Well, you notice that when Sullivan picked a totem for them, it was a carrion-eater.

Very, very nice.

Interesting outburst. However, as much as it was passionate, it was equally impotent. I personally understand where you're coming from, but here are some questions I have (without trying to be glib about the subject)?

I dont see how "a serious student of International Relations and I try to be objective and look at the facts." mends together with a personified attack, such "What I do want to say is that all of you warbloggers out there are fucking pathetic. Young American men and women are going to die very soon"

What differentiates YOU (since you support war) from PATHETIC WARBLOGGERS? Does quoting a "tear-jerking" poem give a moral loophole of sorts?

Noone generally WANTS war. Some people are more hawkish, than others. Others understand its inevitable and support it anyway. Some people buy the propaganda they're fed from government. Others draw the conclusions themselves and have different reasons to rally behind Bush. Either way-the bottom line is the same.
SAME STRATEGY/DIFFERENT TACTIC.
SAME TACTIC/DIFFERENT RHETORIC.

Noone wants to see soldiers die, but equally noone wants to see civilians perish (read today's article in NYT by Safire-very to the point about "morally hedging your bets with war; or go through my site where I have a link).

Also, Sean-Paul, and this is critical-here is what YOU thought in SEP. '02

"Today American forces engage the desperate denizens of terrorism in no less than nine countries: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Georgia and the Philippines. If Bush II gets its way the number will rise to ten: add Iraq to the list. To justify our ever expanding and amorphous “War on Terrorism” we utter counterfeit words like preemption, regime change and nation building instead of the truth: invasion, assassination and occupation.."

You know what I think makes people envious of WARBLOGGERS? Seeing the strength of their conviction...and recognizing the "pendulum dillemma" of one's own.

That was the most pathetic post I have ever read on anybody's blog (well, maybe it ties with posts from Lisa's blog).

You say:

" I believe that the proposed invasion of Iraq is a necessary evil"

Then you say:

" No one should ever want war. Sometimes it is very sadly necessary. "

Ok. How does that make you different from the 99% of the "warbloggers out there" who you just called "fucking pathetic"??
What's fucking pathetic, bro, is your self-righteous arrogance. You agree with us, but you don't fucking have the guts to say so.. What you saying is that yes, we (the "warbloggers") been right all along. But at the same time you are too pathetic to admit that you are one of the last to see the light, hence you resort to separating yourself from those who saw the light earlier. I have posted well over a dozen posts (drawing parallels with Treaty of Versailes, 1930's germany, etc), regarding Iraq, on your blog - yet received no responses from you.
Suddenly you see the light, and realize that my (and other "warbloggers") point of view was right all along. So what the fuck do you?
You call us "fucking pathetic" - while you are a "serious student of International Relations ". Yet we are the ones who faced the reality before you had the balls to admit yourself that we need to protect ourselves and containment wont' work.
So fuck your arrogance. Bullets won't be buzzing by your ears, either, will they? Yet you have the fucking balls to reach the same conclusion we have - while pissing on us? Fuck you for that too. How are you different?
Your pathetic liberal mind can't even admit to agree with conservatives - you hijack our point of view without crediting us with being right to start with.
All of a sudden it's the "serious student of International Relations" who knows what to do and who cares about the men and women in the armed forces. Right there you have discredted yourself and your blog. By claiming that we conservatives don't care about our fellow americans who will be swinging our big stick. How the fucking dare you imply that?

Dima, you wrote that "Noone generally WANTS war."

Do you mean that no one *genuinely* wants war? Or do you mean that no one wants war all the time, but they really want it in this particular case?

Even Bob Novak (that noted dove) says it: "Talking to a senior official, and he said to me, he said, Well, if we don't hit in Iraq, where are we going to hit? And they -- it's a desire that the United States, the superpower, is going to manifest its authority to the rest of the world." (See here: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/cg.00.html)

War in Iraq may be justified. I happen to think that it probably is. But our Administration generally and genuinely WANTS a war, wants to "hit" someone, somewhere. Some of our citizens want war because they're uninformed about 9/11, and others just want the excitement. All three are most definitely pathetic.

Stan D,
i think his point that we reached the same conclusion but about us being so nonchalant about it. quite honestly, he is right about some of the warbloggers and their attitudes.

Sean-Paul,

Do you know any soldiers, personally?

Believe me, they know better than you or I the risk they face. They understand the danger.

And they understand the necessity.

Time to watch "Saving Private Ryan" again, bud. Earn this.

Ryan,
What I mean is that WANT implies a certain leeway, whereas the war in this case is "inevitable". This negates any descriptive we assign to it:generally or genuinely.

I generally dont want to kill people and am genuinely against violence, but I will kill if my life is at stake, wont you?
(I assume this simplistic argument will NOT get on a tangent of quantifying "the threat".)

But you won't will you, Dimas? Unless you are in the military you are staying home and others are doing the killing for you.

"Unless you are in the military you are staying home and others are doing the killing for you."

Are you under the impression that in wars, 100% of the population is under arms?

Damn right, they are doing the killing for me, and risking their lives. That's why I honor them.

aahh.. the discredited "if you aren't a soldier you can't call for war" argument. haven't seen that one in a while.

Dima,

Assuming that war is inevitable, it is still possible that our soldiers do what we ask them to do and that we keep in mind that it's a necessary evil. Or else we can get our war on and treat it like a big bonfire and a party, which frankly it seems as if some people are doing. "Inevitable" should imply reluctance, not eagerness, and, Wesley's implied (and valid) point not withstanding, if you're not a soldier or a vet than being all psyched up for a war looks even more stupid and immoral than it would if you were. Furthermore, characterizing it as a righteous crusade, as many have done, is not only ignorant of the despicably evil nature of the medieval Crusades, it casts a fake moral light on the whole enterprise. Saddam is evil: so what? We're not attacking him because he's evil. We're attacking him because he's a threat - the evil part's just icing on the cake. Our soldiers' duty is noble indeed, but we should make no mistake about why they go off to fight. In every case where we've legitimately defeated an opponent (evil or otherwise) by use of our military in battle, it has been either in response to a direct attack or to a resoundingly imminent threat. In the cases where the threat has been more remote, we've followed that other quintessentially American strategy - we've out-Econned them. Regardless of how evil or oppressive the regime.

Incidentally, the "if we don't hit Iraq, where else can we hit" line of thinking, coming from the Administration(!), sort of undercuts the idea that war with Iraq is "inevitable." But as I said above, eventual war is likely necessary, and in that case it's probably better done sooner rather than later. Still, this is grounds for debate, and the reactionary right is having none of it - they'd rather attack their own country-men and women than engage them in the democratic process. For that treasonous behavior, Sean-Paul picked the right words: it's fucking pathetic.

And one more thing. The idea that being able to change one's mind gives you a "pendulum dilemma," that somehow revising your opinions based on new data is weak, is utterly, fabulously stupid. And I know that you know it.

To:Ryan

“if you're not a soldier or a vet than being all psyched up for a war looks even more stupid and immoral than it would if you were. “

“characterizing it as a righteous crusade, as many have done, is not only ignorant of the despicably evil nature of the medieval Crusades, it casts a fake moral light on the whole enterprise

1.this not about being psyched up for war; the discussion is about being hypocritical in one’s views and making generalizations
2.I agree that the rhetoric from the White House leaves much to be desired and “Crusades” commetns are utterly stupid and unacceptable, but like I mentioned in my earlier comment- If one supports war, it doesn’t automatically mean one supports the rhetoric that accompanies it…

“eventual war is likely necessary, and in that case it's probably better done sooner rather than later. Still, this is grounds for debate, and the reactionary right is having none of it - they'd rather attack their own country-men and women than engage them in the democratic process. For that treasonous behavior, Sean-Paul picked the right words: it's fucking pathetic.”

Okay, you’re lumping so many issues together here.

