War Games?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

I can't help thinking that the people who are pro war in this forum still think that war is a game. To them a civilian or a soldier for that matter who dies in a war is just a form. They fail to see that every bullet that hits it's mark wounds not only the shape...it woulds the soul within that shape. How can anyone sit calmly on a desk and sign the death warrants of a little girl in a remote country? Because this is what you do...this is your stance on this war amounts to.

Would you be able to give action to your words? Would you be able to shoot a civilian in the head so calmly if you were not so far removed from it all? Would you do it if the proportion of your view of the war was bigger than the video game nature of what you see on your TV?

Have you thought about the fact that what Bush has done today has set a new precendence in the history of war? Now anyone can simply accuse someone else and then shoot?

Please take a look at what you're doing.

Here's an Article from Reuters...this is from independent analysts sitting in Asia...read their view...open your eyes...wake up



Preventive War Opens Way to New Rules on Conflict
Thu March 27, 2003 02:05 AM ET

By Jane Macartney, Asian Diplomatic Correspondent
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - It sounds like an arcane debate among wordsmiths. But the distinction between pre-emptive and preventive war, drawn by President Bush in ordering the U.S. invasion of Iraq, could change the face of war.

Galvanized since the September 11 attacks by a need to protect the homeland, Bush has tossed aside, if not quite torn up, the U.N. Charter on war.

Strict conditions exist to undertake pre-emptive war and Bush has bypassed those to launch a preventive war, analysts say.

In simple terms: imagine a row with your neighbor over an overhanging branch. You see him advancing on the bough with his buzzsaw running. You may pre-empt his attack.

But if you just suspect he's been to the hardware store to buy a saw, you may not burn down his garden shed to prevent him taking a slice out of the disputed greenery.

Bush's preventive action is an innovation in contemporary history and opens the way for others to follow suit.

"While it is not true that the U.S. has been able to establish a new norm of prevention, other expedient states may use the U.S. action as justification, even though they are likely to be roundly condemned," said Chris Reus-Smidt of the Department of International Relations at the Australian National University in Canberra.

WHO WOULD DARE?

There is reason to doubt whether any state would have the courage to take on such condemnation. But many may feel they are next in the firing line.

Thus the ramifications are far-reaching, not just for countries with perceived enemies on their borders such as India and Pakistan, but also for Iran and North Korea -- the two nations that Bush bracketed with Iraq in his "axis of evil."

"This is tectonic," said Uday Bhaskar of the Institute of Defense Studies and Analyzes in New Delhi.

"Before March 20 there had been a sense since the end of World War II to the end of the Cold War that a certain consensus existed about the use of force and how that should be regulated.

"It sets a precedent," he said. "This is a threat to stability, an action that induces anxiety. The question is why can't it be a France next time, or an India?"

Analysts fear that the period of relative peace since the birth of the United Nations after World War II, with its strict charter injunction against the use of force, could now be in serious jeopardy.

"The doctrine of pre-emptive war has profoundly destabilizing implications for international society," said Reus-Smidt.

"The legal restriction of the use of force to unequivocal acts of self-defense and international peace enforcement actions is one of the principal reasons for the radical decline in interstate wars, even as the number of states has multiplied."

WHERE ARE THE LIMITS?

Few nations have flouted the U.N. charter that lays out specific conditions for the use of pre-emptive force. Two extraordinary exceptions are Israel's 1981 strike on Iraq's OsIrak nuclear plant and the 1967 Six Day War, said Reus-Smidt.

"The major innovation of the Bush doctrine is the idea of prevention, and the war in Iraq can be seen as the first example of this," said Reus-Smidt.

He said Washington, rebuffed in the U.N. Security Council in its quest for world backing to pre-empt Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons program, had opted to act preventively.

That opens a Pandora's Box.

"It's not clear what the limits are," said Hilary Charlesworth, professor at the Center for International and Public Law at the ANU.

