You are herecontent / Rationale for war based on a mistake

Rationale for war based on a mistake


Posted on Thu, Sep. 15, 2005
IRAQ

Rationale for war based on a mistake

BY DENNIS JETT

Some people get it.

Others don't, or refuse to.

Take Chuck Hagel and John McCain. Both were heroes during the Vietnam War who went into politics and are now Republican senators -- of Nebraska and Arizona, respectively. What they don't have in common is their view of the war in Iraq.

Hagel said recently in an interview: ''We are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam. The longer we stay, the more problems we are going to have.'' McCain, on the other hand, wrote in The New Republic that it was the right war and that he would do it again today. Despite the absence of any weapons of mass destruction, he argued that it was worth the high price we are paying. He noted in the article, published in June 2004, that the price was more than 800 dead Americans and more than $100 billion. Now there are more than 1,800 dead Americans and the monetary cost, too, has more than doubled.

McCain still believes that the war was justified to save Iraqis from an evil dictator. With the money spent on the war, however, every child in the world could be immunized for the next 63 years. How many lives would that save? And how many mass graves have been filled by the tens of thousands of Iraqis that have died as a result of the conflict?

While the two senators have some things in common, so do the two wars. Their initiation, justification and termination were based on lies or, at a minimum, mistakes.

Take the casus belli in both instances. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was largely a nonevent and Iraq had no WMDs. The reports about the incident and the weapons were both deliberately and grossly exaggerated in order to justify going to war. It is true that Saddam Hussein failed to show the United Nations that he had gotten rid of the banned weapons. The documentation he gave the United Nations was inadequate and did not prove the negative. So we went to war over an accounting error?

The rationale for both wars was also faulty. There were no vital national interests at stake in either of them. Vietnam went communist and the rest of the southeast Asia did not fall like a row of dominoes. Iraq without WMD posed no immediate threat to the United States. Thanks to the new draft constitution, Iraq is on its way to becoming a theocracy. But even if it were genuinely democratic, that would not topple every totalitarian regime in the region like a row of dominoes.

And the termination of both wars is driven by purely political purposes. Columnist Maureen Dowd wrote recently that President Nixon in 1992 suggested that the first President Bush would have had a much better chance of reelection if he had prolonged the Persian Gulf War. Nixon, referring to the Vietnam War, added: ``We had a lot of success with that in 1972.''

Lyndon Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam dramatically because he did not want to leave himself open to criticism from the right for having lost the country to communism. To hear Dowd tell it, Nixon admitted that he prolonged the war for domestic, political purposes.

Bush launched the invasion of Iraq because it was the centerpiece of Karl Rove's reelection strategy. Early next summer, with an eye to the November congressional elections and regardless of the situation on the ground, victory will be declared and token troop withdrawals will begin.

More than half the American people now believe that the war in Iraq was not worth fighting. They understand that the war is not making us safer. So after their experiences in Vietnam, why does Hagel understand that and McCain does not? McCain at least is not alone. Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman and John Kerry have not called for an early end to the war.

A young Kerry returned from Vietnam and said: ''How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?'' Apparently Hagel is the only one of the five who has a problem making that request today. All five senators do have one thing in common -- they all want to be president. At least no one will die as a result of Hagel's ambition.

LINK TO ORIGINAL

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If the people of Iraq had petitioned the United States to unseat the dictator that we established in their country, then it would have been justified to bomb their government buildings and infrastructure, poison their environment, kill massive numbers of their people and completely disrupt their economy. Absent their specific request, there is no excuse for what we have done.

It is certainly nothing that we would want done to us, no matter how much we dislike the Bush crime family.

If the people of Iraq had petitioned the United States to unseat the dictator that we established in their country, then it would still be unconstitutional and a violation of international law and unjustified to bomb their government buildings and infrastructure, poison their environment, kill massive numbers of their people and completely disrupt their economy.

Both of these actions, supporting the dictator and then unseating him, are a violation of our constitution and are illegal and unjustified. Our government and president does not have any constitutional authority to interfere in the internal affairs of any country outside of the territory of the United States, of course most of what the federal government does in the United States is also not authorised by the constitution either, and there is the problem. We no longer have in any meaningful way a constitution. The constitution no longer is a check on government if the government really wants to do something it does it, from freedom of speach being compromised by campaign reform laws, gun laws, the Patriot Act, suspension of legal rights of anyone the president declares an enemy combatant or a terrorist, the use of torture, confiscitation of private land for private use...... This problem is even further compounded by one political party gaining control of all branches of government completely negating all seperation of powers and all meaningful checks and balances!