Firstly, I agree with you there’s an inadequate debate on the issues in the MEDIA! Sean-Paul had an excellent post somewhere about it, which I thought was very good and totally supported it (as there’s no case in the MEDIA for post-war Iraq management either)- but this is a whole different discussion too…

Secondly, I do not think that the following comment was the result of some “treasonous behavior” as you say or not having “none of it [debate]”:

“ You'll never see bloated, distended and putrefying flesh. You will never smell death on the battle field. So how fucking dare you sorry ass chicken hawks root for war. You are the worst of the worst…[] Why? Because all you will do is sit at home and watch the bombs drop on Fox News and think it is all like a video game.”

It’s very clearly stating that being “fucking pathetic” is a direct result of rooting for war, but not actually FIGHTING in one.

As to your very last paragraph…I am not sure why you read the pendulum comment as negative…I think that if I read the site I’d like to see either consistent views on subject or to make sure I understand what the author subscribes to.

Aren’t YOU interested in knowing how how one goes from “Today American forces engage the desperate denizens of terrorism” and calling “war on terror “: invasion, assassination and occupation.."- to- being supportive of war (for whatver other reasons) -to- current post in under 6 months?
I mean, if it was ME, for example, none would care, but I am not a serious student of IR either…

Careful Sean-Paul...

they might start questioning your patriotism like they've done to me.

I hope that "they" isn't me, Terry?

Dima - I can't read Sean-Paul's mind, so I'll just say that we have a different definition of the phrase "root for war." To me, rooting for something implies feeling that you really hope it will happen. Even if at this point war does seem inevitable, I'm still more comfortable hoping that by some miracle it will prove unnecessary. I would be foolish to expect that the Iraqi people will rise up, overthrow Saddam, and create a democracy in the next 4 months, but it would be preferable to war, no? I feel more comfortable hoping against hope for a way out then I do getting jazzed for war.

Now many things (e.g. Blix's report) put Iraq in non-compliance - concluding "we've got to do something now" is not the same as concluding "great! we get to do something now." In the SOTU, the president did his best to seem somber and serious, but there was still a bit too much swagger and smirk in it for me (I don't buy into the argument that that's just an act to freak Saddam out - since it's freaking the rest of the world out even more), and still not enough connecting Iraq to 9/11 to make that part of the equation. He should be arguing the Iraq question on its own merits, as we are here. But all things considered, he gave it the appropriate seriousness. (Caveat: I work in public health, and the "one vial" thing was way, way out of proportion to the reality).

As for the question of "pendulum dilemma" - all I'm saying is that immutable "strength of conviction" isn't necessarily a good thing. When someone changes his mind and starts agreeing with you, you should just be glad that he has; it doesn't make much sense to say they're "envious" of your SOC; if they were as stubborn as you, they'd still be disagreeing. And I don't think Sean-Paul's comments about "rooting" for war have anything really to do with bloggers' SOC anyway. His comments are about people rooting for war, really psyched to hit somebody, and what that implies about their moral stance vis-a-vis the inevitable resulting carnage.

"they" isn't you, Dima.

Oh darn. And I had my order forms for Iraqi ears all ready. I had my bowl ready for chips, my fridge stocked with Budweiser, and my subscription in for a satellite dish so I could get all the best bomb-'em channels. My armchair was all set up in front of the teevee. But now you've gone and ruined it all for me! I feel so guilty! Boo hoo!

Oh, I'm sorry, didn't mean to interrupt. Feel free to resume basking in your smugness and moral superiority.

What I do want to say is that all of you warbloggers out there are fucking pathetic. Young American men and women are going to die very soon. And like the poem I quoted in the previous post you are all "smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by" and you mother fuckers better "sneak home and pray you'll never know/The hell where youth and laughter go."

Does a "serious student of International Relations" study Rash Generalizations 101 in school, or is it a trait that grows with time?

I especially enjoyed the parts where you divined what we ALL internally think of war and how it is waged. There's a research grant in here for you somewhere for such amazing insight into strangers.

Millions of Americans (and other civilians) experienced the horror of warfare on Sept.11th. Hundreds choked on the ashy remains of thousands of victims as the World Trade Towers collapsed. Hundreds of them saw ‘bloated, distended and putrefying flesh’. Hundreds of thousands smelled the remains of mass killings for many weeks.

Are the firemen who have not served in the military and but who support the war ‘chickenhawks?’ Are the the ironworkers, policemen, doctors, and volunteers who worked to clean up the remains of the WTC and who also support the war 'chickenhawks’?

Americans have experienced war and we are doing everything we can to guarantee that another attack does not occur. Most people who support the possibility of an invasion of Iraq also feel the same reluctance as you do. I don’t see why it’s necessary to throw pointless insults at them.

Dear Agonist, you know, lots of people who supported Gulf War 1 only came to this conclusion six months after it was over, and many of the lies were revealed, and the big expectations squashed. Maybe it is a sign of hope that it's happening now.

The term "chickenblogger" is easily resented, but it speaks a basic truth. Anybody who can write "Millions of Americans (and other civilians) experienced the horror of warfare on Sept.11th. " has never experienced the horror of warfare. Watching a few people far away get killed on television is nowhere close. (And yes, 3000 is a few. A normal day's take for many real wars.) There is a basic lack of seriousness here. I also think that at this point a war is probably necessary. But we need to remember that this is a situation largely of our own making. Sure Saddam is about as bad as they come. But there are lots of those out there. It is easy to blow off the fact that nobody but the Bush administration seems to feel threatened by him. The Europeans and his neighboring countries see him as bad ass that is under control. They may be wrong. But just ignoring their evaluations is not a serious position. They don't deny the possibilities. They simply haven't seen anything that causes them to revise their evaluations of the threat. It is hard to buy into the war fever when you don't feel threatened. And the US has yet to produce the evidence that we claim to have in such abundance.

Spending 14 months in the Mekong delta (in my case)responding to an attack that never happened by fighting a war that was doomed from the start can make you take these things more seriously. Governments, including the US government, do lie about these things. And even when they don't lie, they are typically very subject to reacting to the facts they want rather than to those that exist.

Each of needs to ask ourselves: would I detect a fraudulent war fever if one happened? What would one look like? How would it be different from this? I don't see much questioning from most of the enthusiasts for this war. I don't see much seriousness. I think this pretty much is what a con-game war would look like. Once again, ask yourself: why is no one else buying it? The explanation is probably not that they are all foolish and easily deceived. There are some pretty sharp minds out there, and not all of them are ours.

Almost no American younger than me (56) has the experience of a real war. That is not a bad thing. That is a very, very good thing. But it means that we get subjected the sort of blithe analysis that led Sean-Paul to make his original post.

International Relations? I'll tell you about international relations.
It is the people of the Middle East and the people of Iraq that should
be trained and assisted in their fight for survival and freedom and
given American guarantees of support to go against their oppressive
belligerent, Saddam Hussein.

Who could argue with that? Who could complain if America was arming
and training the poisoned and tortured enemies of dictator Saddam
Hussein? Not me.

They are closer to his weapons (not US), they are the people that he
has attacked in the past (not US), and they could fight the good
fight, risking it all to insure their life and liberty. That the way
American was born. Where would we be if the Czar had come to American
and driven out the British for us? I'm not being facetious. This is
the way to fight for lasting freedom, not with an army of outsiders.
Don't you know, there is still fighting going on in Afghanistan.

Don't the Kurds and other peoples who have been attacked (Bush keeps
on mentioning that) want to fight, really fight, for their liberty?

If they do want to fight, why aren't we giving them the support to do
the fighting for their existence? Why should Americans die when there
are threatened peoples who would fight to the death, given the arms
and training?

If they don't want to fight, then why in the hell should even one
American soldier die for them?