"This leaves the perception of threat in the eye of the beholder."

It reinforces fears of the United States going it alone, snubbing the international community when it suits it, for example on the Kyoto treaty on global warming or the International Criminal Court.

The United States has acted as other countries have throughout history, which is to look for the international law that suits them. And it was that free-for-all approach that the U.N. charter was aimed at halting.

"We could be going back to a pre-U.N. charter world and I find that worrying," said Charlesworth.

Of course, what goes unspoken is that the United States regards itself as an exception, and knows that it can probably get away with a preventive war because it has more toys, and more powerful ones, than anyone else in the playground.

MORE SACRED THAN OTHERS

"The related political and diplomatic question is 'are we redefining sovereignty?"' said Bhaskar. "It's an Orwellian kind of sovereignty in which some are more sacred than others."

Analysts believe that deterrence may work in this new world, and thus a nuclear-ambitious North Korea may not be next. But what, asked one, would stop China taking a swipe at Taiwan?

"What will be the restraints?" said Charlesworth. "International law is enforced by a sense of reciprocity and this is doing away with the fabric of international law."

Some say international law may have to change to ensure relevance in a world threatened by rogue states and suicide hijackers.

When Osama bin Laden's Islamic revolutionaries flew planes into the World Trade Center, they may not only have transformed the course of history, but have wrought upheaval in the rules of war.

"After September 11, in a world in which unprovoked acts of terrorism could cost hundreds of thousands of lives, deterrence and passive self-defense are not enough," The Australian newspaper wrote in an editorial on Thursday.

That is a view that may hold sway at the Pentagon and in the White House, but stirs anxiety among legal and defense experts.

"What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," said Bhaskar. While other countries may lack the will, or indeed the might, to follow in U.S. footsteps they may be sorely tempted.

"The net effect of all of this is that it greatly increases the risk of wars, preventive and pre-emptive," said Reus-Smidt.

well said

This argument is not grounded in reason.

Let's consider Saddam's resume and intent. WMD. Invasion. Slaughter. Megalomania. Threats. Attacking civilian populations...

12+ years of deliberate violation of UNSC resolutions imposed after an invasion of his neighbor. 12+ years of diplomatic efforts and UNSC sanctions to coerce compliance. He still would not submit. He lost the war but did not submit. He never gave up. Those who claim to want peace, but tingle with pleasure at the thought of his defiance of the UN are the ones guilty of supporting the escalation to war. It is your mindset that convinces other aggressors that their positions are legitimate.

A unified front under the UN, and a security council that will act to enforce its resolutions with decisive overwhelming force is the answer.

A tangle of countries afraid of their own masses, world powers out for their own cynical self interest, and an indecisive UNSC will only promote violence and instability.

I truly feel sad for the Iraqi civilians. It is a tragedy. I also feel sad for the Iraqi soldiers - many of whom are either reluctant to fight, or have been caught up in the powerful "cult of personality" that is Saddam.

But please don't use blatant hyperbole as an argument. It is irresponsible.

Same as opposing the war and being anti-war are two different things. If there was a threat against us or if the war was in our best interests, I'd be all for it...in fact, I'd be out to win it WITHOUT CONCERN about collateral damage or civilian deaths. But since the war is unnecessary and isn't in the best interests of my country...the USA, I'm against it.

Who has fallen hook, line and sinker - you have Rambo.

Or you could consider it as follows:

We are at WAR! To which side do you lend your support? Or are you neutral and silent and off in the shadows?

Are your for the USA/UK and coalition partners?

Are you for Saddam?

Are you neutral and will refrain from participating in any way?

This is bleeding heart garbage IMHO..

1) Everyone dies. If you think you or that soldier or that little girl are going to be among the first to make it to immortality you've got another thing coming. Death is a fact of life. All the rest is filler & scheduling.