One parting shot; the Vietnam and Iraq war are not mistakes, they were deliberate calculated acts of government, they knew exactly what they were doing, and those who commited these acts of war, like little George Stupid, are war criminals in every sense of the word, and should be dealt with accordingly!

where the ICC is.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/

Chavez: U.S. Plans to Invade Venezuela
AP - Sat Sep 17, 7:24 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Friday he has documentary evidence that the United States plans to invade his country. Chavez, interviewed on ABC's "Nightline," said the plan is called "Balboa" and involves aircraft carriers and planes. A transcript of the interview was made available by "Nightline." He said U.S. soldiers recently went to Curacao, an island off Venezuela's northwest coast. He described as a "lie" the official U.S. explanation that they visited Curacao for rest and recreation.

"They were doing movements. They were doing maneuvers," Chavez said, speaking through a translator.

He added: "We are coming up with the counter-Balboa plan. That is to say if the government of the United States attempts to commit the foolhardy enterprise of attacking us, it would be embarked on a 100-year war. We are prepared."

Chavez has been attending the summit of world leaders at the United Nations in New York this week. On Thursday, he denounced the U.S.-led war in Iraq and told other leaders they should consider moving the U.N. headquarters out of the United States.

To prove U.S. intentions to invade Venezuela, Chavez offered to send "Nightline" host Ted Koppel maps and other documentation.

"What I can't tell you is how we got it, to protect the sources, how we got it through military intelligence," he said.

In the event of a U.S. invasion, Chavez said the United States can "just forget" about receiving any more oil from his country.

NO weapons of mass destruction.

NO attempt to purchase uranium from Niger.

NO relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

NO Iraqi involvement in 9/11.

NO threat to America from Saddam.

NO concern from Iraq's neighbors about any threat from Saddam.

NO democracy in Iraq (constitution based on Islamic law).

NO equality for women in the New Iraq.

NO Bush clue about what post-saddam Iraq would be like.

NO exit strategy.

NO terrorists swarming in Iraq bfore we got there.

NO roadside bombs or car bombings in Iraq before we got there.

NO "war on terror" in Iraq (just a festering insurgency that will continue for as long as we stay).

NO more life for almost 2000 American troops and tens of thousands if innocent Iraqi citizens (so far)

NO decrease in world wide terrorism since 9/11 (has actually INCREASED several times over).

NO Bush concern for protecting us from terrorism and natural disasters at home.

NO qualifications for Bush FEMA appointees.

NO Bush concern for future generations that will be stuck with the bill for his pathetic fiscal ignorance.

NO legitimate election for Bush.

NO positive results for America since Bush took office.

NO VALID REASON TO KEEP THIS IGNORANT, ARROGANT FOOL AND HIS CLUELESS BAND OF GOVERNMENTAL PRETENDERS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

I know you neocon trolls are out there. You're cruising this site and others like it, looking for every opportunity to anonymously trash the truth movement.

Why? Because trashing the truth is a lot easier than supporting and fighting for it, especially when you voted for the largest governmental fraud in the history of this country and you don't have the capacity to admit you were wrong.

Grow some balls, put down your bullshit talking points, and accept the overwhelming reality that your president and his entire administration represent the largest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.

If you do nothing, you are part of the problem.

John Perry
http://www.johnperryonline.com

Zarqawi is dead, claims Baghdad imam
(AFP)16 September 2005
PARIS - Al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, is dead but Washington continues to use him as a bogeyman to justify a prolonged military occupation, an Iraqi Shia cleric said in an interview published here on Friday. Sheikh Jawad Al Kalesi, the imam of the al-Kazemiya mosque in Baghdad, told Le Monde newspaper: “I don’t think that Abu Musab Al Zarqawi exists as such. He’s simply an invention by the occupiers to divide the people.

The purpose of the Consitution is to limit the Federal Government.

The authors understood both the nature of government and the nature of man.

The government is the only formal institution which,(if legitimate) is sanctioned by public acclimation to impose it's will by force.The unavoidable logic that follows; we must exercise much care and sober judgement in determining what matters we mandate it address.

The government owned and operated schools instill an irrational faith in government that seems impervious to the objective results government programs are seen to produce.

When failure is noted, it is invariably explained by the mainstream media as a failure of the individuals in charge, a failure to adequately fund, or some such superficial expanation. Always termed to be consistent with the noted facts and always accepted by the government indoctrinated majority.