Well, the idea that millions of Americans experienced the horror of war on Sept. 11th wasn't exactly mine - it was inspired by a conversation I heard in a store between two veterans. The owner of the store, a WWII veteran, and his customer, a veteran of the Vietnam war, agreed that the worst thing they had ever seen was “New York. Those buildings on fire, people jumping out.”

I figured that if those veterans, one of whom had served in Burma, were that upset by what they had seen, then my (admittedly civilian) impressions may not have been wrong.

as alex trebek would say: "nicely done!"

Millions of Americans experienced a small (very small) part of the horror of warfare. Enough to frighten them. Enough to make them want somebody to make them safe again. And what does that have to do with Iraq. Nothing, as far as we know. Saddam (monster that he is) did not do that. As far as we know, he had nothing at all to do with it. He and alQaeda are at the opposite ends of Arab politics. For all Saddam's faults, we have to keep in mind that he runs a secular state with perhaps the most opportunity for women in the Arab world. The alQaeda boys hate and despise him. The most connection that we have seen evidence for is that Iraq and alQaeda sometimes cooperate against common enemies when it is convenient. Not even much of that. Now the Iranians, for instance, appear to have a much closer connection.

So why a war with Iraq? A few theories: 1) It lets us fight a kind war we know how to do, as opposed to one that we don't really know how to conduct. 2) It's what we (Bush) wanted to do anyway. 3) It sets us up for more leverage (bases and oil) in the middle east. 4) Maybe the evidence of a connection or a threat really exists. (But don't ask a Vietnam war veteran to take that on faith. I saw what happened last time I took the govenment's assurances on faith.) All possible.

But at this point, without evidence of any of the assertions a war policy is based on, it looks remarkably much like a con job. The kind of fear-based rhetoric we are seeing is precisely the sort of thing that Communist states, for instance, used to justify their many dishonesties. If you can get people afraid, you cna get them to accept all sorts of things by promising to restore security.

That said, I must repeat that I think a war is probably necessary at this point. We have handled this in such way that backing off now would leave us with almost no credibility in a very harsh world. This would be even worse than the great cut-and-run in Beirut in 1982 when we proved that 200 casualties was enough to drive us away. And we've been paying for that one ever since. The last thing we need is another bout of talking tough and then folding. (Although we seem to be doing that in Korea.)

I read alot of the right wing war bloggers and I don't take their writings as glee for war, I think that is a deliberate misreading of intent. I believe Andrew Sullivan and the like have recognized that war has been declared on us, that is has been going on for quite a while and we were late getting into the game becuase we don't like war and would like to avoid it. The crusade analogy people say is inappropriate, and yet that is exactly what it is, an Islamic crusade to bring the US to its knees so it can bring more countries the loveley life under Islamic law. Read the translations at Little Green Footballs of the so called peaceful religion mullahs - they want us dead or converted and don't really care which. So the choice is pull back, let the Islamo fascists take over the middle east, destroy Israel, export terror through out europe and to us. I know a couple of people in the military, I do not relish the thought of them going off to fight. But I also realize that they JOINED and they knew what they were joining. Their job is to protect the US from all enemies which means going to places where they could be shot at. Iraq has direct ties to HAMAS and the PLO and indirect ties to Hezbelloh and Al Queda. When we kick Saddam into the next life, the middle east dynamic changes and this time we will not cut and run if the going gets tough. This is a battle for our very way of life, That people do not see that, can not comprehend that these little Fascists want us dead, I find that incrediblely naive.

Lots of people want us dead. The world is like that. We don't have the strength or the will to take them all on head to head. Most of them are not really threats. They hate us out of their own weakness. Let's not assume that the Islamicist extremists are capable of taking eveything over even without us in the picture. People used to make much same sort of assumption about the Communists. They failed because they were wrong in ways that made their failure almost inevitable. These guys are vastly less threatening.

The point is that our govenment is supposed to manage the various environments in which we function in such a way as to make it come out in our favor. It helps if you keep focused on real threats and real opportunities. A lack of seriousness does not necessarily mean glee. It does mean applying low standards to the analysis of our situation in the world. It can mean letting yourself get caught up by fear and pride and manipulated into a war against a different enemy than the the one that attacked you. It can mean attacking an enemy that we know how beat rather than one that poses a threat.

A lack of seriousness can also be evidenced by lumping secular Arab radicals together with Islamicist fundamentalists. The world is more complicated than that. Things tend to come out better in the end if you understand those kinds of differences.

i find it interesting that so many people are assuming to know the minds of our soldiers.

someone said "they knew what they were getting into when they joined". did they? have you ever visited a recruiters office and listened to the lies they tell people in order to recruit them into the military? didn't think so.

perhaps some of our soldiers did join in order to fight for freedom, and i am grateful to them for doing so. but i believe that if you look at the demographics of our military, you'll find that most of them joined for other reasons (GI bill, college fund, lack of economic opportunity in their community, etc).

i know it's difficult to work with presumptions, and that's what some of you are doing. don't think that all these guys are gung-ho to run off and kick some iraqi butt. don't you think they'd rather stay home with their families and friends? and do you know why they are shipping off? because they signed a contract. when they enlisted they became -property- of the US government (if you doubt that maybe you should read an army contract sometime). they have no choice but to fight on our behalf. that along makes me respect them even more - they don't do it willingly but because they have no choice they go ahead and do it. and i hope to the goddess that they all come back alive.

so realistically, one must admit that they would not put their butts on the front line unless they had to (witness all the exemptions granted to congresskids during vietnam). i know i would never go to war unless i was drafted (fat chance as i'm female and 29), but i'll support those who do with my dying breath.

i really just thought i needed to say that because some of your are working from serious presumptions. you seem to be ascribing characteristics to our soldiers that you -want- them to have. you want this picture of some gung-ho fighting force, when in reality most of them are scared teenagers. think about that for a moment.

as for this post, i respect and understand where s-p is coming from. i seriously doubt that many of the warbloggers would put their own butts on the line, and i'm tired of hearing them squawk.

Yet these secular arab radicals and secular gov't give aid and comfort to the Islamic fundementalist, so where do you draw the line? People take short cuts when posting to blogs or you will end up typing forever. I understand that Viet Nam was a cluster fuck of the highest proportion, that we had no business being there and a lot of good men were lost for no apparent gain. But Iraq is not Viet Nam. We are not trying to stem the tide of a communist lead, throw out colonial powers revolution. We are taking a calculated risk that by forcing regime change in Iraq will change the dynamics in the middle east, drying up funding, taking away safe harbors etc. I think that this is the only way to effect change at this point. We can no longer ignore the fact that the Islamic fanatics want us dead, So if a secular gov't gives aid and comfort to our enemy, well that makes them our enemy as well, if as and when we liberate Iraq, then we can go to work on our "friends" the Saudis.

Personally, I know that the chance that I'll be a victim of a terrorist attack is very, very small. But when terrorists have proven that they are willing to murder thousands of innocents to make a political point, and when they are part of a movement (Islamic fundamentalism) that has already been responsible for millions of deaths around the world, I can see that we have some reason to want to stop this.

Some who oppose the war say that Saddam has nothing to do with the support of terrorism – and then they go on to claim that terrorist attacks will increase if we attack Iraq. So is he with them or not? It’s known that he supports groups like Hamas.

Yes, there are some significant problems with the way the Bush administration has handled things so far – and it’s not clear whether or not they still believe that the Saudis are our allies – if so, they are probably the only people in the country who do. I’ve been hoping that this war is also a chance to strike at the Saudis, to reduce their economic power – but I may be wrong.

I have to agree with Fred – it would be a disaster if we talked tough and then folded at this point.