That said and notwithstanding,

2) Not everyone is oblivious to the consequences of war. You draw a little box around everyone who is "pro war" and decide for yourself that we're all heartless bastards who apathetically regard this as this week's entertainment. Perhaps that is the case for some, but it is not the case for all. You are guilty of stereo-typing, one of the most traditional snafu's of open expression that will destroy the weight of your words.

3) Some of us "pro war" types have our eyes set on the bigger picture. You have "micro-vision", we have "macro-vision". The difference is that we can weigh the value of everything on a greater scale and decide, yes there are deaths on both sides, but things are justified because of X, Y and Z which are more important in the greater scheme of things. Hell, even a number of the anti-war types have that capability which you don't seem to posess.

It's not a video game. Only fools think it is. Not everyone is a fool.

Hey Kelly! Same needs to be said about those that are "anti-war". We're not all hitchhiking to San Francisco with flowers in our hair. Some of us have actual reasons to oppose the war that have nothing to do with people dying. And some of us would be the 1st to call for war if we believed it was needed.

i must have missed this gem from Rambo

I think his point is that the USA has bridled under UN inaction/lethargy regarding taking up arms against brutal oppressive regimes. We have no illusions about that. Do you recall how the USA was going nuts over the conflict in the Balkans for years when muslims were getting slaughtered?

Were you against the US position to act and use force? When the UN finally tried to respond years too late what do you say to the relatives of the tens of thousands of dead muslims in the Balkans? Where was it Srebrenitza (sp?), where the UN promised safe haven to muslims only to give up the men for slaughter because the small dutch force wouldn't make a stand?

The USA understand quite clearly that waiting to act gets more people killed.

If you want to hate America I can't stop you. But don't do it because you are jumping on the bandwagon. America is not perfect to be sure - but we are not as bad as many are making us out to be. Many of the hyperbolic arguments out there are simply false.

Yes I was against the Serbia attack too. Serbia was no threat to us. And all they where doing was following the "Israeli Procedural Manual" for dealing with peoples of another faith.

I won't bother commenting on NothingSacred's comments.

Please understand Guy, America was distraught at the plight of muslims in Bosnia. We were completely frustrated by the inaction of the UN. People were getting slaughtered wholesale. Men women and children. Do muslims anywhere remember or appreciate this?

France and Germany finally supported action WITHOUT UNSC approval in the Balkan's because of a Russian veto threat.

I think the US/coalition action in Iraq is legitimate. Please explain your interpretation of "serious consequences".

You won't comment? Why? Are you afraid the "Israeli Lobby" will "get you" for daring to speak the TRUTH, like they got Rep. Moran of Virginia?

My bad -
I just felt like remarking

Why no basis for discussion? I have plenty of facts to back me up, names, dates, quotes. You just don't want to hear it because you want to believe that your president and your country are a bunch of virtuous, altruistic do-gooders, when unbiased observation shows otherwise.

Here's some basis for discussion, chew on this...