In reality, most government "failures" stem from the fact the fundamental nature of the institution renders success impossible; i.e., an organization that operates on the basis of covercive force, regardless of how implicitly used, or subtly applied, cannot effectively engage in any activity outside the very narrow range of maintaining order, settling disputes and prosecuting material criminal acts against individuals.

But counter to these natural and very real limitations, all problems of large magnitude, real or imagined, all real material needs are seen as fair game for government action.Once the rational limitations on government are cast aside, there can be no objective standard for what government should or should not address.

Inevitably, power struggles must insue and as those with any influence lose out, what ever they recieve in compromise serves as a further expansion of the scope,power and influence of government. this continues to hold forth, as long as a predominant degree of peaceful conflict resolution exists. But as the power of government expands, the significance of achieveing and influencing positions of power becomes greater. As ever more is at stake, conflict becomes ever more intense and crucial.

What is needed is a return to a rational understanding of what government is and therefore ito what it's limits are.

It is all well and good to rail against Bush and all his wrong doings.It is righteous to demand that he and his associates by brought to justice.

But it is foolish to demonize them; failing to recognize that they are just human beings doing what human beings are bound by their nature to do:use the means available to them to promote their own interests.

It is the same error committed by those who buy into the "they hate us because we're wealthy and free" nonesense explanation of terrorism; the failure to understand and account for the immutable basics of human nature.

The problem is systemic and fumdamental, not personal and superficial.

While Bush must certainly be held accountable for what he has done, it is just as important to grasp that the problem is not the dictator,the problem is dictatorship.

Dictatorship made possible and inevitable by the breach of the natural limits of government, inexorably leading to no limits at all.

---The Bikemessenger

"And Straiter..."Sun, 2005-09-18 00:19

Should have appeared as a reply to:

Let's Get This Straiter!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2005-09-17 10:07.

not as a separate comment

Recent court cases and atheist activists object to the use of the word God in the pledge of allegience in schools; but they have it all wrong. The reference to God is not what makes the pledge of allegience objectionable; it is the pledge its self. Why are school children being forced to pledge allegiance to anything, much less the government, this is basicaly brain washing and conditioning children to believe that government is good, righteous and holy and the reference to God just reinforces that aspect by implying that God has somehow ordained and blessed the government. Children should not be pledging allegience to government, the government should be pledging allegience to the people who are supposed to be there masters.

Children should be taught, from grade one on, that government is a necesary evil and it is not to be trusted, that government needs to be constantly watched, and controled lest it get out of control and run amuck. Every school history book should say right in the first page in large bold red letters; government officials lie, politicians lie, especially presidents lie, do not believe anything the government says unless it can be verified by one or more independent sources!

Let us do our children a favor and stop this nonsense of pledging allegiance and instill in each and every one of them a healthy disrespect and distrust of government; this will do more to ensure there continued freedom than anything else.

A Federated Republic or One Nation?
by Benedict D. LaRosa, Posted September 16, 2005

The controversy over the words “under God

Let us not forget that we also have at least three traitors working in the white house.
Karl Rove
Scooter Libby and
???
I would think that the whole group is traitous being Bush did not fire Karl as soon as he found out about that he was at least one of the people involed in TRAITORGATE.
We also know about the torture and kidnappings of people all over the globe.How is this American?I think it is time to impeach and indict all of Bushco and get our country back from this "EVIL" administration!

that this Administration has appointed. See PNAC list in below link:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/pnac-chart.htm

WOULD ANY ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT SUPPORTS GEORGE BUSH'S INVASION OF IRAQ TELL ME HOW IT IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE CRIMINAL JAPANESE ATTACK OF THE U.S. IN 1941. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. THE U.S. ATTACK ON IRAQ WAS A WAR CRIME, A VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA ACCORDS, A VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND A VIOLATION OF SEVERAL INTERNATIONAL TREATIES.
SO THE SUPPORTERS OF BUSH'S ATTACK ARE NOTHING MORE THAN TRAITORS TO THIS COUNTRY AND EVERY MORAL PRINCIPAL WE HAVE STOOD FOR OVER THE LAST 200 YEARS. JOHN MCCAIN, WHO PRESENTS HIMSELF AS AN AMERICAN HERO, IS NOTHING MORE THAN A TRAITOR HIMSELF. HE HAS BROUGHT SHAME TO THIS COUNTRY ALONG WITH GEORGE W. BUSH, DICK CHENEY, RUMSFELD AND ALL THE REST OF THIS CRIMINAL GROUP. THEY ALL NEED TO STAND TRIAL IN AN INTERNATIONAL COURT OF LAW. PERIOD!!!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Store:



















Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.