Jane

I am sorry but when you join the military, you know what you are joining. The first clue is all the ads have people with guns jumping out of helicopters etc. So if you take the calculated risk of paying for College with the GI bill and hope you don't get called to battle, that is all well and good but you still have to know, no matter what lies a recruiting office will tell you, that there is a possibility of combat. It is in the Job description. I made no assumptions about gung ho, going to kick Iraqi but, maybe some are, I am sure most would want to be with thier families, but again the bottom line is no matter what there reason for joining was, there is a chance for combat. Now the debate is whether it is reasonable to send the armed forces to take down Hussein and liberate Iraq and set up some sort of free, representative gov't. I think the reason for are much more compelling then the reasons not to. Evil is alive in the world today, it is aided and abetted by Saddam, Evil threatens the American way of life, hence we need to defend ourselves.

Fred said:
Once again, ask yourself: why is no one else buying it? The explanation is probably not that they are all foolish and easily deceived. There are some pretty sharp minds out there, and not all of them are ours.
This is one of the most dishonest criticisms of the war plans. The U.K., Spain, Portugal, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Italy, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Ireland, and Australia -- just to give a partial list -- are fully on board. Saying that "no one else is buying it" is simply bull, and you know it.

American made said:
If [the Kurds] don't want to fight, then why in the hell should even one
American soldier die for them?
I'm not sure where you get your facts, but you've been misinformed.

During the first Gulf War, the U.S. promised the Kurds that we would help them liberate Iraq. We encouraged them to fight, which they did. As the war went on, however, Colin Powell got squeamish. He feared that actually removing Saddam would fracture our precious 'coalition'. He therefore conviniced President Bush I to end the war and abandon the Kurds. We did, and many Kurds died because of it.

Still, even though the Kurds have every reason not to trust us anymore, they ARE still ready to fight Saddam. They don't have much in the way of weapons, and they'd inevitably lose if they tried on their own, but still they're willing to fight with our help. Hopefully, we won't betray them again.

Most of the funding for the fanatics seems to come from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Non-alQaaeda terrorists (Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad) seem to be financed mainly by Iran and Syria. While blosing away the Iraqi regime may well have some effect on these, I would like to see some indication of where that situation is expected to go. What is its relevance. This is not to say that it doesn't have any relevance; only that the case has not been made. In fact, the Bush people say almost nothing about how running Iraq will work. Those who do speak of what comes after seem quite worried about it.

Eight countries out of thirty in Europe are willing to go along with us for various reasons. That is different from enthusiasm or even agreement. Given the power we have at his point in history and the efforts we have made to garner support, it's not all that impressive.

And yes, the Kurds are ready to fight Saddam. But for well founded reasons, they don't trust us at all. What are our plans for them. The independent state that they want so badly? And that all our other allies(?) in the middle east want so badly to keep from happening?

This is getting more serious. Good. So where do we take it? Do we try to hold Iraq together? Do we set up a democracy which would quickly be dominated by Shiites with strong connections to Iran? (60% of the population.) (Also the only thing some of our allies(?) want less than a Kurdish state. Do we split the country into its mutually-loathing parts? Do we try to run it ourselves? Probably run it ourselves is my guess. But I don't know. Because the govenment is not saying.

So what is it I'm being asked to sign up for? A war with an enemy other than the attackers, other thatn the financers of terror. Horrible people to be sure. But for what purpose? An unrelated nuclear threat? Maybe, but the threat doesn't seem to impress the Other players that might be involved. And the evidence is thin. For the sake of US credibility, I hope that it does exist and can be shown.

There are way too many parts of the whole affair that depend on the notion that we are the good guys. I rather think that we something close to "the good guys" in this context. But that's not a very sound basis for managing the affairs of my country.

Spoons, you're scaring me.
I didn't say "BECAUSE [the Kurds] don't want to fight..."

After some paragraphs about the value of Kurd and others fighting, I said
"If [the Kurds] want to fight..."
and next paragraph
"If [the Kurds] don't want to fight..."

It was "If" on the one hand..., followed by "If" on the other hand...

And didn't you notice that nothing earlier suggested that the Kurds do not want to fight?

I am well aware of the history of the Kurds mistreatment. It's the sorry story of a president and his warhawks who got
in over their heads and let the Kurds pay the price for trusting them.

Isn't it pretty pathetic when the best anyone can say (and it is true) is
"Hopefully, we won't betray them again."

"I believe that the proposed invasion of Iraq is a necessary evil"

Well we agree it is evil.
We disagree about supporting evil.

"millions of Americans experienced the horror of war on Sept. 11th"

Mary, I'm glad you say that wasn't your idea originally because it's pathetic. What a whiney assed bunch of coddled cowards Americans must be if they think that's what war looks like.

"(And yes, 3000 is a few. A normal day's take for many real wars.) There is a basic lack of seriousness here"

3,000 dead is not enough for you? Seeing hundreds and then thousands of people die instantly as we all watch through the "magic of television" isn't enough for you? Watching fellow human beings who did nothing worse than show up for work that day voluntarily jump from a thousand feet in the air does nothing to twinge your sense of seriousness? Not enough death and destruction for you? Tell me now who thinks of life and tragedy as little more than a video game? Do we need more "points" in our death column for you Fred? Do we need to spend some more time filling up our "personal contact with gore" experience meter?

Fred, you disgust me.

Robin Goodfellow, you couldn't have proved Fred's point any better.

Really Uhaft? Well, then tell me, how much horror and death would I have to personally experience to make my opinions relevant? What's the cutoff point? Obviously experiencing empathy and profound horror while watching a mere 3,000 people die before our eyes live on TV is not enough. How many people would have to die while I watch with my naked eyes before I reach the "relevancy level". What's the handicap for "impersonally" losing relatives who live across the country vs. having your buddies die next to you on the battlefield? What about cousins, aunts, uncles, or friends you've lost touch with? Do they count as half points? What about special circumstances like being a POW, or being tortured, or being raped, or watching your relatives being raped or tortured? What are the points for those? How many relatives would one need to watch beind tortured or raped to equal the amount of legitimacy given to your opinion by having one buddy die in your foxhole? And what's the "civilian deaths witnessed via TV" to "months spent in the warzone on active duty" exchange rate? According to Fred it's a lot higher than 215:1.

This stupidity disgusts me. Maybe, just maybe, personally experienced death and destruction doesn't give anyone's opinion more relevancy or greater legitimacy than anyone else's. Maybe for once we could debate an issue on the freaking merits rather than turning it into a pissing contest on who has the more chilling "thousand yard stare" or who has the longer laundry list of how much they really "care" about death and injury to others.

The wonderful thing about trolls -- and Sean-Paul, your post is a troll-post -- is that they succeed in bringing the argument down to a sophomoric level. Congrats.

BTW, if you're going to use David's Death of Socrates as your banner, at the very least you could pretend to argue like Socrates would. "Force of eloquence" is something you do not have.

Funny thing is, I haven't seen any of these so-called lies from the Bush administration you speak of--just a lot of blathering from people who interpret as lies things which perfectly reasonable people wouldn't call lies.

I also don't know any so-called warbloggers who think this will be like a video game, who are not intellectually honest enough to admit they're wrong, and none who are not aware of the horrors that will be visited upon some of our brave volunteers.

You've made a straw man here, Sean-Paul. But in commemoration of it, I'm re-posting something on my weblog that I posted last October. I can see it needs re-posting here.

You won't like it, but you should read it.

Goodfellow: Fred's point was that context really does matter. The amount of day-to-day suffering associated with war really does matter. It takes, frankly, a morally unserious person to dismiss this point as though it didn't matter.

Such continuous suffering -- with far higher overall death tolls -- has been a reality and a formative experience for many societies around the world, including the one you're proposing to conquer in Iraq. He's quite factually accurate in saying that -- even given 9-11 -- you haven't been through it and aren't in a position to call your experience the Worst Horror Ever.

You know what? Fred is the kind of pro-war advocate you NEED. He is willing to face the facts and call a spade a spade, and a dose of his kind of seriousness is exactly what you WILL need to convince the rapidly-growing antiwar movement of the error of their ways... if you can.

