[John Doe]

??

[Boondock Saint]

You might want to change the text of that link to something a tad ... I dont know ... maybe somthing like ...

"a LINK"

Thats just an observation ...

As for the article I read most of it but honestly it was so tinged with pro-war rhetoric that I couldnt take it as unbiased ... and once I feel an article is unbiased I begin to lose interest ...

What was teh question the article brought up for you?

At any rate ... the war isnt over yet ... so to act like it is is not responsible ...

[John Doe]

Saint,

I'm a bit confused by this statement, "it was so tinged with pro-war rhetoric that I couldnt take it as unbiased" of yours. Ummm... the piece I linked to was an editorial. Editorials make no pretense of being dry reporting, they express opinions.

IMHO the war was, for all practical purposes, over a few days ago when the Republican Guard followed the regular armies example of dropping their guns and skeedaddling. I think the fall of Baghdad (which had not occured when the linked aricle was written) means that only the negotiation of the surrender of the forces around Mosoul and Tikrit remains to be done (and yes, there will be a low level guerilla war that sputters along also).

What interested me about the article (which was addressed to the English public BTW) was the following: there was a lot of rhetoric before the war. You can read some of the leftist rhetoric in the earlier threads on this board (the next Vietnam, fierce resistance and a gazzilion casualties, etc., etc). At what point does one side or the other in a debate admit their arguments were overtaken by events?

There has been a notion on this board that all sources of information are propoganda, ergo split the difference and you get the truth. I happen not to believe that. Certainly both sides attempted to manipulate the truth -- sometimes for pure propoganda, other times because they were engaging in the type of operational deception that both sides in all wars do. However, I do think among the information sources some are much better than others.

For example, I ridiculed Venik and his Russian "Intelligence" sources as vapor (and I have noticed he hasn't updated his imaginary battle reports since the 6th). Splitting the difference when Venik was one of the poles would have been an exercise in futility, or perhaps self-deception, as a result.

Yea, the linked article is a bit too much of a "na-na-boo-boo, I was right and you were wrong" exercise. However, it is an interesting question -- at what point do people admit they were wrong and learn as opposed to rationalizing and spinning? A vital question considering the fact we are now going to start arguing the peace -- and the handling of the peace will ultimately determine wether this war was a good thing, or a bad thing, for the world.

I'm a cynic enough, and have seen enough endless party line bickering, to worry it will drown out common sense.

[Boondock Saint]

John sorry bout that ... its just I see alot of people link to emotional articles or say emotional statements and expect people to take these emotional statements as fact ...

Perhaps I was on my guard no?

Anyway, the question I am seeing arise for you is ... should the people who predicted a massive Vietnam type war admit they were wrong?

My asnwer to that is ... in short, no.

Here is my explanation ...

The US was indeed involved in a bloody and brutal conflict in theVietnam, something the US public is hard pressed to forget, even to this day. Many who lived through those times do not want to see the US go through something like that again ... and rightly so ... its their right.

So ... fearmongering ... its a useful and legitimate tool to prove their point. And what else do the weak have but the tool of fearmongering?

For example, someone who really doesnt want the US to invade someone for whatever reason wants to convince people 'on the fence' why the invasion would be a bad idea ... so they address the deepest fear of the American people ... more terrorism and a Vietnam like war ... In truth the anti-war movement is powerless unless it can convince the majority of Americans to move against the state ... how do you motivate people to move against their state? Simple ... you convince them their state is putting them in clear and present danger ...

Thats what the anti-war movement would like people to believe.

So no ... I dont see a need to apologize or admit they were wrong ... but what I do expect to happen is a future 'crying wolf syndrome' ... the next time the US goes to war or invades someone I expect the same cries of Vietnam and increase terrorism to arise but ... the warnings and fear mongering will be ever less meaningful ...

This is when cries of imperialism and resource stealing comes into play ...

Again, I dont expect anyone to admit they are wrong or take back their statements ... I would expect them to slink back into darkness and plan their next move ...

Its my opinion that the peace protestors around the world should now start a movement to collect food and money for the Iraqi people ... Now THAT would be a show of solidarity with the Iraqi people ... but ... I fear there is no anti-US sentiment in that ...

[John Doe]

True enough -- that's what I meant by the party lines drowning out common sense.

[Gothmog]

Hmmm....a few thoughts

-This war showed how mighty the US imperialism is. Of course they
-won a country with no air force or navy, devastated by years of
-economic sanctions, and whose regime was far from being popular.
-Still the war was very swift and victory came at almost no cost
-(I predicted a 6 week war with 500-1000 casualties for the
-coalition-still a small cost). This is bad, because US imperialism
-will become even more arrogant. They´re already threatening
-Syria, Iran and North Korea. On the other hand, it is good, because
-US imperialism can eventually overextend itself. They´ve involved
-in an agression war before settled the situation in Afghanistan,
-where the US puppet regime hardly have some control beyond
-the oustskirsts of Cabul, the real power lying in the hands of drug
-traffickers and local warlords. If the US involves itself in a series
-of colonial wars, it´s economy and, as a consequence, its power
-can be hit. We can also hope that the US could be involved in a
-prolonged occupation in Iraq. It will be impossible to have a
-democratic regime in Iraq, because the Iraq people will never
-elect a US puppet in free elections (don´t be fooled by scenes
-on television today-there were at bets a few hundreds Iraqis
-dancing in the streets-in a 5 million inhabitants city), so the US
-will impose some kind of friendly dictatorship. Hopefully, this
-could led to development of a real national liberation movement,
-one that we leftists could support (Saddam´s regime was really
-repugnant, and one the main weakness of the antiwar movement
-is in the fact we had nothing to offer to Iraqi people). For Third
-world countryes, remain the lesson that it´s NECESSARY to build
-nuclear weapons to be safer against US agression. For the left
-antiwar it´s another time to understand that reactionary dictators
-like Saddam will never be able to lead a national liberation
-movement.

