The first of many wars....

[a_unique_person]

http://afr.com/iraq/2003/03/22/FFX9J0DJJDD.html

there have been many questions about this war. this article, for me, seems to address many of them. there has never been a clear and consistent reason given for why saddam and why now. the idea that this war is the first of a series gives weight to the basic assertion by protestors around the world that a war is a last resort.

the UN is belittled for not being representative or democratic. It is infinitely more so than a US going around and lining up governments in it's sights unilaterally.

Note also that Syria is now a part of the axis of evil. China, which the bush administration was very aggressive towards when it first took office, then was a good pal after 9/11. According to this article, it will be back on the agenda some time in the future.



As president, George Bush the elder famously disparaged what he called "the vision thing". His son takes an entirely different approach to the presidency.

"The job is - the vision thing matters. That's another thing I learned," George Bush the younger said last year. While there is intense scrutiny of the United States-led invasion of Iraq at the moment, you can be sure that it is only a glimpse of the Bush administration's grand vision.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it plainly only a month after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Those attacks, he explained, created "the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world".

Bush's America is taking those opportunities. The change in the US approach to power and foreign policy is so profound that the wider world is having a great deal of trouble absorbing its reality and its implications.

Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been largely a status quo power, content with its dominance of world economics, politics and military affairs. Under the latest Bush administration, it has become a revolutionary power, seriously dissatisfied with the state of world affairs and determined to change them.

Transforming the Middle East is its most urgent revolutionary project.

The President and his top officials have told us repeatedly that it is a top priority. And this is not just some political blather to cover a greedy lunge for Iraq's oil. It is a very real, very serious and very determined goal of US policy. The war on Iraq is an essential beginning, but only a beginning.

The revolutionary element is the essential difference between this US-led war on Iraq and the last one. The 1991 Gulf War was fought to restore the status quo ante, to reverse Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and to restore the border. This war is being fought to overturn the status quo altogether.

The dominant officials in the administration, and their allied activists outside it, are already drafting the next phases. They are impatient to overturn regimes in hostile states such as Iran and Syria, but also in allied nations - Saudi Arabia is a major target of this angry new American dissatisfaction with the state of the world.

If these revolutions can be achieved peacefully, then that's fine by Washington. If not, then consider the lessons we are being shown in Iraq.

"This latest intervention makes one point unmistakably clear," writes Andrew Bacevich, professor of international relations at Boston University and a former colonel in the US Army.

"The US no longer views force as something to be used reluctantly or as a last resort.

"Force, today, has emerged as the preferred instrument of American statecraft in the eyes of policy makers and taxpayers alike. Military might is no longer a necessary evil - entrusted to American hands, it has become invaluable."

It is hard for most countries to imagine why the US would want to refashion a world in which it is already so preponderant.

[a_unique_person]

31 viewings and not comments. Does that mean it is agreed that there will be more wars to come?

[PogoPedant]

It means that we're all aware that we live in interesting times. Just how interesting, on the other hand, we won't know until it's all over.

edited to sound at least slightly coherent

[Always Free]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
31 viewings and not comments. Does that mean it is agreed that there will be more wars to come?

All depends on how many more the US can afford.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
31 viewings and not comments. Does that mean it is agreed that there will be more wars to come?

Might depend partly on how well this training mission goes.

[Pyrrho]

Man has been in a constant state of war for generations. There is no reason to expect anything different in the future.

[Frank Newgent]

George Orwell from 1984

"But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous"

[svero]

I agree with the article mostly. That's certainly the way I've been thinking of this up to now. I think Iran will be next, one way or another, unless North Korea forces the US to look aside. I think the US would rather not have to deal with NK if it didn't have to and remain focused on the middle east. NK was added to the axis of evil for political reasons. They didn't want it to seem like they were only targeting Muslims. After the massacre in Iraq, assuming it ends soon as has been predicted, there will be some cooling off period while propaganda against Iran ramps up. Can't say for sure of course, but given everything I've read that's my guess at this point. This also assumes that Bush manages to stay in power.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

I doubt Bush will remain in power. If the war ends quickly we will be focused on the economy again (and it's not pretty) or if the war drags out and out we will be upset that this war is draging on and on.

[Troll]

Not so much in agreement with "more wars to come" so much as more action to take place in other areas. In some cases diplomacy may work, in some a short and surgical strike. I wouldn't exactly try predicting the outcome of any of those things and what, if anything they may lead up to just yet.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
31 viewings and not comments. Does that mean it is agreed that there will be more wars to come?

(Sigh)

Apart from the fact that it means that people are ignoring you, it also means that we all know it is possible to start with a viewpoint and then search the internet until you find some article that agrees with it, like you did.

The importance of this article is somewhat diminished when one noticed it is literally one of thousands (if not tens of thousands) of "analyses" and "editorials" about the war in Iraq, which cover all points of view from "this war is Christ's will against the heathen Muslims" to "Bush is a war criminal to be defeated by the brave forces of the peace-loving Saddam Hussein".

I fail to see why this particular editorial needs to be taken more seriously than any other one.

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by Skeptic


(Sigh)

Apart from the fact that it means that people are ignoring you, it also means that we all know it is possible to start with a viewpoint and then search the internet until you find some article that agrees with it, like you did.

The importance of this article is somewhat diminished when one noticed it is literally one of thousands (if not tens of thousands) of "analyses" and "editorials" about the war in Iraq, which cover all points of view from "this war is Christ's will against the heathen Muslims" to "Bush is a war criminal to be defeated by the brave forces of the peace-loving Saddam Hussein".

I fail to see why this particular editorial needs to be taken more seriously than any other one.