My advice -- climb off your phony moral high horse and start listening to people like him, and like Sean-Paul. But that's just my advice. I'm antiwar, and I hope you don't take it.

Goodfellow: Fred's point was that context really does matter. The amount of day-to-day suffering associated with war really does matter. It takes, frankly, a morally unserious person to dismiss this point as though it didn't matter.

What point? The point that directly experiencing a specific amount of suffering makes someone's point more valid than someone else's? I do indeed dismiss that point, for it is a point of sheer idiocy. Everyone has the capability to make mistakes, everyone has the capability of imagining the suffering of others, everyone has the ability to reason rightly even if they have not experienced personally "as fully". As I have said, we should be discussing the merits and the facts not the "bona fides" of everyone and how it handicaps their argument. Furthermore, I think you'll find that there are plenty of people with plenty of "bona fides" who do support war and do so for exactly the same reason as those you slanderously label "chicken hawks".

Such continuous suffering -- with far higher overall death tolls -- has been a reality and a formative experience for many societies around the world, including the one you're proposing to conquer in Iraq. He's quite factually accurate in saying that -- even given 9-11 -- you haven't been through it and aren't in a position to call your experience the Worst Horror Ever.

As Dean points out you do have a fondness for the straw. When have I ever said my experiences amount to "the Worst Horror Ever (TM)"? When have I, or anyone else advocating war on Iraq for that matter, ever said that 9/11 was a unique horror without peer in the world or history? Or that it in any way gives me or my country greater personal insight into horror, loss, and grief than the horror many other people in many other countries have experienced and continue to experience? No, rather I think it was your precious Fred who, so far as I can tell, called 3,000 deaths "a basic lack of seriousness". And it was Fred who said "almost no American younger than me (56) has the experience of a real war." I guess Somalia or the Gulf War or Bosnia or Kosovo or Afghanistan were insufficiently gruesome or brutal for Fred to give his "Real War" (TM) stamp of approval to. Well bully for him, I'm so glad he's the only person on the face of the planet who could possibly ever really contemplate the "seriousness" or "horror" of "real war".

You know what? Fred is the kind of pro-war advocate you NEED. He is willing to face the facts and call a spade a spade, and a dose of his kind of seriousness is exactly what you WILL need to convince the rapidly-growing antiwar movement of the error of their ways... if you can.

You misspelled "rapidly-shrinking", by quite a few letters in fact, I believe you are in need of a spell checker. As for the marginal anti-war movement, those who can be convinced have been convinced. Support for a war against Iraq is at over a 3:1 margin among US citizens, even a majority of Democrats (by a 2:1 margin) approve of going to war with Iraq. And I've said as much as I'd like about what I think of good ol' Fred's arguments, he can keep them, I have no need for them.

My advice -- climb off your phony moral high horse and start listening to people like him, and like Sean-Paul. But that's just my advice. I'm antiwar, and I hope you don't take it.

I don't own a horse. These are shoes. Ordinary shoes warn by an ordinary man using an ordinary brain in a human body with a fairly ordinary history. Why should I have need of a horse when I have logic, reason, and truth on my side?

I do want to tell any smug, sanctimonius and poorly informed idiot who thinks I'm just sitting on the sidelines watching the gore that they can go straight to hell. I am risking EVERYTHING in this. Until you've lost the sleep I have, until you've memorized every line of your child's face in fear of never seeing it again, until you've hidden that pain so that their last memory of home is a good one, then you have no right to tell me that I'm not risking anything.

God, what incredible arrogance to presuppose that I'm not risking anything!

"The point that directly experiencing a specific amount of suffering makes someone's point more valid than someone else's?"

Amusing that after having the point plainly spelled out for you, you immediately go on to misstate it... and then accuse me of "fondness for the straw."

"I think you'll find that there are plenty of people with plenty of "bona fides" who do support war and do so for exactly the same reason as those you slanderously label "chicken hawks"."

I believe there are serious folks who support the war. I know and have talked to pro-war supporters I respect, whose motives seem sincere. From what I've seen, none of those folks support it with the bloodlust characteristic of the far-too-common breed of warmonger Sean-Paul is describing.

"When have I, or anyone else advocating war on Iraq for that matter, ever said that 9/11 was a unique horror without peer in the world or history?"

Pretending that it's worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis pretty clearly implies such.

"No, rather I think it was your precious Fred who, so far as I can tell, called 3,000 deaths "a basic lack of seriousness"."

No, he called the response to those deaths a basic lack of seriousness. That you managed to miss that simple distinction itself indicates that he was 100% right to do so.

"You misspelled "rapidly-shrinking", by quite a few letters in fact,"

Ahh, cue denial. It's not just a river in Egypt anymore... oh, and certain recent polls from that commie rag The Washington Post disagree with you, putting war support at 57% and falling. Oops, not exactly 3:1, is it? There's a reason for that.

"Why should I have need of a horse when I have logic, reason, and truth on my side?"

Saying it is one thing. Showing it's another. You haven't made it to step two yet, sorry.

Joy says: "I am risking EVERYTHING in this."

Well, losing sleep and memorizing your children's faces is one thing. The difference between you and the average Iraqi mother in about a month's time, though, is that her child will have an exponentially higher chance of actually being dead. Which sort of makes a difference, and sort of makes your talk about what is or isn't "sanctimonious" or "arrogant" ring hollow. I would really like to hear you tell the citizenry of Baghdad, who will likely face this bombardment, how it's you that is "risking EVERYTHING."

Sorry, do those words seem harsh? Well, see, the bottom line is that you're advocating the violent deaths of a large number of people. So you can and should expect other people to challenge you, and harshly, if you're reasons for doing so seem less than serious.

It is frightening to see so much passionate hatred in all these comments. This hatred is all based on the most primitive fear of the other that I have ever experienced. It bodes badly for us all. Many Americans seem to believe that they can stand off against the whole world in Fortress America. Reality is not far off in the future. All of the Governments who believed this are now ashes. What a shame and a waste.

Uhaft: You obviously don't know dick. Being Joy's other half I share the fears we have for our child. She ain't sorting lightbulbs in New Jersey! She is a flight medic on an evac Blackhawk. Joy's fears come from the unknown and what she has watched and read, mine come form the gut. I saw the Dustoff crews sideslip and weave thru groundfire that would make a snakedriver take pause. To them "No One Left Behind" was not a catchphrase, it was a way of life.

I take care of kids that have not had the benfits of a fine family and education. When they leave the Home's care some join the military and now at least two of these kids are now in the Mid-East. I fear they and my daughter may see the horror I have seen but I do not see we have any alternative. Yes the children of Iraq will suffer in a war but their parents made a choice when they allowed a despot to rule their country. We seem to forget the lessons of history, when Hitler and his ilk were considered a joke on the international stage. It does not take a cognative leap to see the consequences the day Sadam is able to project credable force. The lessons of history are explicit and repeated. My mesage to the citizens of Iraq. We made a mistake in hesitating when Hitler decided to reshape the world for the "Master Race." Germany followed with a will-therefore there were no "Good Germans." If they decide to follow Sadam thay can expect no different treatment. We have made it explicit to their military. I pray they will listen.

Fred; you mentioned your time in the Delta, a tip of the Black Beret to ya (594/TF116)

"She ain't sorting lightbulbs in New Jersey! She is a flight medic on an evac Blackhawk."

I see. I hope she comes back safely. Though my point about the much higher likelihood of Iraqi children dying remains, it's certainly not my place or intent to downplay the dangers to serving Americans.

"Yes the children of Iraq will suffer in a war but their parents made a choice when they allowed a despot to rule their country."

But... whoa.

Say that again?

They made "a choice to be ruled by a despot" -- you're arguing that Saddam was elected? You cannot be serious.

Support war if you must, but for God's sake show some respect for the circumstances of the people in the crosshairs.

