to use it to do unacceptable deeds and then hide behind these innocent people.

 

Right, far more acceptable for thousands of those *innocent people* (including infants, children, handicapped, etc.) to die and/or be mamed for life in the crossfire created by our American presence than mean-ole nasty Saddam. What he did was *evil*, what we're doing just creates sad but tragic war tragedies. Go America! Woo-hoo!

[Jubilant]

And how do you think we are making money off of them?

 

Did you see the show last week on the Military Channel about the soldiers coming home? Oh, the companies that our government hands out contracts to (that some politicians just so happen to have stock in)are making some real good money from the war. $25 per foam carry out plate of food is the charge and if a soldier is real hungry? $50 for two plates. I can go to my local restaurants and receive that for under $9. Not to mention that the same company (the name eludes me) also has stores set up in which they are making some nice *pocket* change on everyday grocery items. Oh, yes, and then there is the oil.

 

Two of the three soldiers in that documentary believed if it wasn't for the oil and profit...we wouldn't be there.

 

NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

 

If this was solely about the terrorist attacks that we have suffered, the war would be in Afghanistan. But even that is impossible because you cannot fight an enemy that isn't wearing a uniform.

 

The absolute best thing that we can do as a nation is to have the tightest security possible. We keep hearing the politicians tell us how safe we are do to our outstanding security measures. If that is the case, then why are we still there? Terrorists aren't bothered by our presence, not in the least bit. We're only hurting ourselves and the majority of GOOD and honest people in Iraq with this war.

 

One more edit to add: Amanda, I must say that I am completely shocked by your opinions, views and comments concerning this entire matter. For well over a year now I've read so many of your posts in which you stand up for Jesus. You may have changed regarding the historicity of the Bible but you have always championed the teachings of love, peace, oneness, etc., etc. that you believe Jesus stood for. You have brought many of us to seeing the Bible in a different light in which we've not known, even though we still don't believe. Where is the love, peace, and oneness that you so boldly claim Jesus stood for in your views regarding this war? Maybe this is not the appropriate place to ask you that but I couldn't help it, not after reading so many of your other posts. Its like parallel universe Amanda here or something.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Amanda,

 

You are swimming in a pool full of historical sharks, all ready to byte your ass off.

 

Saddam encouraged different factions fighting against each other within his country

 

Saddam and his minions brutally supressed ANY fighting within his borders or protectorates. If there was any fighting done, it was a brief rebellion and the weight of his entire Army on their asses being killed. Then the obtuse exaples of Saddamn and the various chemical and petro-chemical warfare on his "enemies". He didn't "fight fair", nor did he give a fuck about those who would upset his money making machines.

*

 

You DO realize that 'IRAQ' is purely an Occidental invention, brought forth by the British mapmakers and politicians in the turn of the 19th century after various conquests and a world war? Map now as you see it is various lines of 'protectorates', blended by some treaty and lots of time, of what the politicians 'felt best' back then.

 

Despite good advise from the Arab and Persians who lives in regions the various goobermints did as they damn well pleased to ensure their hold on the newly discovered exploitable Petroleum, Oil, Lube found in the sands. Despite that advise, the Occidentals drew arbitrary lines in sand, separated families, loyalties, clans and even split exisiting nations for the 'good of the investors'.

 

The various lists of complaints that have been offered by the native people against the Allies isn't a new thing. For most of four human generations meddling and murder have been done to the folks who live there.

 

If you care to see who has been the biggest pot_stirring_meddlers, look no further than London and DC.

 

kL

[Amanda]

We're not in Iraq to defend anyone but ourselves.

 

And yet, and YET as many times as I have pointed out that this is a falicious statement, you have yet to show how we are there defending ourselves. Your terrorist argument has already been shown to be bunk even if you choose not to see it.

Oh... Pardon me Vigile Del Fuoco 1... I forgot you know the absolute Truth of all aspects of history and current events, and your opinion is more valuable than mine... because you have a degree in foreign affairs. I'm sure you'll continue to remind me should I forget. Feel better now?

 

I've mentioned why the US supported Hussein at one time, and stand by their decision.

 

Then I'm sorry. Others here may have respect for you, but you have lost any last level of respect from me I may or may not have had.

 

Further, it's fine with me if you don't have any respect for me in these discussions. I always try to respect most aspects of others opinions as their right to have it, even if I don't agree with them. However, my own opinions are never altared to gain respect from anyone but myself, for myself. I have been known to concede to other's opinions often, but never because I wanted their respect.

You may as well have said that you stand by Mussellini's decision to stand by Hitler. The US armed this monster, they gave him illegal weapons, and he used them to kill not only hundreds of thousands of Iranis, but myriads of his own people as well. All with the US government's blessing and you stand by this?

 

Anything to protect your own ass and your quiet little life in Florida, huh madam?

 

Doesn't matter how many have to die or how many lives are ruined so that your car has gas.

 

Vigile Del Fuoco, why didn't you tell the United Nations all that before they gave him such a prestigous award earning worldwide recognition for his good work in that country?

 

Please see below:

Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).[16][17]

 

As far as where we in the US get our gas... we don't get gas from Iraq. Our primary resources for gas is Canada and Mexico, with Saudi Arabia being like seventh. Plus no one gives it away for free... they charge a price, we pay it... it's called a business transaction.

 

The priority of this country is to protect its people. If you don't like that idea... you might think about it the next time you use your American passport to travel freely around the world. Perhaps you'll find another one you think gives you more respect and ability to be accepted more worldwide. Maybe you'll try an Iraqi one, or such? Of course this country allows you to say whatever you want about it, AND use its priviledges... as long as you remain an American citizen. It's a nice passport to have. I know, as I've traveled around the world with it.

 

Yep... I like Florida a lot! I don't use my car much though. I live in town, can walk most places, it is convenient to use my bike a lot as to avoid having to find a parking spot. Lots and lots of culture here. If anything... too many people coming to this country too fast... legally or not. We have 12 million illegal people here, amongst the legal ones. I guess they're all coming here because it's a terrible place to be.