Apropos of nothing really, is Mark Noonan related to Peggy Noonan? Anyone know?

Perpetual war. Nothing new there. The Cold War lasted more than 50 years until Ronnie tore down the Berlin Wall barehandedly, or so they say(*). The Hundred Years War (actually 116) fit in the category. The War On Drugs, The War On Poverty, The War On Cancer -- we got 'em all. And now, the GWOT. The military might of the U.S. playing whack-the-mole with a group of 'Bubba's' (scary, scary article -- www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/15/air_war/).

But the scary, scary thing here is these folks (the ones Glenn is pickin' on) and a lot of other folks on all sides of the political spectrum, who actually believe that it is America's right to intervene in world affairs. You know, the shining city on the hill, exporting democracy, defending freedom (usually ours & protecting America's interests (#) (even scarier than the previous article -- http://www.heritage.org/research/features/mandate/2005/topic.cfm?topic=28).

That's why Mr. Bush is now in Africa with his dog & pony show (actually stick & carrot) -- too bad he's too late -- the Chinese are in there and they're in there good -- memo to myself -- China -- next bad guys on our list.

The GWOT's premise and the way it is being (mis)handled is taken directly from the pages of 1984: "The state of Oceania is involved in an eternal war with an unclear, ever-shifting enemy. The government leads the public to believe that they are always in danger, when in fact much, if not all, of the war is fabricated. One day the enemy is Eurasia, and the next day the government announces that the enemy is Eastasia and has always been Eastasia. The people swallow the lies and digest them as truths without raising a single question. The real purpose of war is to control opposition of the government and maintain total authority by cultivating fear and hatred."

So, as I say, nothing new here. We're always going to have war-lovers and big "P" patriots . . .

As Lou Reed said, "They say: "Candy is dandy but liquor makes quipsters and I don't like mixers, or sippers or sob sisters,

You know, you have to be real careful where you sit down

in a bar these days . . ."

(*)Actually, what Mr. Reagan (in a rare moment of lucidity) said was: "We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" [Wikipedia]. If only someone would say the same to Mr. Olmert . . .

(#)American Exceptionalism: "American exceptionalism is popular among people within the US but its validity and its consequences are disputed. Miller argues that U.S. citizens fall within three schools of thought about the question whether the United States is imperialistic:

①Overly self-critical Americans tend to exaggerate the nation’s flaws, failing to place them in historical or worldwide contexts.

②In the middle are Americans who assert that "Imperialism was an aberration."

③At the other end of the scale, the tendency of highly patriotic Americans is to deny such abuses and even assert that they could never exist in their country. As a Monthly Review editorial describes the phenomenon, "in Britain, empire was justified as a benevolent 'white man’s burden'. And in the United States, empire does not even exist; 'we' are merely protecting the causes of freedom, democracy, and justice worldwide."　（Wikipedia )

First - a description of who I am, so that I don't represent myself falsely. I'm American, born in 1979 - but my birth into political realization happened in 1997, when I entered college (and the more I learn, the more I realize that I was still but a babe even then). I have never served in the military and never intend to (I pray that it never becomes necessary). I am a big fan of Sun Tzu, I enjoy reading Machiavelli's 'The Prince', and (I admit) I have a minimal understanding of Clausewitz's theory on war and politics. I guess the way to represent what I 'know' about war is mere theory, book knowledge.

War is evil. No matter the cause or the intentions, war is at heart the mass slaughter of our fellow man. Before the Iraq War, millions of people took to the streets to protest the inevitable result of waging war on the nation of Iraq. That result being the killing and maiming of thousands of people.

War is hell, as the saying goes. Therefore, before war is engaged, the causes must justify the inevitable slaughter sure to ensue. That argument was cast aside... the advocates of war downplayed the downside (which is a euphemism for 'collateral damage', which is itself a euphemism for DEAD INNOCENTS). Then, once the war began, we were told that it (the 'it' being dead innocents) was par for the course... that such losses were to be expected... well that was the f***ing point of the protest in the first place!!!

So, my detractors might ask, what would I do in their stead? Forgive me, as I cannot place the source for my belief in the following: 'It is not enough to survive, we must be worthy of survival'. If the only way to survive is to become everything that we hate, everything that we claim to fight against, then perhaps we don't deserve to survive. So would I ask us to give up? Not. at. all.

I believe in the rule of law. I believe in the UN charter and the Geneva Conventions. I believe that even War itself can be brought to heel if people would accept that we are all in this together.

Maybe that is why I vote Democratic. Today's Republicans argue that we are all only in this for ourselves; that we do disservice to ourselves to see it any other way. So I take them at their word. They see no reason to cooperate with anyone unless it serves them directly. Maybe that is why the public treasury is looted by them so egregiously. Maybe that is why they decide that nepotism and favoritism are acceptable means of delegating the public trust. Government must have power and responsibility to function. Fine, but the only way to ensure that such power is used responsibly is accountability and punishment for wrongdoing.

But what is 'wrong'? Under Republican rule, we've seen that 'wrong' means accurately accounting for what a person does with their power. It isn't 'wrong' to provide for one's buddies; it isn't 'wrong' for one to profit from a public ill; it is only 'wrong' for someone to point out where public redress actually goes... where the power and money actually flows. THAT is where I see the breakdown.

We are only safer when the power we grant to our protectors is accountable to ourselves. Accountability, the anathema of Republican rule.

I don't trust myself with unaccountable rule, so why the hell would I trust anyone else with that power?

So, to answer my detractors, what would I have done? I would have embraced the ICC, I would have embraced a set of universal laws that would govern what is appropriate and what is not. Then, only then, If Saddam yet refused to yield, I would have embraced using force to bring him to justice, nothing more. Once he (Saddam) was in hand awaiting trial for his crimes, I would have allowed the people of Iraq to determine their own fate. And if they decided upon another tyrant of the same cloth, I would have bound him (her?) to the same laws that we bound Saddam.

So far human history has found no substitute for the rule of law with respect to the rule by one (wo)man. Until we find such a substitute, I am content to bind all by the same law. History has shown me that nothing good comes from anyone unconstrained by common law. As much as some might claim it to be, this is nothing new under the sun.

The Democratic party (of America) will again become the party of war and oppression, of that I have no doubt. We will always have among us those that reject unity - those that cannot reconcile individuality with the common good... to them I say only this: 'have the courage of your convictions - if you want to walk alone, then so be it, don't hide behind words - don't quaver in your cowardice, speak plainly your intentions and we shall deal with you on universal terms. Stand up and be the 'man' you claim to be, and the rest of us will deal with you as the law proscribes, the same law to which we bind ourselves.