For my part -- Saddam is a brutal despot, but he's no Hitler and Bush is no Churchill. I'm quite sick of false analogies with WWII to justify what's about to be done here.

Spoons: Ireland is NOT "fully on board". We did not sign the gang of eight letter. Irish public sentiment is overwhelmingly and vehemently against this war (and there are very very few "don't knows" in the polls). Our leadership, such as it is, to the consternation of our people has said that the US planes refueling at Shannon are civilian planes carrying military personnel and equipment rather than military planes, so don't need special govt permission. A motion is coming before the Dail (our "house of reps") Tuesday to call for the withdrawal of landing and refuelling facilities for US military planes and any other aircraft carrying US military personnel, arms or munitions. Basically the govt is saying nothing, committing nothing, because they're afeared of irish sentiment on the one hand and losing US investment on the other. Gutless. (Our constitution calls for neutrality at all times, in all conflicts). Just wanted to clear that up. Cheers. Carry on.

Sean Paul--I have read your posts previously and can only conclude that you are having a bad day, a very bad day. You seem the bright sort, so let me provide a little true Int'l Relations lesson for you. Refer to it as you need, but try not to be a petulant dick and dismiss it ouright, I mean, as long as we are using vulgar language and all.

There are many faults to be found with war bloggers, who have generally, but not at all entirely, loosely evolved within the AMerican jacksonian tradition, as I see it. Faint hearts and polly-anna like sentiment are generally attributes not found within this set. If we lose the fight in Iraq, or the C-47s start working overtime bringing the bodybags back like cordwood, then yes, i think the War-bloggers will question what went wrong--would you rather we didn't, shrug our shoulders as if we backed Oakland in the Super bowl? Because we're talking war here. Maybe we should play the Democrats viz. the welfare state and pretend there aren't problems, that the behavioral reinforcers are perfectly aligned with the incentives. Lets call names and then go home. Sure.

You lazy miserable turd: you have lived a life full and rich with opportunity because thousands have died to ensure your freedom. You have just reached a place where you can say you can understand the enormity of war and then you condemn those there before you. Precisely who--and I wish examples here, not cheap cut and paste numbers, but detailed enumeration--in the blogosphere and commentariat is suggesting that war is a picnic, to be undertaken lightly, for less than crucial national safety-wellbeing considerations...who? Who has proposed this mission as a Rwanda-Haiti-Somalia feel good soscial services outing. Sullivan, denBeste, Reynolds, Horowitz...who?.

Did you think it was to be a walk in the park? I didn't and precious few in the commentariat or blogosphere do, to my knowledge. Invent your own strawmen and burn them at leisure. Just don't expect respect for it.

Of course Americans are going to die. probably some British as well. And many, many Iraqui soldiers. Our troops--most of whom will not die or be harmed in any way--are going in harms way because our political leadership, who are acting on the broad wishes of their bosses in the electorate, desire the dismantling of the current mid-east power structure. Loosely translated, this means no more Iran invasions, no more Kuwait invasions, no more attempts to kill US presidents, no more weapons of mass destruction of any stripe, no more treaty games, no more inhumanity towards millions, no common cause with other terrorist organizations, no more nothing, because the man who is responsible for this suffering, saddam Hussein, will be a smoking meat heap in a pile of dried viscera.

this is called power politics. we have tried more elevated methodologies. You see how successful they are.

War is ugly, Cleveland is cold this time of year and love is good. Sorry it took you so entirely long to master the obvious in the broader, crueler world. The troops i have met, and as a former college instructor in coastal NC I met and lived with thousands of them, understand this intuitively. They will be fighting so that future conflict is less imperative.

I took a look today and discovered that the conversation went on after I had left it. I rather thought it was running down on Friday. So... A couple more thought for any one may still be reading this. Looking this over, it is evident that it uses the word "I" a great deal more thatn my earlier posts. Perhaps I am getting defensive. Well, for what it is worth....

"Seeing hundreds and then thousands of people die instantly". But we (those who were not involved in the direct response) didn't see them. We saw abstract, distant television images of it. The kind that Hollywood has gotten us used to. Not the same thing as being in the smoke and the flames among the screaming victims. And very much not the same thing as doing what you need to do with the shooting still going on and the knowledge that someone out there will kill you if he get the chance.

"how much horror and death would I have to personally experience to make my opinions relevant?" Your opinions are relevant. I am sorry if I ever gave the impression that they might not be. And I certainly didn't intend to turn the discussion into an "I've seen more horror than you" contest. My objection is simply to people claiming to have experienced the horrors of when their experience consists of watching a television program. You don't have to have been shot at to have an opinion that counts. But you shouldn't let your rhetoric carry you into claiming knowledge of the horrors of war that you haven't experienced.

"I am risking EVERYTHING in this." I could never tell you that you're not risking anything. In fact we are all risking a great deal. More than most of us seem to realize. Which is why it is important to get it as right as we can. And that is not helped by taking things on faith that don't fit with the known facts. This is serious. It requires serious evaluation. Not emotional grandstanding. We are being asked undertake a war against different people than the ones that attacked us on the basis that these guys might be achieving the ability to also hurt us. That requires some explanation. What is the connection?

"I haven't seen any of these so-called lies from the Bush administration". Well, I'm not in a position to disprove any individual assertion from the government. But the story being told does not fit with a great many facts that I have managed to pry out what my wife considers an entirely excessive amount of reading. Does that make the story a lie? No. But it does incline me to ask for the evidence. And the Bush administration seems remarkably skittish about giving any. I hope that Colin Powell's speech on Wednesday will clear that up. I doubt it because many of the thing claimed runcounter to what else I know. I won't be surprised if they produce evidence of chemical or biological weapons. That seems in character for the Iraqi regime. I will be a little surprised if evidence of nuclear weapons is produced. That's in character but probably not within their capabilities. I will be quite surprised it evidence of close connections to alQaeda is produced. That is inconsistent with the dynamics of the Arab world up to this point.

I have trouble taking seriously any analysis that doesn't exhibit something like this level of skepticicm. You don't have to come to the same conclusion I do. But if not, I would like to know why not. And I would like to know that you didn't just accept what looks to me like emotional blackmail without thinking, "Is this credible?"

One last observation. During the Vietnam war, it was said over and over that "If you knew what the government knows, you would agree with them." Well that was just wrong. The government was view was distorted by bureaucratic and political priorities to something bearing little relation to the facts. Lacking facts and arguments, they often just lied about it. In fact the much denigrated newspaper guys got a lot closer to the truth. So I'm not much inclined to take things on faith.

It seems that everyone has gotten bogged down on how much death must be experienced as perquesite to debate. Is that really Agonist's point?

The problem is that many of us who would ordinarily be favorably disposed to overthrowing a tyrant -- and absolutely backed the war in Afghanistan -- are also absolutely astonished at the warbloggers' willingness to take everything the Bush administration says at face value. Haven't we been lied to enough by our leaders (Dem. and Rep.) during wartime to have learned that war based on lies or misrepresentations will ultimately lead to unnecessary suffering?

Bush says that Iraq is a threat as a result of 9/11. False. Every intelligence agency we have, except for the one handpicked by Rumsfeld disputes any relationship at all with Iraq and fundamentalist terrorists. There is no credible evidence that Saddam ever planned an attack on US interests, with or without WMDs.

Bush has also misrepresented the nature of evidence discovered by inspectors and the IAEA, including the bit about the aluminium tubes.

Bush has also misrepresented the Iraq-Atta-Czech conncection, even after the Czech gov't had distanced itself from the reports.

The Bush administration also has to answer for the past relationship of its individual members, specifically Cheney and Rumsfeld, with Saddam, who has not recently become evil, but always has been. Why should we trust those who happily assisted in the enrichment and arming of Saddam?

These are questions that liberals like me want answered, that warbloggers seem quite content to ignore, while simultaneously cheering our nation into war. How many Gulf of Tonkins does it take for us to learn that we should not presume that our government tells the truth in matters as grave as this?