[Boondock Saint]

Yet leaders like Saddam is what every dictatorship/monarchy ends up with ... Now i admit Saddam was an extremem example ... but in the end when u give one man absolute power or one party absolute power this is what you end up with.

The Iraqi people are so fools, they have lived under a brutal fist long enough. If democracy can be established it will be and the people of Iraq will be better off then any other peoples in the ME.

In the end, freedom is far too attractive.

[Gothmog]

Yet leaders like Saddam is what every dictatorship/monarchy ends up with ... Now i admit Saddam was an extremem example ... but in the end when u give one man absolute power or one party absolute power this is what you end up with.

The Iraqi people are so fools, they have lived under a brutal fist long enough. If democracy can be established it will be and the people of Iraq will be better off then any other peoples in the ME.

In the end, freedom is far too attractive.

-The trouble is: DEMOCRACY NEVER ARISES FROM THE BARREL OF A GUN. How do you think Iraqi who had their houses destroyed by the US, who had their parents killed, who were maimed by coalition bombs will react to military occupation of their country?Of course they hate Saddam, but no people want to be ruled by foreigners. Now that Saddam is gone,
many people will try to find a way to expel US imperialism from their country. That was a very positive aspect of this war. And, just answer me, how a ilegitimate government (because they stole the elctions) will have the moral authority to bring Iraq to a democratic government? Just look to what is heppeing in Afghanistan.

[Boondock Saint]

Democracy never rises from a gun?

Ok, the original democracy didnt because there were no guns back then ... but the democratic republics of the world were born of a gun ... both foreign and domestic guns at that ... the idea that democracy or democratic republics all bloomed like a flower on a sunny day is nonsense ... just about every democratic republic of today emerged via war ...

Tell me of a democratic republic in this world that arose via a peaceful non-violent conflict. Actually, seriously ... if u can.

Generally speaking most of the democratic republics we know are in existance because their previous gov't were either toppled by a domestic power or a foreign power. Which means war ...

As for Iraq ... I have heard alot of speculation about Iraq ... so far Bush has made good on his speculation and much to the dismay of many in the world the anti-war camp was wrong (thus far).

[Gothmog]

Ok, the original democracy didnt because there were no guns back then ... but the democratic republics of the world were born of a gun ... both foreign and domestic guns at that ... the idea that democracy or democratic republics all bloomed like a flower on a sunny day is nonsense ... just about every democratic republic of today emerged via war ...
Tell me of a democratic republic in this world that arose via a peaceful non-violent conflict. Actually, seriously ... if u can.
Generally speaking most of the democratic republics we know are in existance because their previous gov't were either toppled by a domestic power or a foreign power. Which means war ...


-Violence is just one step in the development of a democracy. In no country democracy was imposed only by weapons. There is a lot of cultural and political developments, leading to democracy. However,
in no country democracy was imposed by foreign troops. The example
of Germany and Japan is misleading because both countries had some
experience with democracy in early XX century, so it wasn´t US
occupatio that brought democracy to them.



As for Iraq ... I have heard alot of speculation about Iraq ... so far Bush has made good on his speculation and much to the dismay of many in the world the anti-war camp was wrong (thus far).

-War is just step#1. To defeat a impoverished country is easy. To keep
the occupation withouth infuriating the locals is another.....

[Proctor]

Tell me of a democratic republic in this world that arose via a peaceful non-violent conflict. Actually, seriously ... if u can.

India.

[Boondock Saint]

Well done, I got a few up my sleeve too

I know it has been done, now that I think of them. But ... in the end a gun has been just as influential in spreading democracy as a um ... well anything else.

And India most certainly is a special example ... I dont think Ghandi has had an equel ... not before him, not while he was here and I dont think the world will see one in the near future.

[Sidhe]

I would oppose the original article with the article by Michael Kinsely in Thursday's Slate. Boondock will already have seen this, but here is a snippet of it, with the appropriate link at the end.

The serious case involved questions that are still unresolved. Factual questions: Is there a connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11? Is that connection really bigger than that of all the countries we're not invading? Does Iraq really have or almost have weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United States? Predictive questions: What will toppling Saddam ultimately cost in dollars and in lives (American, Iraqi, others)? Will the result be a stable Iraq and a blossoming of democracy in the Middle East or something less attractive? How many young Muslims and others will be turned against the United States, and what will they do about it?

Political questions: Should we be doing this despite the opposition of most of our traditional allies? Without the approval of the United Nations? Moral questions: Is it justified to make "pre-emptive" war on nations that may threaten us in the future? When do internal human rights, or the lack of them, justify a war? Is there a policy about pre-emption and human rights that we are prepared to apply consistently? Does consistency matter? Even etiquette questions: Before Bush begins trying to create a civil society in Iraq, wouldn't it be nice if he apologized to Bill Clinton and Al Gore for all the nasty, dismissive things he said about "nation-building" in the 2000 campaign?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081376/