Because it's an accurate description of the goals of The New American Century Project (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) of which Donald Rumsfield is a supporter.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://afr.com/iraq/2003/03/22/FFX9J0DJJDD.html

there have been many questions about this war. this article, for me, seems to address many of them. there has never been a clear and consistent reason given for why saddam and why now. the idea that this war is the first of a series gives weight to the basic assertion by protestors around the world that a war is a last resort.

the UN is belittled for not being representative or democratic. It is infinitely more so than a US going around and lining up governments in it's sights unilaterally.

Note also that Syria is now a part of the axis of evil. China, which the bush administration was very aggressive towards when it first took office, then was a good pal after 9/11. According to this article, it will be back on the agenda some time in the future.




It’s obviously apart of the Zionist American conspiracy for world domination.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic


(Sigh)

Apart from the fact that it means that people are ignoring you, it also means that we all know it is possible to start with a viewpoint and then search the internet until you find some article that agrees with it, like you did.

The importance of this article is somewhat diminished when one noticed it is literally one of thousands (if not tens of thousands) of "analyses" and "editorials" about the war in Iraq, which cover all points of view from "this war is Christ's will against the heathen Muslims" to "Bush is a war criminal to be defeated by the brave forces of the peace-loving Saddam Hussein".

I fail to see why this particular editorial needs to be taken more seriously than any other one.

i did not go searching for this article. I have asked before, and wondered, why saddam, and why now. no one has answered this question adequately for me. It is not just the oil, the human rights aspect appears to be totally hokey. It is not just the generals after a little sport.

The US clearly intends to run the world. It has increased military spending, despite already having an armed forces capable of defeating any forseeable threat.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The US clearly intends to run the world.

I strongly doubt that.

More likely, the U.S. views its security as linked to the peace and prosperity of the rest of the world. It's striving to evangelize the darker corners of the planet with its ideal of representative government and free enterprise.

[DanishDynamite]

AUP:It has increased military spending, despite already having an armed forces capable of defeating any forseeable threat. I just read Bush intends to ask congress for an additional 80 billion dollars.

[arcticpenguin]

I doubt we will do anything to p___ off China until we get their cooperation in dealing with North Korea.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I doubt we will do anything to p___ off China until we get their cooperation in dealing with North Korea.

according to this article, what china thinks won't be an issue once the Iraq issue is out the way.

What was that sooper sekrit government document that became public that said the government was in regular contact with aliens? "MAJESTIC" something or other?

And now we have a sooper sekrit document that says Bush plans for continuous war, or worse, has come to be interpreted to mean Bush plans for continuous war......

Where's the skeptical analysis?

And besides, so what? Really.

Maybe I'm just a cold war holdover, who happens to think we did what needed to be done in the face of the USSR, and doesn't see any need to stop our fight against the evils in this world now.

Iraq, North Korea, Iran and Syria are just as the President called them: Evil. And so is China.

The sooner the world is rid of them, the better.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
31 viewings and not comments. Does that mean it is agreed that there will be more wars to come?
What it means is that most people think you are an moron.
Edited: Replaced a bad word with moron.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Supercharts

What it means is that most people think you are an *******.

what people think of me personally should have no bearing on what is a serious piece of journalism in a respected and conservative newspaper.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT
What was that sooper sekrit government document that became public that said the government was in regular contact with aliens? "MAJESTIC" something or other?

And now we have a sooper sekrit document that says Bush plans for continuous war, or worse, has come to be interpreted to mean Bush plans for continuous war......

Where's the skeptical analysis?

And besides, so what? Really.

Maybe I'm just a cold war holdover, who happens to think we did what needed to be done in the face of the USSR, and doesn't see any need to stop our fight against the evils in this world now.

Iraq, North Korea, Iran and Syria are just as the President called them: Evil. And so is China.

The sooner the world is rid of them, the better.

'evil' is something no one wants in the world. however, evil may be just as hard to define as a xian trying to explain what the bible tells us to do.

before you go out trying to rid the world of evil, perphaps there needs to be a clear plan of what the cost will be, and what the actual rather than the intended result will be. If the US thinks the baddies are just going to sit back and wait to be picked off one by one, it may be making a big mistake.

Originally posted by a_unique_person


'evil' is something no one wants in the world. however, evil may be just as hard to define as a xian trying to explain what the bible tells us to do.

before you go out trying to rid the world of evil, perphaps there needs to be a clear plan of what the cost will be, and what the actual rather than the intended result will be. If the US thinks the baddies are just going to sit back and wait to be picked off one by one, it may be making a big mistake.

AUP, the flavor of your post at the top of this topic gives me the impression you think war is the only tool in our government's toolbox. It isn't.

After we defeat Iraq, the road will be a lot easier to convince other "evil-doers" to shape up. Showing that we have the will and the ability to knock heads will actually help to decrease the chance of another war.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT


AUP, the flavor of your post at the top of this topic gives me the impression you think war is the only tool in our government's toolbox. It isn't.

After we defeat Iraq, the road will be a lot easier to convince other "evil-doers" to shape up. Showing that we have the will and the ability to knock heads will actually help to decrease the chance of another war.

i don't think that anyone doubts the US has the will, or the ability.

why i do question is the US being the sole body responsible for deciding what is right and wrong in the world.

there have been complaints about the UN being unrepresentative, it is much more so than the US is when it acts on it's own terms in relation to the rest of the world.

[Skeptic]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
why i do question is the US being the sole body responsible for deciding what is right and wrong in the world.

Compared to the alternatives, it's by far the best option.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
why i do question is the US being the sole body responsible for deciding what is right and wrong in the world.

Compared to the alternatives, it's by far the best option.
going on it's past form, that doesn't sound too promising.