I should have read Fred's post first. He said what I tried to say, only better.

Good grief, somebody is still looking at this thread! Thank you, ajmazumdar for the endorsement and for the examples of evidence that isn't.

Rod Boyd

"Loosely translated, this means no more Iran invasions, no more Kuwait invasions, no more attempts to kill US presidents,"

Good word. Did you just have the blithely vapid termity to say that one of our the benefits of regime change in Iraq would be "no more invasions of Iran"?!?

Because, yeah, the U.S. was horrified, just horrified, that Saddam and his counterweight Iraq attacked Iran and wasn't encouraging him by selling Iraq arms or trying to downplay Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iranians soldiers or anything, no not at all...

I have no idea what Sean-Paul's International Relations' knowledge is like, but I now have a pretty good idea of what someone looks like who doesn't know a damned thing about IR.

Eric - I agree with you. Concern over Iraq's possible future invasions of Iran are not reason enough to fight; they may even be reason not to, depending on your personal prognostication.

Would you now respond to the rest of Rod's comments?

Iraq has been a threat for a long time, 9/11 was only the wake-up call, letting us know, deep in our gut, that we had enemies in the world that could do us real harm - and we could not ignore them or just lob a few cruise missiles, like we did in the '90s. I don't really care about the specific details of the UN inspections farce - what this is to me is a opportunity to correct a horrible mistake made by Bush Sr. and Powell - the decision to not finish the job properly the first time around, when it would have been easy.

The dangerous status quo of the Middle East that we have been putting up with for the last half-century must end. We can no longer tolerate the current situation, no matter how it came about. Iraq, after our conquest, is to be, first and formost, an unassailable base for further action - against our pretend "ally", Saudi Arabia, and the other rogue states like Iran, Syria, etc. Once these states are cowed or their governments replaced with something more tractable, then (and only then) will the Israel/Palastine issue be resolvable - because the Palestinian warmakers will be starved for funds, and no longer have any possible hope of successfully destroying Israel. These states that support Palestinian terror also support other terror groups, including Al-Qaeda, and the strategy is the same - when there is no haven for terrorists, and all hands are turned against them, then they can be defeated. We are draining the swamp instead of just trying to swat mosquitoes.

So Iraq is a campaign in the larger war on terror, and is an absuloutely necessary first step.

Do I worry about being lied to by the government? You bet I do. I worry that they aren't serious enough to properly finish the job, just like that last time we had a president named "Bush". I worry that our government will spend it's effort on symbolic gestures instead of real action, and the danger will just increase, just like during the '90s. I worry that they will get sidetracked by partisan issues that ultimately don't matter. What matters to me is that those that hate me and are trying to kill me or mine die first. The other way around is not acceptable, and their own words make it clear that peaceful co-existance in the current circumstances is not possible.

Does that make me a "warblogger"? I suppose so. Do I "think it is all like a video game"? Hell no. The fate of Western civilization is on the line - and no matter how it turns out, we will pay a price, even those of us who don't go in harms way. But, like abortion and capital punishment (just to pick two examples), there are sometimes things that are both ugly and necessary.

"My objection is simply to people claiming to have experienced the horrors of when their experience consists of watching a television program. You don't have to have been shot at to have an opinion that counts. But you shouldn't let your rhetoric carry you into claiming knowledge of the horrors of war that you haven't experienced."
Please tell me exactly how many rotting corpses you've climbed over and how many people you've killed or had try to kill you. What exactly is your experience of war? How does your "labor at Morgan Stanley as an Associate Vice President where I actively managed a client and asset base worth approximately $20,000,000." qualify you to lecture anyone on the morality of war? What have you personally experienced? If your entire knowledge of war and suffering is limited to what you've seen on TV, then you are no better than the people you're criticizing and a hypocrite to boot.

1.) Irishinnewyork--
Will the anti-war Irish people demand that Bertie Ahern sign the Iraqi Embassy's Condolence Book when Saddam dies?

I recall Eamonn DeValera did that for Hitler in April 1945 and it proved very costly to Ireland throughout the post-war period and into the 1950's--probably led, indirectly anyway, to a lot of the Irish immigration to New York in that decade.

2.) American Made--It wasn't the Czar of Russia, it was the King of France who assured our independence from Great Britain.

3.) I hate war like I hate fires. But I support our soldiers and I support our firefighters. We didn't start this but my fervent hope is we finish it successfully by removing the threat and restore Iraq to its place among civilized nations.

My wife thinks I'm weird because I get all choked up at war movies. Yet I support the men and women in their mission because I see that it must be done.

I read the warbloggers daily and I generally agree with most of them
but I'm not pathetic or blood thirsty or warmongering. We, as a nation, are about to embark on a war that will probably help define this new century.

We need guys like Fred and some of the other posters here as a counterweight to keep this nation on the straight and narrow while guys like me advocate for kicking Saddam's ass back into hell.

Some see us arguing and think that's what's wrong with the US but I think we need two wings to fly and it makes me even prouder to be an American. It is in stark contrast to our enemies and as totalitarians, they've always 'misunderestimated' us.

Thanks, Fred, for your service. I'm sorry if you feel so ill used by the government but I appreciate all you sacrificed by being there.

Sean Paul--cheap shot at Andrew Sullivan. Shame on you.

I seem to be arguing this point quite a bit lately; this idea that in order to be for a war, you actually have to join up and serve really mystifies me. I served in the army and was in the first Gulf War - but I got out in '95, graduated from college 4 years later and now I'm working in the civilian world ... and I'm for the war now (wasn't initially), so where does that put me?

I think it's a pretty funny stance to have - think about it. Leftist peace-niks who would never join the military and who oppose any war (because war is bad for children and minorities) states that unless you join you can't support one ... but when you do come out and support it - even begrudgingly - how does that separate you from those who have supported it from the beginning? Out of curiosity, how many of you stood in line at the recruiters' desks when we started bombing Kosovo and Iraq during the Clinton administration? How many of you were running to the recruitment offices when 20+ US Rangers were getting killed in Somalia? Huh?

(sound of crickets)

Anyways, the beautiful thing about having a volunteer military is that those folks want to be there. Walk up to anyone in an army uniform and ask them if they want to go to Iraq and I'll bet they'll say, "hell yes!" When I came back from the middle east with a combat patch on my right shoulder, everyone who stayed behind said the same thing: "There's no way I'm missing the next one."

I bet you peace-nik guys don't even know anyone in the damn military. I have army friends over in Afghanistan, a Navy friend who just shipped out, and a Marine friend who left for the Gulf a few months ago - every damn single one of them wants to be there, and every damn single one of them detests people like you who pretend to be for the things that they're putting their asses on the line for.

I volunteered, I put my ass on the line, and I knew guys who didn't come back - all serving their duty and ensuring that insufferable twits like you get to say the things you can without fear of being dragged into the street and shot. What the hell have you done, other than swear and call those who support a war everything but the son of Saddam?

W.

I seem to be arguing this point quite a bit lately; this idea that in order to be for a war, you actually have to join up and serve really mystifies me. I served in the army and was in the first Gulf War - but I got out in '95, graduated from college 4 years later and now I'm working in the civilian world ... and I'm for the war now (wasn't initially), so where does that put me?

I think it's a pretty funny stance to have - think about it. Leftist peace-niks who would never join the military and who oppose any war (because war is bad for children and minorities) states that unless you join you can't support one ... but when you do come out and support it - even begrudgingly - how does that separate you from those who have supported it from the beginning? Out of curiosity, how many of you stood in line at the recruiters' desks when we started bombing Kosovo and Iraq during the Clinton administration? How many of you were running to the recruitment offices when 20+ US Rangers were getting killed in Somalia? Huh?

