As per, let's see, Mona, to some extent LWM, Shooter, ProWar.. Iraq is war for oil, primarily. Its other things (a proxy war of Israel's choosing, a war industry boondoggle, a glory grab, proving to your dad that you are tougher by winning a second term, etc). It is, however, not Dafur or Somalia or Burma or China or wherever there are legitimate human rights atrocities (Gitmo?). So, there goes the argument that Iraq was in any way an act of altruism.

First, LWM and I have had some serious flame wars, tho we've been at peace recently; point being we are not entirely ideological kinsmen. As for the idea that I share the worldview of PW or Shooter, that is simply insulting -- if that is what you mean to imply.

Second, it does not matter whether W went to war in Iraq for venal reasons if there were independent human rights reasons for doing so,if one finds reasonably large scale human rights violations sufficient justification for a military intervention. In that case, one would simply be deploring Bush's motives, but not the invasion and occupation itself. Moreover, how is one to know whether an intervention in "Darfur or Somalia or Burma or China " will do more good than harm, and do we have the resources for one, any or all such interventions?

Third and finally, I raise my point in good faith: I sincerely do not know what the criteria ought to be -- if any -- for committing UN and U.S. forces to a region where horrific killing and other human rights violations occur on a huge scale. Do you?

Agreed, much is tainted in this county. However, voting for a candidate that would not start a useless war is the only power one can have, mostly. Anyone can justly point a finger at the military if they feel the military has betrayed the public trust. Anyone taking money from said military is suspect. Although Greenwald makes a somewhat interesting point in that limiting ones reach, in the face of bankruptcy, is asinine. Either way, those that are fed by the military are suspect, generally, as they mostly believe it is just what they have done.

"signs from God"--as far a s a horse that broke both his front ankles while running his heart out to win a race..

You're Effin sick..

Stop your analogies like somehting like this-to make a cheap political point..

I find it disgusting--

-too bad the pic of the 2 yr old dead Iraqi toddler couldn't que you to some sort of enlightened state of a human being who had compassion for humans over oil or "winning-GW-patriotism.."

So what will Shooter?

Let's see...bodies lined up at Guantamo and sodomized didn't do it for ya? Nelson Mandela on our "terrorist" list...?

"100 more years of Iraq"....by Mac?

"Pics of a hospital and neighborhood(and dead toddler) bombed by our own troops?..

So cling to those ideologies Shooter...cling to em like a gun or religion...as times get worse..

Cling to those ideologies as you see more pics of dead Iraqis...

Just go ahead and push all those other thoughts of any objectivity right outta your head...

Push all those other things of anyting resembling compassion for another human life rith outta your head..

It's just SOOO much easier than realizing the complexities of life or the fact that you may have been lied to by your fearless leaders..huh?

Conscience shooter?

Nah...it's just easier to frame "conscience" in new terms like "enemy combatants or "you're either with us or against us"

so that the military complex continues to make $$ along with

a corporate msm..

So shooter, when you're buried-like this 2 year old Iraqi toddler: be sure to put your gun, your copy of all your military rules,your copy of Wallstreet Journal with ya..and be sure to have an military bud speak at your funeral..

-cause I'm sure that's EXACTLY what St Peter(or GOD) wants.

I'm sure that's EXACTLY what it takes to know the fate of your own conscience.

L.W.M. -

1. Collective punishment via air strikes was British policy in the late colonial era in areas that are now Pakistan's NWFP and tribal zones. US air strikes on civilian areas in Sadr City smack of that policy.

2. Yes, governments should be careful of civilians any where, but that is too much to hope for. Governments have to be exceptionally careful for civilians in areas that that government governs (remember consent of the governed, and all that?). US as the occupying power in Iraq has to treat Iraqi civilians with the same care as it would treat Americans, otherwise it should not be there.

3. The French didn't stay or try to teach (euphemism for force) Americans to change their economy or adopt some ideology or write the American Constitution or use Monsanto seed. If the US can play the French role in the American Revolution, well and good; but the US has proven to be singularly unable to do that.

Let me spell it out carefully, for you, L.W.M.:

1. The US has no legitimate reason to be in Iraq.

2. Well, the US is there. The US then ought to treat civilians under its care with the same rights and care granted to Americans. Absent that it is a colonial occupying power and any sane liberty-loving person would applaud all resistance to the US occupation.

It does not change matters any that the US is acting on behalf of a supposedly legitimate government of Iraq. It was a US-installed government.

3. Having violated its own anti-colonial origins and charter, the US government needs to be abolished (or rather, radically amended) by its people.

It's "countervalue strikes," as opposed to "counterforce strikes," which aim at military targets. This phrase is used seldom in material intended for mass media. In discussing the latest offering from RAND I had to insert it myself.

I notice that neither you nor Glenn propose a viable alternative to quelling civil war, state sponsored genocide, or rule by mass murder. Just moral fastidiousness about practical efforts to stop participants from killing themselves and others. Like it or not that translates into benign neglect, or rather, permission for the regimes mentioned above to continue their murderous ways. How moral is that?

Specific to Iraq - the answer is a withdrawal of all American forces; no bases, no military advisers, nothing.

Quote:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for calling this hearing on the current state of affairs in Iraq with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Reviewing the presentations by our panel, I have noted with some concern that they seem more focused on justifying a future attack on Iran than reporting on progress in Iraq. Much of the assertions about Iran in Iraq seem illogical, others seem intended to inflame the situation with little justification.

Particularly, I am concerned about claims that a new enemy in Iraq has emerged with ties to Iran. First we were told that the enemy was Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party. Then we were told the enemy was the "dead-enders" from Saddam’s former government. Then the prime enemy became "al-Qaeda in Iraq," a prime focus of the presentation by Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus last September. Now we are told that the new enemies are mysterious "Special Groups" that are said to have spun off from al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

If this phenomenon of constantly emerging enemies bent on destabilizing Iraq is accurate and our presence in Iraq keeps generating new enemies, perhaps the problem is the occupation itself. If this is the case, doesn’t it make sense that our departure from Iraq may actually have a stabilizing effect?

-Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul455.html