In this week's AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, editor Pat Buchanan issues a controversial, 5000-word indictment of the 'War Party' of Bennett, Kristol, Podhoretz and Richard Perle.
The magazine will hit newsstands and bookstores tomorrow. With quotes and citations, Buchanan alleges:
* 'War Party' ideas and plans for an attack on Iraq had been 'in preparation far in advance of 9/11, and when President Bush was looking for a new front,' the neocons 'put their precooked meal in front of him. And Bush dug into it.'
* Richard Perle wrote a paper urging Israeli PM Netanyahu to dump the Oslo Peace Accords and target Iraq -- five years before 9/11.
* Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith urged Israel to ditch the Oslo and take back the West Bank though 'the price in blood would be high,' three years before the Camp David talks.
* Pentagon official David Wurmser urged the U.S. to act in concert with Israel to 'strike fatally...the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran and Gaza' -- nine months before 9/11.
* Bennett, Kristol, Podhoretz 'seized on the horrific atrocity [of September 11] to steer America's rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic rogue states that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.'
* The neocon vision is 'to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel....[They] seek American empire and the Sharonites seem hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely.'
* Buchanan charges Max Boot of the WSJ and Lawrence Kaplan of New Republic with 'playing the anti-Semitic card....to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.'
Copyright, The American Conservative. March 24, 2003
Whose War?
A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars
that are not in America's interest.
By Patrick J. Buchanan
The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: "Can you assure American viewers ... that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?"
Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.
Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these "Buchananites toss around 'neoconservative'-and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen-it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is 'Jewish conservative.'" Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a "key tenet of neoconservatism." He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush "sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible." (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)
David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: "Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. ... Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It's just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left."
Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: "In London ... one finds Britain's finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the 'neoconservative' (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy."
Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine "has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President Bush has become a client of ... Ariel Sharon and the 'neoconservative war party.'"
Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation, and Gary Hart of implying that "members of the Bush team have been doing Israel's bidding and, by extension, exhibiting 'dual loyalties.'" Kaplan thunders:
The real problem with such claims is not just that they are untrue. The problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be.
What is going on here? Slate's Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline of his retort: "Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card."
What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev. Jesse Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune 500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race card. So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives.
Indeed, it is the charge of "anti-Semitism" itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.
And this time the boys have cried "wolf" once too often. It is not working. As Kaus notes, Kaplan's own New Republic carries Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the fourth thus:
And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation's founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.
"If Stanley Hoffman can say this," asks Kaus, "why can't Chris Matthews?" Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his Likud Party.
In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, "The Likudniks are really in charge now." Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor emeritus of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of Israel as anti-Semites.)
Noting that Sharon repeatedly claims a "special closeness" to the Bushites, Kaiser writes, "For the first time a U.S. administration and a Likud government are pursuing nearly identical policies." And a valid question is: how did this come to be, and while it is surely in Sharon's interest, is it in America's interest?
This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, "Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight."
We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.
Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.
They charge us with anti-Semitism-i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a "passionate attachment" to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what's good for Israel is good for America.
(To read the remaining three-quarters of this article
visit your local bookstore or newstand)
Copyright, The American Conservative. March 24, 2003
Comment
From Tony
3-16-3
Dear Jeff,
Last Night on the The McLaughlin Group, Dr. McLaughlin spent almost the entire show confronting <http://www.mclaughlin.com/about/bio.asp?pid=27>Mort Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief, U.S. News & World Report.
The director skillfully changed cameras and got the reactions of Pat Buchanan as Dr. McLaughlin turned up the heat on Mr. Zuckerman. John McLaughlin is such a class guy that he did it in a round about way at first, then directly asked Zuckerman: "Will Israel benefit from a war led by US Marines in Iraq?" (I'm paraphrasing here).
Zuckerman was clear uncomfortable, and the director kept getting reaction shot of Pat Buchanan. Finally, Pat Buchanan jumped in and heatedly said to Zuckerman, "After Iraq, then it's Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia."
Very interesting. Nobody came out and said "The cat's out of the bag on the Zionist controlled media." But McLaughlin and Pat Buchanan sure acted like everybody knew it.

Let me guess - the Americans?

Seriously. Who killed Sadat?

When does the killing end?

How about a little top down pressure? You support terrorists, your in trouble.

I agree that the pressure must come down on both sides. Don't think for one secong that Sharon is excited about Bush's plan.

On another note - The UN needs over a week to decide how to give food away...

you are brainwashed .....

1995
so there was peace on-going, Arab were ready to sign peace treaty with Israel.

Israelis killed one of the "architect" of that on-going peace
Israelis voted for Nétanyahou which broke this on-going peace process between Palestinian-Israelis
Due to this, Arab countries which were ready to sign the treaty said: no way !
Israelis voted for Sharon, which the one who completely killed the process


And now you are saying: that's the country around Israel which are the problem ?

you are defintely brainwashed

Especially since I admitted I don't know the details of the issue.