(sound of crickets)

Anyways, the beautiful thing about having a volunteer military is that those folks want to be there. Walk up to anyone in an army uniform and ask them if they want to go to Iraq and I'll bet they'll say, "hell yes!" When I came back from the middle east with a combat patch on my right shoulder, everyone who stayed behind said the same thing: "There's no way I'm missing the next one."

I bet you peace-nik guys don't even know anyone in the damn military. I have army friends over in Afghanistan, a Navy friend who just shipped out, and a Marine friend who left for the Gulf a few months ago - every damn single one of them wants to be there, and every damn single one of them detests people like you who pretend to be for the things that they're putting their asses on the line for.

I volunteered, I put my ass on the line, and I knew guys who didn't come back - all serving their duty and ensuring that insufferable twits like you get to say the things you can without fear of being dragged into the street and shot. What the hell have you done, other than swear and call those who support a war everything but the son of Saddam?

W.

Sean-Paul;

I just read your article, as well as Jay Reding's and Jeanne D'Arc's. It is an interesting contrast.

Jeanne describes you as someone she'd "rather have nothing to do with". Jay writes of how he holds the military in high esteem, and how civilians should donate blood and support the troops any way possible. You write of how you despise "warbloggers", despite the fact that the term now applies to you as well.

I'd be interested to know why you seem to think you hold any moral high ground with respect to the war. Despite what you claim, the overwhelming majority of the people I know who support the war are either career military, retired, or reservists. Far from considering it "Doom 3.1", these are people who have seen battle and fully understand what it means. I've never seen anyone gleefully looking forward to this war, despite that characterization being typical amongst those who are anti-war.

Your problem, it appears, is that you have been casting those who have favoured action in the Gulf as evil, craven people for so long that you have been caught in your own trap. Now that you have reluctantly come to the same conclusion that others did long ago, you are trying to distance yourself from your own criticisms of the past. That's both hypocritical and intellectually dishonest.

As unpleasant as it is for you to admit, you are *not* very different from the majority of the people supporting the war. You have seen the same issues, and come to the same conclusions (albeit later) as the people whom you hold in withering contempt. You just like to think you're better than they are. That's not morality, it's arrogance.

My, that was an awful lot of bile to unleash on people, for the minor offense of figuring something out a year or two before you did.

TO: William de Haan
RE: Interesting Observation

"You [the Agonist] write of how you despise "warbloggers", despite the fact that the term now applies to you as well." -- William de Haan

Looks like a serious case of self-loathing to me too.

He's been opposed to war with Iraq over terrorism for some time now, but now that he's forced to accept the idea, he despises himself for it.

His response: Shoot everybody else in the room he has come into.

Reminds me of HAL on 2001. Kill everybody else and you won't feel so bad about your 'guilt'.

TO: Agnosti
RE: Pray For Me

"...you mother fuckers better "sneak home and pray you'll never know/The hell where youth and laughter go."" -- Agnosti

That's what we're here for. To try to stand between you and what is out there trying to get in at you.

RE: You Talk'n To Me?

"Your asses will never be in the firing line. You'll never have bullets whizzing around your head. "" -- Agnosti

Enough of that. I KNOW you aren't talking to ME. So who ARE you talking to? Or are you talking about yourself? Hopefully so, for unless we ARE successful in prosecuting this war [on terrorism, of which Iraq is just another campaign], you surely will...

"...see bloated, distended and putrefying flesh." -- Agnosti

And it could well be your own.

RE: A Pack of Lies

"The president and his cabinet have pushed for this war with a host of lies that reek like the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident." -- Agnosti

Is THAT what Powell presented today at the UN? Interesting. Got proof to back that up? Maybe Rumsfeld will confess like MacNamara did?

RE: Seriously Now

"I am a serious student of International Relations and I try to be objective and look at the facts. I am not going to do that now." -- Agnosti

And this is supposed to allow you to behave like a, what, lunatic?

F--- this and m------f----- that? And we're supposed to take you 'seriously' after this?

Maybe some will. But I, for one, will not, until I see an apology for such flagrant, indiscriminant abuse.

You are the epitome of the bankrupt 'left'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth fighting for is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself…." -John Stuart Mill]

"Please tell me exactly how many rotting corpses you've climbed over and how many people you've killed or had try to kill you. What exactly is your experience of war? How does your "labor at Morgan Stanley as an Associate Vice President where I actively managed a client and asset base worth approximately $20,000,000." qualify you to lecture anyone on the morality of war?" You've got me mixed up with someone else. My life has been nowhere near that financially successful. My experience of war consists of 14 months in the Mekong delta. They weren't bad months compared to what many endured. They were spent mostly on the periphery of the war, with only occasional interludes of violence and terror. But they taught me something about how different the official story and the real story can be. They taught me that yes, the leaders we depend on really do lie about things that matter vitally to me. That experience and later study taught me that the leaders may sometimes not even realize that they are lying. Or sometime they do. We went up against some surprisingly competent people who were more realistic (more afraid of getting it wrong) than we were. Basically we lost because we never convinced our enemies that they were in serious danger of losing. And they were right.

My conclusions about the nature of the Vietnam war are arguable. What should not be controversial is that the world is a complex and dangerous place. Wishful thinking or simplistic assertions can have horrible consequences. The Vietnamese (the South Vietnamese!) called America the "giant baby". Big enough and strong enough to be irresistable, but too impetuous and incoherent to use its strength effectively. It is popular to think that the Vietnam war was lost by incompetents simply did it wrong. The ones I knew were not incompetent. They weren't even wrong most of the time. They simply didn't understand what they were dealing with. There is very little eveidence that things have improved.

"The ones I knew were not incompetent." Actually, I think I overstated my case. Since I wrote that I keep thinking of examples of incompetence in the army in which I served. But I think that's true of any army. That's one of the things you learn by actually being there. The standards for what can actually be achieved are just not very high. And I don't think that their incompetence is why we failed. The destructive capabilities of the military that I served in were awesome. But they were often not the right tools and were generally not used effectively.

Fred I wasn't refering to you, I was asking Sean Paul (unless you are the same person?) exactly what experience made his position on war more morally relevant than the people he criticizes. What exactly is the difference between him and all the people who supported the war all along? If many of the people supporting war know precisely how awful it is and yet still support it... Well then he's just late to the conclusion and his struggling with his conscience doesn't explain the delay.

TO: "Rachel"
RE: You the Same...

..."Christian Killer" over at...

http://www.rachellucas.com/

Or am I confusing you with someone else?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Nope different Rachel.

TO: Rachel
RE: Great!

Thanks...

Chuck(le)

i understand what he means. that certain people are all for the war as long as someone else fights it. this is our war and we all have to fight even if it is sending comforts to our men over there. people are going to die if we don't fight. if we sit back and continue to let 9/11's occur, they'll think that they can continue to push us around. we have to tell them now that we will not allow terrorism to continue. we defend all other contries from terrorism, now it's time to defend ours

Dear Sean: Congratulations on a great blog! This is not intended as a post, but rather to learn how I can communicate with you off-blog. I didn't see a Contact mailto link anywhere. Please contact me by email. Thanks.

Rick

look all you PEOPLE WHO WANT WAR ON IRAQ ARE HARD HADED LOSERS!!and all the stupied people who are defending the soldiers who whent to fight in iraq, crying over them..are more stupider!! go to hell all you war freaks!! IRAQ DIDN'T ASK FOR YOUR "SO CALLED HELP" SO GO HOME!!

NO MATTER WHAT, THERE IS NO NEED FOR WAR ( BUSH IS A OIL FREAK )HE DOES NOT WANT PEAC! Osama'bin'ladin looks like a angel in front of Bush!!

I have found the best online pharmacy for buying

Generic Viagra online
Meltabs
generic Cialis

Love this site very nice in design and easy to navigate
It was exactly what I was looking for!!
Very informed and interesting comments!
Greetings from me!!

link