I can understand an argument why the Arabs don't want peace with Isreal.

Why would Isreal not want peace?

charles - take a look at the day the british pulled out of Israel in 1949.
5 Arab-states attacked them the very next day. It's known as the first and there is a second "Arab war"
which was in the 1950s.

ok - so '67 and '73 were the 3rd and 4th wars respectively?

All started by Isreal's arab neighbors?

Tough neighborhood.

right, it's history facts, but another one was: Arab was ready to sign a peace treaty with Israel ..... which Israelis broke

so, on one side they say: we are surrounded by countries which hate us,
on the other side: when the peace comes they break it ??????

SM people .....

and again, citizens is paying the price, not the Israelis gov ....

@nowar

I think you are getting out of your depth here a bit.

I can tell your arguments regarding Iraq are heartfelt and sensitive for the hardship of the Iraqi people, but I don't think your aptitude for analysis is up to the Arab-Isreali conflict.

it's basically 50-50 on the peace treaties.
A meeting was supposed to happen.
one of Arafat's terrorist groups blow something up. a few weeks later, meeting again - israel decides to invade.
it just appears to bounce to and fro.

"That's the whole point. Even though US was going nuts and bolts and whatever when Muslims were being killed in Serbia and Bosnia, there was nothing done for years. On the other hand, when it comes to killing muslims in afghanistan or iraq, the response was lightening fast. " - GuyFromPakistan

2 completely different time, 2 totally different presidents, and 2 totally different situations.

1) Clinton tried to use the UN to get effective action done in the Balkins, and the UN pandered to this and that and like usual was ineffective and only good at stalling. When the decision was finally made, the response was quick.

2) Afghanistan, we were directly attacked by terrorists. I don't know if you understand what it is like to be an American. We know we have this large very capable military, but we do not use it very often or even near its potential for destruction. However, I have known this very clearly all of my life, you can fight america on foreign soil and we will do all we can to win but the sentiment usually is not one of complete backing of war efforts in this country, but if you attack America ... on our soil... god help you. When my mother phoned me the morning of 9/11 and said they took down the 2 towers, the first words out of my mouth were "Those stupid bastards, countries will fall". Yet, still I am very proud of the RESERVED response to that conflict, for the first time in my life, the country had an air of anger that made the use of Nukes a possibility (it was very slight and a low undertone, but it was there). Yet, while while a government did fall, we were extremely restrained in our use of force.

3) Iraq, your knowledge of the true situation has to be very bad. How can you characterize 12 years of sanctions, inspections, threats, and debate by the UN, as lightning fast? We would have liberated Iraq 12 years ago if it hadn't been for the UN tying our hands.

What is lightning fast however is the resolve of the American people now. We are tired of the UN trying our hands because of BS haggling between nations like that being done by France and Russia. The gloves have come off since 9/11, but still we do not flail wildly at anyone that may be an annoyance, but carefully still attempt diplomacy and give fair warning of our intentions, but not let nationalistic politics block what should and must be done.

False, it was Saddam gov. GONNA GET it

who suffered from the ambargo ? Saddam ??
who is suffering from the war ? Saddam ???

He will eave, dead or a live, no problem on that

but what will be the future ? peace ? freedom ?


and what about the new 50% fanatics people to add to those already hating U.S. ?
do you think they will say: nice, Saddam is gone and Iraqi are freed ?

Another war will start unfortunately.

I'm interested to know just what the macro-thinking of those in favour of this war is. As far as I can tell its beating up Iraq, replacing it with another government then we all go home with a warm feeling inside. Tell me that's not the macr-thinking please. Tell me you have considered America's next step towards Iran or N korea. Tell me that this is not a stand alone war but the catalayst for something so big we can't even guess the total repercussions. Because that's whta the people against this war are thinking in our so called micro-thinking.